PC MINS 19910423MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 23, 1991
The meeting was called to order at 6:20pm by Chairman Von
Hagen at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
PRESENT Von Hagen, McNulty, Hotchkiss, Brooks,
Katherman
ABSENT None
Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert
Benard, Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, City Attorney Carol
Lynch, Associate Planners Joel Rojas, Terry Silverman, and
Mike Patterson, Assistant Planners Fabio de Freitas and Donna
Jerex.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Commissioner McNulty
NO. 136, GRADING NO. acknowledged communications
1246, COASTAL PERMIT regarding this item from the
NO. 52, LOT LINE developer on the traffic
ADJUSTMENT NO. 38, analysis and proposed revisions
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSMT. to the conditions of approval,
NO.'540 as well as a letter from John
6610 PVDS Sharkey. Mr. McNulty also
stated that he had reviewed the
audio and video tapes of previous meetings on this item, and
felt qualified to vote on it.
Senior Planner Carolynn Petru presented the staff report
regarding the applicant's request to approve a 495 -room hotel
project with ancillary uses and a nine -hole golf course.
Staff's recommendation is to certify final EIR No. 29 and to
approve a reduced -scope project, subject to conditions of
approval.
Commissioner McNulty inquired if the fact that the other
hotel project in Subregion 7 & 8 has apparently been
abandoned had any impact on the traffic figures projected.
Director Benard replied that the applications for the other
project had not yet been withdrawn, and even if they were,
the City still had a specific plan process for the subregion
that included hotel alternatives, and therefore he felt the
traffic analysis was still valid. Mr. McNulty suggested that
the traffic impacts should be adjusted if the other project
was cancelled.
PLANNING COMMIS ON MEETING
April 23, 1991
Commissioner Katherman asked if a moratorium could be imposed
on any or all of the project due to the current water
shortage, and City Attorney Lynch stated that only the water
purveyor could imposes a moratorium, and suggested taking a
more conservative approach to the issue. Mr. Katherman also
revived the issue of the consistency of the hotel project
with the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan, and
Attorney Lynch clarified that the General Plan calls for
visitor -serving uses in this zone, with conditions for open
space and trails, and that she believed this project fell
well within the parameters of these general guidelines.
Planner Petru pointed out that the Coastal Specific Plan
also discusses potential commercial expansion in the same
visitor -serving mode as Marineland, which was an acknowledged
commercial recreational use.
Ron Wortman, 642 W. Port Au Prince, Phoenix, AZ, representing
the applicant, presented photos and elevations to illustrate
the perception of a main structure, and stated that the
courtyards and landscaping would soften and balance the
effect, along with the conference center buildings in front
of the hotel to reduce the scale. Mr. Wortman also discussed
ways to incorporate the required "marine theme," among them
use of water in fountains, pools and lagoons, with a
"nostalgic" theme reminiscent of Marineland.
Richard Gaechter, 160 S. Gramercy Pl. #40, LA, also
representing the applicant, presented detailed graphs and
charts isolating the traffic impact of the project, pointing
out that the EIR used figures of a worst-case RPV buildout
situation that included the Hon hotel project, and stated
that the Long Point project would only affect the LOS of one
intersection if not mitigated, and that with the
implementation of mitigation measures, the LOS of all listed
intersections would be greatly improved.
Erica Stuart, 80 Narcissa Drive, spoke in support of the
project, stating there was a need for the prestige of a hotel
of the proposed size with luxury amenities, and that it would
need to have 430-530 rooms to be financially viable, as
presented in her research report.
John Vanderli.p, 99 Vanderlip Drive, objected to the reduced -
scope project, and stated there was an international market
for a resort hotel as proposed by the applicant.
Susan McNeill, 6636 Channelview Ct., also spoke in support of
the original project, stating the need for a hotel.
Ken McNeill, 6636 Channelview Ct., supported the project as
proposed, especially the large convention area, which he felt
was much needed by local residents and would draw visitors.
Page 2
PLANNING COMMIS*N MEETING
April 23, 1991
Juan Forteza, 4021 Via Larga Vista, PVE, also spoke in
support of the original project, stating that the local
people needed the amenities.
David Brudney, 26373 Silver Spur Road, spoke in favor of the
project, stating he did not feel the traffic would be a
problem, since this type of luxury resort is self-contained
with guests that tend to stay in the hotel compound for all
their activities.
