Loading...
PC MINS 19910709MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 9, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Von Hagen at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Commissioners Katherman, Hotchkiss, McNulty, and Chairman Von Hagen ABSENT Commissioner Brooks Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Associate Planners Mike Patterson and Terry Silverman. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Benard noted various correspondence which was handed out to the Commission prior to the meeting for Item V. B. for Tentative Tract No. 46651 outlining changes to the staff report and additional information requested by the Commission on the issue of the 6 lots in question concerning the 16' vs. 26' height limit, and he acknowledged a memorandum from the Assistant Director of Public Works Department in regards to Sattes Drive going through the development. Mr. Benard also acknowledged a memorandum from the Trails Committee summarizing their meeting and position of the Trails Committee on the DEIR for Subregion 7 and 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner McNulty requested corrections be made to the approved minutes of 5/28/91 by deleting his arrival time of 7:35 p.m. A. P.C. Resolution No. 91-28 approving Variance No. 298 with conditions located at 6329 Villa Rosa. B. MISCELLANEOUS HEARING FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 5868 AND COASTAL PERMIT NO. 102; Connie Lufkin -Barr, 135 Sea Wall. Commissioner McNulty moved to approve the consent calendar and Commissioner Katherman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, with an abstention from Commissioner Hotchkiss on Item "B". Planning Commission (nutes July 9, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 685 - Associate Planner Mike 6918 MAYCROFT Patterson presented the staff report in regards to Ming Ho and Yueh-Yin Liu's request for the Director's decision to be overturned to approve a second story addition. Staff's recommendation was to approve the appeal thereby denying the request for a second story addition. Mr. Patterson also stated there was a correction on page 5 of the staff report changing the square footage of the proposed structure from 4,015 square feet to 3,764 square feet. Chairman Von Hagen asked for clarification from staff of the cumulative view. Associate Planner Patterson stated that 5 homes across from the Iles' on Ambergate had a potential for cumulative view impairment. Tom Iles, 6921 Brookford Dr., the appellant agreed with staff's recommendation to deny the project. Mr. Iles stated concerns regarding the view of the Santa Monica Bay and mountains would be reduced by the proposed addition. He also stated that the addition is not compatible with the other homes in the surrounding area in terms of size and roof line. William Cleary, 6935 Brookford Dr., asked the Planning Commission and Staff to take into consideration the terraced lots and slope of the hill on which home is located and encouraged the Commissioners to view from his back yard in making their determination. Mr. Cleary suggested an alternative for enlargement of the home would be to build a single story addition in the front of the house. He also raised the issue of incompatibility and that this height variation ignores the intent of Proposition M. Commissioner Katherman stated that he had visited Mr. Cleary's home and felt that the issues of size and compatibility were valid. Mrs. R. Van der Weyde, 28111 Golden Meadow, testified that she was in favor of the appeal to deny the second story addition. Ming Ho Liu, 6918 Maycroft Dr., applicant, stated that he did not have ample time to respond to the staff report due to the holiday. Mr. Liu requested that the second story addition be approved, thus denying the appeal, since it does not block any view as to code, and that it was his understanding that the reason for staff changing their recommendation was due to concerns over cumulative view impairment which he stated was highly subjective. Mr. Liu presented a list of four neighbors and their signatures agreeing not to build a second Page 2 Planning Commission Onutes July 9, 1991 story addition on their homes at 6956 Brookford Dr., 6942 Brookford, 6948 Brookford and 6929 Brookford. Commissioner Katherman stated that he had visited Mr. Liu's property and asked if the owners of the four homes would sign a covenant to record stating that they and their successors would not add a second story to their homes in the future. Yueh-Yin Liu, 6918 Maycroft Dr., requested approval of the second story addition due to the size of her family and their need for more room. Jack Liu, 27929 Ridgebrook Ct., stated that the Liu's home was not up to -today's code, and the addition would increase property value. He requested that the Commission reconsider the applicant's request for a second story addition. James Tam, 638 S. Atlantic Blvd, #208, Monterey Park., requested approval of the addition since there would be no view impairment and that the concern over cumulative view impairment is speculative for the future. John Brahms, 904 Silver