Loading...
PC MINS 19910910MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 6:01pm 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, Assistant Planner Mike Patterson and Project Planner Nancy Hutar. It was agreed to move Item I'D", Conditional Use Permit 165, up on the agenda to the first spot available after 7:30pm, as per the request of the applicant. COMMUNICATIONS chairman Von Hagen acknowledged receipt of the following communications regarding Zone Change No. 19: - The draft final EIR - A copy of a December 14, 1990 letter from RSA approving the geotechnical reports for the project - Letters from Messrs. Chui and Vannorsdall expressing objection to the project - The mitigation monitoring program - The zone chance draft resolution - A time extension to November 1, 1991 granted by the applicant CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 8/13/91 -- Chairman Von Hagen asked that Michael Mohler's comment about the possibility of the golf course reverting to open space be confirmed before approving the minutes. B. MISCELLANEOUS HEARING _ SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 6693 on the motion of Commissioner McNulty, Item B of the Consent Calendar was approved, seconded by Commissioner Katherman and passed without objection. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 10, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ZONE CHANGE NO. 19, Senior Planner Carolynn Petru TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP presented the staff report NO. 18947 regarding the applicant's End of Windport Drive request to permit a zone change and subdivision of an 8.8 acre site into four single family residential lots. Staff's recommendation is that the Commission provide Staff with comments on the draft resolutions and conditions of approval and continue the project to September 24, 1991. Commissioner Katherman requested that the responsibility for the mitigation monitoring program vested with the Building Department be consistent with Long Point. Director Benard proposed that there be an assessment district created to maintain the peizometer system. the public hearing was opened. Tim Burrell, 57 Marguerite Drive, attorney representing the applicant, stated he felt the 201 trail width requirement in the conditions of approval with respect to Lots 2 and 3 was excessive, and requested that the applicant be allowed to split the easement between the two lots or just put a 151 one on one lot so it would not adversely affect the design parameters of the property. Mr. Burrell expressed no objection to the mitigation monitoring program, and in response to a query from Commissioner Brooks, said that they would be willing to do a technical study of immediately adjacent properties to document baseline conditions before grading and construction begins, but that they were not willing to indemnify those property owners. Keith Tucker, 9032 Christine Drive, Hermosa Beach, geotechnical expert representing the applicant, outlined the geological situation of the area, stating that the amount of uncompacted fill was not detrimental to development on the site, projecting a possible settlement of 111 over 20 years and 211 over 40 years, based on future estimates, not past events. In response to several questions from Commissioner Brooks, Mr. Tucker stated that the utilities would be placed within protective corrugated metal pipe; that any additional mitigation measures needed to protect surrounding homeowners would be instituted as the project progressed, and that the geotechnical consultants did indeed carry liability insurance. Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 10, 1991 Don Vannorsdall, 29513 Windport Drive, spoke in opposition to the project, referring to his September 10 letter to the Commission, stating he would prefer an independent inspector not hired by the applicant, and suggested that Commissioner Brooks' geotechnical questions be answered in writing by the City and developer's geologists. Mr. Vannorsdall also stated he felt that the public hearing should be continued. J. J. McLaren, 3923 PVDS, also spoke in opposition to the project, stating that he did not feel the City should allow partial rezoning of a potentially hazardous area. Chairman Von Hagen reminded the speaker that the applicant had merely asked for the lot split, and that the Commission had recommended a zone change so that there could be public hearings. Tim Burrell stated it would be no problem if the homeowners wanted to hire an independent inspector, and stated he expected nothing out of the ordinary during construction, noting that the entire site from Hawthorne on down had been studied, and that the water runoff situation would be dealt with even more effectively after development than before. Commissioner Brooks moved to continue the public hearing, and Commissioner Katherman seconded the motion. chairman Von Hagen pointed out that there had already been substantial public hearings, and that the draft resolution would be coming back at the next meeting. Mr. Von Hagen suggested that the date for written correspondence could be extended, but with the existing time constraints, he could not support, the motion to continue. Commissioner Hotchkiss said he could not support the motion either. Commissioner Katherman stated he supported the motion because the mitigation monitoring program and the final EIR both needed to be reviewed. The question was called,.and the motion failed 2-3, with Chairman Von Hagen and Commissioners McNulty and Hotchkiss dissenting. Commissioner Hotchkiss then moved to close the public