Jack Downhill, 20 Vanderlip Drive, also spoke in favor of the
project, and said he felt the mitigated traffic would not be
a problem. Mr. Downhill also stated he believed the helipad
was important, and that neither the spa nor country market
sizes should be restricted.
David Diestel, 4808 Blackhorse Road, supported the project,
stating there was a desperate need for local convention and
meeting space.
John Bottorff, 6402 Via Baron, supported the project as
proposed for financial viability, and stated he felt that the
helipad was a good idea and should be available for public
use.
Dave Ruth, 40 Cinnamon Lane, also spoke in favor of the
project as proposed.
Joe Sullivan, 32679 Seagate Drive, spoke in favor of the
hotel as proposed.
Nick Mowlds, 6832 Verde Ridge, supported the project as
proposed, and stated he felt there was a local need for the
meeting rooms and country market.
Wes Schultz, 32700 Coastsite, spoke in support of the plan
with an 18 -hole golf course in cooperation with the adjacent
property owner, stating that a 9 -hole course would not be
sufficient for a hotel of this size. Mr. Schultz also said
the City was in need of the income from the bed tax.
Donna Niedermayer, 29519 Oceanport Rd., spoke in support of
the project as proposed, stating that the community was in
need of the amenities, and that the property was large enough
to handle a project of this size.
Nagy Jacob, 6510 Via Baron, spoke in support of the staff
recommendation, and suggested limiting use of the tennis
courts to daylight hours, with construction limited to
weekdays only.
Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive, also supported the
staff recommendation, and expressed concern about the noise
of the helipad.
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISA MEETING
April 23, 1991
F
LJ
Ilse Oetiker, 6405 Via Baron, also objected to the heliport
on the grounds that it was noisy and potentially dangerous.
June Lipschutz, 3756 Hightide, spoke in favor of the staff
recommendation.
Ruth Carter, 7344 Via Lorado, objected to the project because
of the current drought and to preserve the rural atmosphere
of the area.
John Sharkey, 30320 Avenida de Calma, spoke in opposition to
the project, citing environmental and ecological reasons.
Roy Fulwider, 29219 Hazelridge, spoke in favor of the
project, stating that the Peninsula needs the recreational
facilities, the employment opportunities, and that the hotel
could use recycled water to service the golf course.
Al Edridge, 30945 Rue de la Pierre, supported the staff
recommendation to minimize the traffic impact.
Gar Goodson, 1709 Via Zurita, PVE, representing SOC 2000,
spoke in opposition to the project, and threatened legal
action if it was approved, stating it was contrary to the
General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan. Commissioner Brooks
informed Mr. Goodson that she had talked with a member of the
Coastal Commission who indicated that coastal access was
viable with a hotel use of the land, and was visitor -serving,
which the Coastal Commission felt was important as they see a
need to accommodate people enjoying the coastal access with
safety and security. Ms. Brooks also reminded Mr. Goodson
that the General Plan contained general guidelines to allow
flexibility in the future disposition of Marineland.
Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine, spoke in opposition to the
project, and stated she would ask the water purveyor not to
grant a will -serve letter to the developer.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
A 15 -minute recess was called
at 8:45pm.
Bob Spence, 811 W. 7th Street, Suite 310, L.A., also
representing the developer, addressed the conditions of
approval individually, asking for clarification on the
housing element and project change condition. He also stated
the public art would be of a marine theme, and that he was
not in agreement with the scope of the project as recommended
by staff because the financial markets would not be flexible
on that point. Mr. Spence also objected to the requirement
for free parking, stating it could attract bad elements, and
that a nominal fee was necessary for security reasons. He
also mentioned that Hon and Zuckerman speculated that hotel
guests would be welcome to use their proposed golf course,
Page 4
PLANNING COMMISON MEETING
April 23, 1991
and that he was also willing to enter into an agreement with
the City for a public course. Mr. Spence expressed concern
that if the traffic mitigation plan was in effect he would
still have to pay a traffic impact fee, and that they had
prepared a tentative plan for up to 50 2 -story casitas to
reduce the bulk of the main structure. He also said he would
work with the hotel operator and the staff in designing the
hotel, and would be willing to have the Commission review the
design in a public forum.
Chairman Von Hagen suggested that the parking area could be
conditioned for limited free spaces with a time limit
enforced by the sheriff, and lockable barriers for vista
areas. Commissioner Brooks expressed concern that the marine
theme had not been adequately or appropriately addressed, and
asked the speaker if he would be willing to work with an ad
hoc committee for input on the issue. Mr. Spence stated that
he would prefer a specific definition of what the City would
want rather than design input.