Spur, architect, stated that the requirements under Analysis were met, and that cumulative view impairment is a non -issue. Gary Rinzler, M.D., 28105 Golden Meadow Dr., stated that the proposed addition is not incompatible with the neighborhood and the concern over view impairment is speculative. He also stated that he would rather have a 2 -story addition than building up to the property line. Lee -Ling Ou, 6918 Maycroft Dr., was in support of the proposed addition. Hsi -Ping Chu, 6938 Clovercliff Dr., stated support of the proposed addition. Motion to close the Public Hearing was made by Commissioner McNulty, seconded by Commissioner Hotchkiss. Commissioner Katherman asked if view of Malibu was a protected view and if there was a possibility for redesign of the project to allow more space, Mr. Benard stated that the Code specifies islands separately from mountains and that there was a possibility for redesign of the second story by having the addition on just one side. Commissioner Hotchkiss made a motion to approve Height Variation No. 685 with conditions as stated in the Staff Report with the exception of condition {d} not allowing construction of a sundeck on rear of second story. Commissioner McNulty seconded the motion with the motion Page 3 Planning Commission Snutes July 9, 1991 • passing 3-1, Commissioner Katherman objecting due to concern of privacy for neighbors adjoining the rear property. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 46651, Associate Planner Terry CUP NO. 151, GRADING NO. 1389, Silverman presented the staff KAJIMA, CRESTJHIGHRIDGE report requesting approval of a 71 lot single family Residential Planned Development with trails and common open space. Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend certification of the EIR and approval of the Tentative Tract Map to the City Council and approve the Conditional Use Permit and Grading Permit. Chairman Von Hagen stated concerns regarding traffic on Crest and Highridge and the potential for providing a total of 7 exits from the site by creating a through street along Sattes Drive. He also referred to the memorandum from Kevin Smith, Assistant Director of Public Works Department, recommending that Sattes Drive continue through Kajima to Highridge. Mr. Benard stated that it would be appropriate for the Commission to give direction on their decision to cul-de-sac or have the road go through as recommended by Public Works. Commissioner Katherman pointed out a correction to the resolution for the EIR in Section 12, and requested that it be amended to read "A demand responsive traffic signal, if required shall be installed..." T Timi Hallem, 355 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles (attorney for Kajima) stated that she was in agreement with the staff report, but did not want to restrict the height of homes on Lots 15, 16, 21, 35, and 36 to 16 feet. Ms. Hallem was in favor of Sattes remaining a cul-de-sac to maintain neighborhood character of the project. Chairman McNulty expressed concern in regards to limiting access to the site particularly with fog conditions. He stated that for safety reasons there should be as much fire and emergency assess as possible. Commissioner Katherman asked why the developer wanted 2 -story homes on the five lots. Mary Nastronero, PSOMAS and Associates, 3420 Ocean Park Blvd., Santa Monica, representing the applicant, stated the purpose of the 2 -story homes was to frame view corridors and give variety to the project. Dee Beaumont, 30143 Matisse Dr., representing Monaco HOA, expressed concern over the number of daily trips generated with regards to the existing flow of traffic in the Monaco tract, with steep graded streets and no sidewalks, and stated that the City Council has previously denied stop signs and speed bumps. She Page 4 Planning Commission Onutes July 9, 1991 stated her opposition to Sattes going through Ka3ima as it would open up traffic from (Sea Crest) and felt that access during fog would be impractical because of distance. Tom Alley, 6304 Sattes Dr., stated apposition to having Sattes go through Kajima and thought cul-de-sacs would be a better choice. Lois Knight Larue, 3136 Barkentine Rd., representing SDC 2004, voiced opposition of the project due to shortage of water. Ms. Larue expressed concern that the EIR did not adequately address on and off-site hydrology, and that it did not discuss the individual lot sale program as currently proposed by the developer. Carol Sefchek, 38 Mela Lane, stated her opposition to the project due to water shortage and felt that additional building should not be allowed. Paul Sefchek, 38 Mela Lane, stated opposition to development due to traffic, view impairment, density of the project and felt that the grading is excessive because of geologic conditions. Sunshine, 6 Limetree, stated concerns regarding the following items in Exhibit "A" of the Conditions of Approval for TTM No. 46651: Item H.2.E. - Sunshine indicated that horse crossing needs more tread gripping and that the ramp needs to be wider than Title 24 standards. Item H.2.G. - she requested that language regarding sidewalk striping, signage, and citation of the vehicle code for spooking horses be added. Item H.2.I.