hearing, and the motion passed 3-2, with Commissioners Brooks and Katherman dissenting. Commissioner Katherman expressed concern about participating in the discussion since he had not had a chance to review the tape and minutes from the previous meeting on the project, but Director Benard indicated that even though he had not done so, the fact that this was an ongoing public hearing and that no official action was being taken, Mr. Katherman could continue to participate in the discussion. Mr. Katherman suggested that a homeowners association be established to oversee maintenance of the open space and other aspects of the site, and that a videotaped survey of the surrounding houses be done in establishing the baseline previously discussed. Commissioner McNulty stated that he felt the Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 10, 1991 baseline survey should not be an obligation. Chairman Von Hagen noted that the trail report implied that the Hughes Market parking lot was an access point to the'trails in the project, and he questioned the appropriateness of this, since it was private property. Director Benard stated this would be addressed at the Conceptual Trails Plan meeting, and should also be taken to the Recreation and Parks Department and City Attorney for review. Commissioner McNulty suggested that the trail easement be placed on one or the other lot, but not split between the two in case of future problems. Director Benard asked the applicant to do some conceptual designs to show how that might work and the resulting effect on buildable area. Mr. McNulty also recommended a time limit of five years on the dedicated easement, and Mr. Benard affirmed that the City Attorney had also recommended this, although Commissioner Hotchkiss stated he felt five years was too brief. Commissioner Brooks expressed her concern about the City's liability in the future with regards to the geology, and Director Benard requested that she submit her geological questions in writing. (The following item was heard out of order as previously noted) D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 165 5300 Crest Road 958 sq. ft. addition to the staff's recommendation is to conditions. Assistant Planner Mike Patterson presented the report regarding the applicant's request to existing living quarters. approve the application staf f allow a The with The public hearing was opened, and as there were no speakers to the issue, it was closed. Mr. Patterson noted that the applicant was in agreement with all conditions of approval, and the staff recommendation was unanimously adopted. RECESS AND RECONVENE A 15 minute break was called at 7:40pm. B. DEVELOPMENT CODE Project Planner Nancy Hutar REVISIONS presented the staff report regarding the proposed amendments to certain sections of the Municipal code, in particular Titles 16 and 17. Staff's recommendation is to close the public hearing and consider resolutions recommending City Council adoption of appropriate ordinances. Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 10, 1991 In regards to grading, commissioner Katherman opined that an ungraded, natural slope should be viewed with a higher standard than something already graded, and that the code sections regarding remedial grading need to be more specific. The public hearing was opened. -Tim Burrell, 57 Marguerite Drive, made the following suggestions: That equal consideration be given to potential property owners as to surrounding property owners in a development situation; that the individual lots in RPDs be allowed to have more useable yard area; that the Code should differentiate between cubic yards outside and under the house area; that maximum house size be eliminated and setbacks used instead; that open space hazard boundaries be made more accurate, and that the sections dealing with realtor signs in the public right-of-way be clarified with respect to color and permitted times of display. Chairman Von Hagen pointed out that with regards to the RPD's, there are only a few large tract areas left, and that it was the developer's responsibility to make a case for the future homeowners. Mr. Burrell stated he felt it was an underbalanced situation because the developer was only one voice and the surrounding homeowners were more. Bruce Burrell, 87 Marguerite Drive, stated he felt that more flexibility and originality should be encouraged in house styles. John Arand, 5731 Mistridge Drive, representing the RPV Council of Homeowners Associations, spoke in support of the second unit restrictions, and made other specific recommendations as outlined in his September loth letter to the commission. Jeannette Mucha, 5538 Littlebow Road, also representing the RPV Council of Homeowners Associations, expressed her appreciation for the display ad in the PV News regarding this hearing, and also referred to her September loth letter to the Commission with suggested changes. De De Hicks, 6120 Scotmist, asked for clarification regarding commercial antennas. Chairman Von Hagen pointed out that the entire section on antennas had been modified to bring it into compliance with preemptive Federal regulations. J. J. McLaren, 3923 PVDS, asked for clarification on building heights on step lots. Steve Kuykendall, 6544 Locklenna, suggested that the homeowners associations have earlier input into this type of process. Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 10, 1991 Director Benard noted after reviewing the Arand and Mucha letters, that many of the concerns were in regards to Code sections that had merely been clarifications of existing Code sections, sections relocated to other sections, and others that were derived from state law. Commissioner McNulty moved to close the public hearing, Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded, and the motion passed 4-1 With Commissioner Brooks dissenting on the grounds that the issue of RPD guidelines had not been addressed, and that there needed to be further public input. Commissioner McNulty then moved that the municipal code revisions be prepared for submission to the City Council pursuant to the comments made by the public and Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded the motion, which then passed 3-2, with commissioners Brooks and Katherman dissenting. Commissioner Katherman commented that he would like to see staff's response to some of the issues brought up, especially with regards to establishing thresholds rather than maximum floor areas for certain size houses on RS -1 and RS -2 lots. Commissioner McNulty commented that it sounded like an art jury system. Mr. Katherman then suggested modifying the,Code to state on a square foot basis that a certain amount of garage spaces would be available, and Director Benard pointed out that this would create many requests for variances and lots of non -conformities. The motion was then restated - P.C. Resolution No. 91-44, - P.C. Resolution No. 91-45, - P.C. Resolution No. 91-46, Subdivision Map Act; and - P.C. Resolution No. 91-47, to include adoption of: Draft Negative Declaration; Title 17, Zoning and Title 16; Title 16, compliance with Title 8, dumping provisions Commissioner Hotchkiss reiterated his second, and the motion passed 4-0, with.Commissioner Brooks not present to vote. RECESS AND RECONVENE A five-minute break was called at 9:50pm. C. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT Director Robert Benard MAP NOS. 50666 AND presented the staff report 50667; TENTATIVE PARCEL regarding the applicant's MAP NOS. 23004 AND 29070; request to approve a 116 -lot CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS single family residential Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 10, 1991 NO. 162 AND 163; GRADING development with an 18 -hole PERMIT NO. 1541 AND public golf course, clubhouse COASTAL PERMIT NO. 103 and maintenance facility with Subregion 7 & S/PVDS common and public open space. Staff's recommendation is to 1) Continue the public hearing to September 23, 1991 at 7:30pm at Ladera Linda Community Room; or 2) Continue the public hearing to September 24, 1991 and provide Staff with direction to prepare conditions of approval; or 3) continue the public hearing as in Alternative (1) and provide Staff with direction to start preparing conditions of approval. Commissioner Brooks questioned why there were 116 lots instead of 108, and Mr. Benard explained that the density was based on an evaluation of the total site and the fact that it was zoned as an RPD. Chairman Von Hagen asked applicant representative Michael Mohler to confirm his statement in the minutes of August 13, 1991, that the developer was willing to restrict the golf course area from further development so that if it were not built or went out of business, the area would revert to open space. Mr. Mohler confirmed that the statement was correct with the intention that if they sought to affect the RPD overlay, that would be the tradeoff. The minutes from the Consent Calendar were then approved and the public hearing was opened. Michael Mohler, 25200 La Paz, Laguna Hills, representing the PV'Land Holdings Company and Zuckerman family as applicants, suggested that public testimony be taken tonight, with the public hearing being continued to October 8, and that an open forum be held on October 2 or 3 to allow the applicant's geologists and civil engineers to answer questions from the public, with the hopes that the conditions of approval would then be initiated after that. Mr. Mohler also stated that they would prefer a single -purpose coastal road in area #1 and separation of uses on the road outside the houses in area #2 to minimize conflict between residents and those using the coast recreationally. He also requested that they be allowed to close off the roadway at night for security reasons. Eric Randall, 6528 Madeline Cove Drive, representing the Recreation and Parks Committee, spoke in favor of the application, supporting the inclusion of the golf course if public, of a links design, and with priority for RPV residents. Mr. Randall also supported a nature center associated with the clubhouse, blufftop amenities, controlled access to the tidepools, and non -preservation of the military sites. Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 10, 1991 Chip Zelt, 4100 Seahorse Lane, also spoke in favor of the project, and expressed concern about the security of the coastal access. Lawrence Burke, 3437 Palo Vista, representing the Seacliff Hills Homeowners Association, spoke generally in favor of the project, and suggested that Shoreline Park be made a part of the golf course, and that landscaping of the median and south side of PVDS from La Rotunda to the Portuguese Bend Club be planted and maintained by the new homeowners association. He also stated that the Seacliff Hills Homeowners Association would landscape the upper part of PVDS. / John McSparran, 2409 Via Anita, PVE, spoke in favor of the project, especially a links -type golf course. Lee Byrd, 3663 Vigilance Drive, representing the Ladera Linda Homeowners Association, supported the geotechnical open forum suggested by the developer. ,/Dave Ruth, 40 Cinnamon Lane, spoke in favor of the project, especially for future security