Commissioner,McNulty moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hotchkiss and carried, to close the public hearing.
A discussion of conditions B-1 and 2 under land use
followed. Commissioner Katherman suggested a mix of casitas,
hotel and motel for a total of 363 rooms, and stated he felt
an 18 -hole golf course was mandatory for the success of a
hotel of this type. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated that his
main concern was that the "major player," the hotel operator,
was unknown, as was the definition of the type of operation,
and that he was leaning towards the staff recommendation with
the casitas mix and the smaller facilities.
Chairman Von Hagen agreed with Mr. Katherman that the 18 -hole
course was necessary, and said he felt confident that the
applicants would do all they could to get the larger course.
Mr. Von Hagen felt that 485 rooms with a casita mix was not
an inordinate number for the size of the parcel, and that the
larger amenities were appropriate for the area. He also
stated that the Commission does want one world class
operation, and now that the Hon/Zuckerman project is probably
not a reality, the Monaghan project should be encouraged.
Commissioner McNulty remembered that the project as
originally proposed had called for 1100 rooms, and that at
one time, the City Council had stated they could find a mix
of 500 rooms, and golf course and homes acceptable. Mr.
McNulty also acknowledged the groundswell of residents'
support for the project, and reiterated his belief that the
traffic figures did not take into account "'redirected" trips
or the fluctuating occupancy rates the hotel would see.
Commissioner McNulty said he saw no reason to downsize the
project and jeopardize its financial viability.
Page 5
PLANNING COMMISSON MEETING
April 23, 1991
Commissioner Brooks stated she preferred the downsized
project, although she did not see there would be much
difference between the two suggested room counts as far as
traffic impact.
Chairman Von Hagen moved to amend condition B-1 to call for
no more than 495 rooms total to consist of the 10 motel
units, up to 50 casitas and the main hotel structure.
Commissioner McNulty seconded the motion. Director Benard
noted that the staff would prefer to see the core building
downsized by up to 100 rooms, with that number being
dispersed on the property in the form of casitas or villas.
At this point, Applicant Spence indicated visually that he
could accept 450 rooms, and asked the Commission to consider
detached wings rather than casitas.
Chairman Von Hagen amended his motion to call for 450 rooms
total, a combination of the main hotel with detached wings,
casitas and the motel. Commissioner McNulty accepted the
amended motion, and it passed 4-1 with Commissioner Hotchkiss
dissenting. (See discussion below for clarification of room
allocation).
RECESS AND RECONVENE A 5 -minute recess was called
at 10:38pm.
After the recess, the previous motion was clarified to state
that the main hotel structure would consist of no more than
390 guest rooms/units, with an additional 50 villas or
casitas to be allowed in a dispersed pattern throughout the
site, plus the 10 rooms in the Pereira Motel.
Regarding condition B-3, Commissioner McNulty moved, seconded
by Chairman Von Hagen, to allow the conference/community
center a maximum size of 30,000 sq.ft. The motion passed 3-
1-1, with Commissioner Katherman dissenting, and Commissioner
Hotchkiss abstaining.
Regarding condition B-4, Commissioner McNulty moved, seconded
by Chairman Von Hagen and carried unanimously, to allow the
spa/fitness center a maximum size of 25,000 sq.ft.
Conditions B-5 and B-6 were approved without objection.
On condition A-2, the language was altered regarding the
appropriate agency to determine the developer's fair share of
the City's housing program, and appeal rights were also
added. The amended condition was approved without objection.
For condition A-3, it was agreed unanimously that the
developer could apply to satisfy their obligation to the
public arts program by possible incorporation of the marine
theme.
PLANNING COMMISIN N MEETING
April 23, 1991
I
Chairman Von Hagen moved to adopt condition A-8 regarding
construction hours as written, Commissioner McNulty seconded,
and the motion passed 3-1-1 with Commissioner Katherman
dissenting and Commissioner Brooks abstaining.
Condition B-10 was slightly altered without objection to
limit the scope of a CUP review.
Condition B-11 regarding the helipad was amended to preclude
tours of the Peninsula or surrounding environs, and a new
condition, B-12, was added to approve the 9 -hole golf course.
Condition C-3 regarding public parking facilities was altered
to allow controlled access at specific hours by the
applicant and deleting the reference to "free", on the motion
of Commissioner Hotchkiss and seconded by commissioner
McNulty, and passed 3-2 with Commissioners Katherman and
Brooks dissenting.