- she indicated that the south side of Crest already has a sidewalk and bike lane, and urban trail sidewalk. Carol Black, 5964 Ocean Terrace, discussed the potential through street on Sattes and stated that Ocean Terrace residents were not likely to go through Kajima with a signal on Highridge, and felt that a through street would encourage Kajima residents to exit via Sattes especially during fog. The Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Von Hagen stated that the curb cuts brought up by Sunshine and trail access should be addressed. In response, the following language was added to Tract Condition No. H.2.E.: "Handicapped access ramps which conform to ... the Uniform Building Code, and equestrian ram s to be reviewed �y the Trails Committee, shall be provided..." Mr. Benard stated that the cul-de-sac was a difficult situation in terms of emergency access and the recommendation from Public Works for Sattes going through the development would be a safer alternative. Commissioner McNulty expressed his opposition to the cul-de-sac Page 5 Planning Commission 0nutes • July 9, 1991 and stated that he was in favor of having Sattes go through Kagima. Commissioner Katherman stated that good cul-de-sacs create good neighborhoods and felt that it was not appropriate to keep Sattes open in this case. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated his opposition to the cul-de-sac. Chairman Von Hagen stated that he would like to eliminate the cul- de-sac for safety reasons. Condition No. H.2.H. for the tract was modified to specify the map approved and the words "except that Sattes Drive shall be designed as a through street." were added to the end of the condition. Chairman Von Hagen questioned if the 5 lots should remain as one story or two story homes. Commissioner Hotchkiss felt the homes should remain as single story because it would open views and would be beneficial to the community. Commissioner Katherman stated that one story homes would create better view corridors and would keep the canyon view open. Commissioner McNulty stated the 5 lots should be one story. Commissioner Katherman stated that landscaping in the common areas and for screening of homes on Crest Rd., and the debris and/or detention basins should be addressed. Mr. Benard explained that a Tract landscape plan will be submitted by the developer and will be reviewed by Staff to insure maintenance of view corridors and monitor the percentage of drought tolerant plants. Debris detention basins and landscaping in common lots will be considered. Mr. Benard gave suggested changes in CUP on I.1 (pg. 6) Commissioner Katherman asked questions in regard to a moratorium on building due to water shortages and funding for mitigation monitoring. Mr. Benard stated there was no condition on mitigation monitoring, and felt it might be appropriate to add such a condition. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated he felt putting on a condition for mitigation monitoring should be thought out carefully and must have a cap. Commissioner Katherman requested that an annual report of mitigation monitoring be sent to the Commission for review. Motion was made by Commissioner McNulty to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 91-29 with modifications recommending making certain environmental findings to the City Council in connection with Page 6 Planning Commission 'Snutes July 9, 1991 Tentative Tract No. 46651, Conditional Use Permit No. 151, and Grading Permit No. 1389 for a 71 unit subdivision with 3 common open space lots located at the,southwest corner of Crest Road and Highridge. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Katherman, and passed unanimously. Motion was made by Commissioner McNulty to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 91-30 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 46651 to the City Council for a single family residential development with 71 residential lots and three common open space lots located on the southwest corner of Crest Road and Highridge Road. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hotchkiss, and passed unanimously. Motion was made by Commissioner McNulty to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 91-31 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 151 and Grading Permit No. 1389 for a residential planned development consisting of 71 residential lots and 3 common open space lots in a single family district located on the southwest corner of Crest Road and Highridge Road. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hotchkiss, and passed unanimously. A 10 minute recess was called at 10:12 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 10:29 p.m. VARIANCE NO. 294, MINOR The staff report was presented EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 413- by Mr. Benard requesting APPEAL, 28319 PLAINFIELD DR. approval of an after -the -fact 8' gate and 9 1/2' high fence along the front setback and to overturn the Director's denial of an after -the -fact 9 1/2' combination wall and fence in the side yard. Staff is recommending denial of the Variance and the Minor Exception Permit Appeal. Commissioner Hotchkiss requested clarification of the location and height of the retaining wall. Mr. Benard explained that in 1988, Staff had made a recommendation to the Commission that height of the side yard retaining wall be limited to 316". At that hearing the Commission approved a 4'6" side yard retaining wall. However, in the course of construction, , the amount of cut went beyond what was approved and a 516" retaining wall constructed. A 1' high garden wall has been constructed in front of the retaining wall to effectively reduce the exposed height of the retaining wall to that approved. However, the retaining wall 3s now closer to the side property line than intended by the Commission's -approval and has caused the situation where the wall and fence have to measured as one because they are less than 3' apart. Page 7 Planning CommissionOnutes July 9, 1991 Basant Garg, 28319 Plainfield (applicant) asked for clarification of the Planning Commission date of November 22, 1988 mentioned in the staff report, that he had not attended any meeting on that date. (This was a typographical error, should have been September 27, 1988). He stated that at no time was the property between the two walls ever mentioned. Mr. Garg also stated that on 6/15/89 he took out a permit on the retaining wall and only a height of 4'6" was mentioned, no mention of 3' distance from the property line. When the inspector visited the site he made no reference to the property line and approved to pour the cement. Mr. Garg is opposed to placing a pool fence on top of the garden wall. Mr. Garg said that he had no complaints on the gate from the neighbors, and that the gate should have been measured from the outside not inside. He repeatedly told the Commission that he did not feel the wall was in the wrong location and that the code never stated where the fence had to be placed. Commissioner Katherman asked Mr. Garg the distance of the fence from the property line. Mr. Garg responded 2 1/2'. Lois Knight Larue, 3136 Barkentine Rd., representing Lois Larue and Associates, stated she had followed Mr. Garg's project through the Planning Commission and City Council and that the project should be approved. Gordon H. Carper, 28303 Hazelridge Dr., Mr. Garg's neighbor, stated he had no objection with the 5' fence, but does not want a solid block wall. Charles Merrill, M.D., 28313 Plainfield Dr., neighbor adjacent to the proposed fence, stated his opposition to the construction of the proposed fence on or near the property line. Because the proposed fence would be 12-16" from an existing 42" freestanding wall, Dr. Merrill felt that the fence would create a temptation for children to use the freestanding wall to climb up and over the pool fence which would result in a potential injury or drowning. Dr. Merrill also felt that the proposed fence would obstruct his view. Dr. Merrill suggested alternatives by placing the pool fencing on the lower, inside wall or constructing a fence on top of the upper retaining wall. Commissioner McNulty asked if Staff would approve fence on top of retaining wall. Mr. Benard stated that a fence at the property line or on top of retaining wall would need a Variance,aand the height of the gate is excessive. Page 8 Planning Commission Onutes July 9, 1991 Commissioner McNulty made a motion to approve and fence in the side yard and gate and fence setback at height built in accordance with the motion was seconded by Commissioner Katherman, unanimously. the combination wall along the front Building Code. The and passed SUBREGION 7 & 8 EIR The staff report was presented PVDS AT PVDE by Mr. Benard requesting a public hearing on DEIR No. 36 for the development proposal for 116 single family residential lots, an 18 -hole public golf course and clubhouse and passive open space. Applications were submitted on May 3, 1991, for this, proposed development by PVLH Co. and Zuckerman who are the owners of the property (with the exception of the school owned land which is located in the center of the project) and have joined partnership for this joint development. The DEIR addresses 12 resource areas and proposes mitigation measures. The purpose of this hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment of the adequacy of the DEIR. Mike Mohler, 25200 La Paz, Ste. 210, Laguna Hills, CA 92653, representing PVLH Co./Zuckerman, stated that the developers are in the process of reviewing the EIR and will have their written comments available to Staff not later than July 22, 1991. Barbara Dye, 7035 Hartcrest Dr., representing the Trails Committee, stated the Committee is presently reviewing the DEIR and will be preparing written comments. The Trails Committee did have a brief statement from their July 8, 1991 meeting stating the DEIR is seriously deficient in its examination of trails, trails are not addressed in the Land Use or Traffic Circulation section, which examine both the impact of the project and the community's need for public access and the environmental