reasons, suggesting elimination of one of the bluff roads for more space. Bob Moore, 3200 La Rotonda Drive, representing the Ocean Terrace Board of Directors, stated that they were in favor of the project. Doug Foster, 4246 Admirable Drive, posed some questions off the subject and was told to call the staff for answers. Andrew Sargent, 1 Peppertree Lane, stated he was not opposed to development on the site, just to a non -complying project. Sharon Solari, 4145 PVDS, suggested that the public hearing be kept open to discuss traffic and geological concerns. Vincent Yen, 3931 PVDS, referred to his August 27, 1991 letter to the Commission opposing the project. John Sharkey, 30320 Avenida de Calma, spoke against the project, citing his September 10, 1991 letter to the Commission, and asking that the public hearing be continued. Steven Reiter, 4102 Dauntless, expressed concern about the area geology, requesting that the developer provide indemnification, as well as a deed restriction to prevent the golf course from being sold if it fails. Anthony Spignese, 4125 PVDS, argued that the Commission could not vote on the project as no one lived in the slide area. He was ruled out of order by Chairman Von Hagen. U . • M PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 10, 1991 RECESS AND RECONVENE A 5 minute recess was called at 11:30pm. Ray Bara, 1 Peppertreep spoke against the project, expressing concern about the geology, the number of proposed homes, the road widths, and placement of plastic under the golf course, and asked that the public hearing not be closed. J. J. McLaren, 3923 PVDS, also recommended that the public hearing remain open, and expressed concern about the alleged bentonite layers under the property. Lois Larue, expressed opposition to the project stating it was against the Coastal Specific Plan. Michael Mohler, applicant representative, explained why the grading was not as excessive as Mr. Yen had alleged in his letter, and that the gnatcatcher was not only not on the endangered list as mentioned in Mr. Sharkey's letter, but that its habitat would actually be increased in the development. Mr. Mohler also stated that plastic sheets would not be placed under the golf course, but rather that a groundwater management program including long-lasting drains and pipes would be instituted. He said that he would be wiling to relocate wildlife and plants to a point, and also reiterated his desire to continue the public hearing. Chairman Von Hagen suggested closing the public hearing but taking public input at the geological open forum. Director Benard suggested conferring with the City Attorney as to the appropriateness of the Commissioners going to a developer - sponsored open forum. Mr. Benard also asked for direction from approval. commissioner Hotchkiss recommended continuing public hearing, and stated he felt that if the Commissioners attended the meeting as observers it would not be considered a violation of the Brown Act. Commissioner Brooks moved to continue the public hearing to October 8, with a direction to Staff to draft conditions of approval in known areas. Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Commissioner Hotchkiss objected to the lack of security of the bluff road, and stated he would like to see it eliminated totally, but if there had to be one, that there be a mandatory close up at night. Chairman Von Hagen pointed out that the City Council had provided clear direction that there be a road, and he moved to leave the bluff roads as proposed but that they be made single purpose as proposed by the applicant and not service the homes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McNulty and failed 2-3, with Commissioners Katherman, Brooks and Hotchkiss dissenting. Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 10, 1991 Commissioner Brooks moved to eliminate both bluff top roads in areas #1 and #2. Commissioner Katherman seconded the motion, which failed 2-3, with commissioners Hotchkiss and McNulty and Chairman Von Hagen dissenting. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved to eliminate the bluff road in area #1, and to make the bluff road in area #2 single purpose, as proposed by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Katherman and passed 3-2, with Commissioner Brooks and Chairman Von Hagen dissenting. Commissioner McNulty recommended that the lot sizes remain as proposed by the applicant. Commissioners Katherman and Brooks stated they would rather see only 108 homes on the 108 acres. Commissioner Hotchkiss said he felt it was arbitrary if the lot sizes were agreed upon. Chairman Von Hagen and Commissioners McNulty and Hotchkiss expressed their support of the staff recommendations subject to the geotechnical results, while commissioners Brooks and Katherman disagreed. There was, however, a consensus regarding the grading, pending geotechnical approval. The Commissioners also agreed that the proposed clubhouse parking was okay. Regarding the Recreation and Parks Committee recommendations, Director Benard felt that having a nature center needed to be further defined and Commissioner McNulty agreed. Chairman Von Hagen expressed his dislike of a links course, and he also agreed with Commissioners Hotchkiss and McNulty that a deed restriction would be appropriate for the golf course. On a vote of 4-1, with Commissioner Katherman dissenting, it was agreed to accept the proposed golf course use subject to geotechnical results. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE ADJOURNMENT There were no questions from the audience. The meeting was adjourned at 1:20am. Page 10