Regarding condition C-4 calling for the golf course design,
Commissioner Katherman objected to approving such a project
during the current drought, and he moved to delay the
construction of the course for two years from the date of the
final decision, and to create a technical advisory committee -
to review plans for the course when it was finally developed.
Commissioner Brooks seconded the motion. commissioner
McNulty stated he felt this was going beyond the power of the
Commission, and that this was a viable project on a properly
zoned piece of property that should not be held up7
Commissioner Katherman withdrew his motion.
Conditions F-1, F-2 and J-1 were approved as amended.
Commissioner Brooks moved, seconded by Commissioner McNulty
and carried, to approve P.C. Resolution No. 91-15 to certify
the Final EIR. Commissioner McNulty moved, seconded by
Chairman Von Hagen to approve P.C. Resolution -No. 91-16 to
approve the project applications as amended by the Commission
in discussion. The motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner
Hotchkiss dissenting. (P.C. Resolution numbers adjusted
administratively).
Commissioner Brooks left the meeting at 12:20am.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of March 18, 1991.
B. Minutes of March 26, 1991.
C. P.C. Resolution No. 91-17, Variance No. 281.
D. GRADING NO. 1526, 28852 Crestridge Rd.
Page 7
1
PLANNING COMMIS N MEETING
April 23, 1991
It was moved, seconded and carried 3-0 to approve the Consent
Calendar, with Commissioner McNulty abstaining and
Commissioner Brooks now absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. VARIANCE NO. 283 The staff report was waived
6317 Via Colinita regarding the applicant's
request to allow support poles which exceed the City's height
limitation to be installed along a new rear patio stairwell.
Staff's recommendation is to approve the application with
conditions. The public hearing was opened.
Frederick Kearns, 6317 Via Colinita, applicant, stated he had
just put in all new landscaping, and objected to the
Covenant to Protect Views. Commissioner Katherman pointed
out that the latter covenant should not be necessary since no
habitable space was being added.
The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Katherman moved
to approve the Variance with the removal of the Covenant to
Protect Views. Chairman Von Hagen seconded the motion, which
passed without objection.
C. VARIANCE NO. 260 Director Benard noted the
COASTAL PERMIT NO. 97 applicant had requested a
6450/6470 Seacove continuance. Commissioner
Hotchkiss moved to continue the
.tem to the May 28 meeting, Commissioner Katherman seconded,
and the motion passed without objection.
D. VARIANCE NO. 293, The staff
30903 Via Rivera regarding
request to
deck to encroach 12 feet over an extreme
recommendation is to approve the request
public hearing was opened, and as there
was closed.
report was waived
the applicant's
allow a proposed
slope. Staff's
with conditions. The
were no speakers, it
Chairman Von Hagen expressed concern that the deck would be
perceived as a large projection from the single -loaded street
below. Planner Rojas noted that no letters of concern had
been received.
Commissioner McNulty moved staff recommendation, seconded by
Commissioner Katherman and carried 3-1, with Chairman Von
Hagen dissenting.
E. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. Associate Planner Terry
46651, CONDITIONAL Silverman presented the staff
USE PERMIT NO. 151, report regarding the
GRADING NO. 1389 applicant's request to approve
Crest/Highridge the tentative tract map to
allow construction of a 76 -unit
residential planned development on 32 acres of a 59 -acre
PLANNING COMMISA MEETING
April 23, 1991
parcel with public trails and improved streets within the
remaining undeveloped portion designated as common open
space. Staff's recommendation is to continue to accept
public testimony on the project applications and consider the
merits of the proposed project. Chairman Von Hagen ,
acknowledged receipt by the Commissioners of a letter from
Kaji.ma addressing concerns expressed at the last meeting.
Timi Hallem (Tuttle and Taylor), attorney for the applicant,
noted their concessions on wider lots and larger lot sizes,
and asked that the lot frontages be designated at 90' average
rather than minimum, to avoid making the development
economically unfeasible. Ms. Hallem also requested that the
issues regarding geotechnical analyses still pending not hold
up the project, but rather that approval be conditioned upon
the results, and she also objected to the staff's suggestion
that Lots 15-49 be one—story homes only, as she claimed this
would seriously reduce marketability. Chairman Von Hagen
expressed concern that the developer did not understand the
scope of the City codes regarding view protection.