impact of trails construction. These inadequacies should be remedied before the EIR is certified by the City. Lois Knight Larue, 3136 Barkentine Rd., representing SOC 2000, stated that the meeting was not properly noticed. She also stated that golf courses are not to be considered as open space, and she is opposed to the golf course because it is a major commercial activity which is contrary to the General Plan. She also voiced concerns of preservation of water courses, was opposed to on-site grading to stabilize the land, and that the water management control plan should be specific. Bill Griffin, 5 Ginger Root Lane, stated he felt the DEIR was inadequate in many areas. Append. B, pg. 28-29 conclusions are -summary statements and should be addressed in EIR, as well as Southshore landslide. Other issues which should be addressed are overall geometry in area, low permeability of soil, specifically address Leighton & Assoc. studies. Need to justify L.A. County and school property. Other concern was human health (i.e. crops and aerial spraying, hazardous wastes, midnight dumping, and waste Planning Commission9nutes July 9, 1991 oils.) Paul Sefcheck, 38 Mela Lane, stated the DEIR does not address flow of traffic during golf tournaments. He also voiced concerns regarding water usage, and keeping the bluff top trails open to the public. John L. Beringer, 3412 Seaglen Dr., representing the RPV Council of Homeowners, stated concerns regarding an 18 -hole golf course and acquisition of Shoreline Park. Felt that Shoreline Park should remain a passive park. Jess Morton, 787 W. 4th St., San Pedro, stated there was not proper noticing that the EIR was available. Stated his concerns as this is a significant ecological area with a number of endangered and rare species which are not mentioned in the DEIR, and that many of these species need to be studied. He also recommended consideration of the California Gnatcatcher as an endangered species. Mr. Morton referred to a number of misspellings in the DEIR. Angelica Brinkmann-Busi, 1354 Stonewood Crt., San Pedro, representing the California Native Plant Society, voiced concerns in regards to the blufftops which are a sensitive wildlife habitat, numerous plants located in the -area which are on the endangered species list and need to be discussed even if not listed. She stated the DEIR is inadequate because it does not address the above concerns and that the open space and ecological habitat needs to be clarified. Ms. Bussi advised a new survey needs to be done according to State Fish & Game guidelines. Bill Ailor, 1052 Via Palestra, representing Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, stated that his organization is trying to purchase the portion of land owned by the County to establish Shoreline Park as a coastal botanical area, and would like to return to its natural state. Allen Franz, 1336 26th Place, San Pedro, stated concerns in regards to traffic and congestion through San Pedro, agricultural site being protected, Natural Resources/Coastal Sage Scrub, Seacliff erosion, dislocation or elimination of natural species, runoff from golf course and residential development (i.e. pesticides & herbicides) and that the solutions addressing these issues in the DEIR are inadequate. Mitigation measures should be better defined. Ellen L. Hocking, 4014 Admirable Dr., representing Seaview HOA, expressed concerns in regards to landslide areas around homes being constructed and whether construction/grading will activate the land movement, view impairment and height of homes, hydrology (drainage effects of toxins and pollutions) water shortage, traffic impacts (no mention of road on west side of development connecting to PVDS), and route for school children. Page 10 Planning Commission nutes July 9, 1991 Jim Lowery, 570 Shepard St. , San Pedro, expressed there was little analysis in the DEIR of habitat and behavior of animals and impact on wildlife of drainage routes. Also expressed opposition to golf course due to water shortage, and open space use needed to be preserved. Chairman Von Hagen reminded the public that they will have until July 22, 1991 to file written comments on the DEIR to the Planning Department. Commissioner McNulty made a motion to close the public hearing and Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded the motion. The motion passes unanimously. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE None REPORTS A. STAFF - Mr. Benard reminded the Planning Commission of the memorandum in their packets in regard to the League of California Cities Annual Conference October 13 - 16, 1991 being held in San Francisco. Also the California Chapter American Planning Association meeting in Sacramento. Mr. Benard informed the Commission that he had been in communication with Mr. Stefanos Polyzoides and that Mr. Polyzoides will be making a presentation on neo-traditional planning issues at the Planning Commission meeting of July 23, 1991 beginning at 6: 30 p.m. Mrs. Bacharach will also be attending this meeting. Adjournment at 12: 45 p.m. to the meeting of July 23, 1991 beginning at 6: 30 p.m. # # # Page 11