Commissioner Katherman asked how the EIR could be certified
without geotechnical borings, and Ms. Hallem reiterated that
they hoped the approval could be conditioned on the results
of the borings, as they were expensive, and would prefer not
to do them if the project is not given a go-ahead. Director
Benard stated that although there was no official City
response yet regarding the issue, he felt it would be
possible to expand the EIR to address a worst-case scenario
and mitigation requirements.
Mary Nastronero, 3420 Ocean Park Blvd, Santa Monica,
representing the developer, explained the suggested
modifications in response to the Commission's directions, and
stated they understood the sensitivity to the views, but had
not previously received specific direction from staff in this
area until recently.. Regarding the tunnel, Ms. Nastronero
expressed hopes that the suggested 40' easement would be
adequate for whatever kind of project might eventually be
constructed.
Tom Alley, 6304 Sattes, stated he was not entirely satisfied
with the developer's adjusted plan, and felt the cut and fill
was too drastic.
Ray Mathys, 5738 Whitecliff, questioned why the City should
be obligated to link up with RHE's landlocked equestrian
trails, and stated he felt there could be liability problems
if crossing Crest Road was encouraged.
Sunshine, 6 Limetree, said that the changes made by the
developer still did not bring the trails up to the network
standards, and that the Crest Ranch Trail was too narrow, but
that the tunnel easement was sufficient.
PLANNING COMMIS_ N MEETING
April 23, 1991
Dianne Alexander, 49 Country Meadow Rd., RHE, noted that the
Northrop property had been sold to a developer, and that she
was concerned that there could be three subdivision entrances
within 250 feet of each other along Crest Road. She also
suggested that the lots on either side of the Kajima entrance
not be built on, and that the developer's adjustments were
not sufficient, especially in the area of view impairment,
and 3n the future, with mature foliage around the houses, the
view corridors would be blocked. She agreed that the horse
traffic was not at all heavy, but that a crossing would have
to be at Country Meadow, since the horses could not pass on
the private property on the north side of Crest to get to
Highridge.
Director Benard said he would check to see if the sidewalk
area on the north side of Crest was indeed private property
or public right-of-way.
Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine, stated she would call for a
building moratorium in the City, and expressed concerns about
the efficiency of the storm basin in the proposed project.
Chairman Von Hagen proposed continuing the public hearing to
allow the staff time to examine the developer's revised
proposal and to come back to the Commission with draft
conditions of approval. Director Benard asked for specific
Commission direction on all points of the project, and stated
that the draft conditions would be brought back at the
special meeting slated for May 6th.
A short recess was called, and Commissioner McNulty excused
himself at 2:13am.
Director Benard noted that the applicant was now in
conformance with the staff recommendation on lot sizes, and
although the revised plan satisfied the minimum lot width
requirement, it did not meet the staff recommendation of 90'
for the two-story homes. The Commission agreed that the lot
sizes and widths looked acceptable under RPD standards,
although Commissioner Katherman requested an enlarged lot
dimension map with pad elevations.
Regarding grading, the Commission suggested further
examination of the lots along Crest Road for view impairment.
Chairman Von Hagen said he felt the circulation in the
development was good, although he would have liked to see the
cul-de-sac at Sattes Drive go through.
Regarding trails, Commissioner Hotchkiss pointed out that
there was no way to solve the off-site trail link problem
without the help of RHE, and the Commission agreed on the
appropriateness of providing an easement for a possible
tunnel. Director Benard suggested that a bond could be
required to cover the proportionate share cost of the
Page 10
PLANNING COMMISON MEETING
April 23, 1991
possible tunnel construction, and to protect the City's
position financially, holding the developer responsible. The
Commission suggested that a stipulation could be added that
their money would be released if the tunnel was not built by
the end of a reasonable term. As for the issue of whether
the trail along Crest should be a bench cut or not, the
Commission instructed staff to decide which option would be
the safest.
Regarding development standards, staff stated they would
present recommendations on open space, setbacks and lot
coverage at the next meeting, and Commissioner Katherman
suggested giving the developer extra allowances on those
points for the open space they had allotted.
Staff stated they would request a response from RSA regarding
the geotechnical issue of the anticline, and that it would
have to be decided if the borings would be required before
project approval, or if addenda to the EIR which fully
disclose potential environmental impacts would be sufficient.
Staff also stated that the hydrology was still under review
by City consultants.
The public hearing was then continued to a special May 6
meeting at Hesse Park.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned
at 3:45am.
Page 11