Loading...
PC MINS 19960827APPROVED 10/8/96 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, '1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7.00 P M. by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. I FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Commissioner Franklin ROLL CALL Present. Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Franklin, Ng, Whiteneck Vice Chairman Vannorsdall and Chairman Clark. Absent* None. Also Present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Petru and Assistant Planner Fox I APPROVAL 'OF AGENDA Commissioner Alberio related the applicant's request that Agenda Item No 3 (Variance No. 412, Philip Brunner, 3638 Coolheights Drive) be considered prior to Agenda Item No 1 MOTION Commissioner Albeno moved to consider Agenda Item No 3 prior, to Agenda Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Since discussion of Agenda Item No. 5 (Ocean Trails Habitat Conservation Plan, Zuckerman Building Company and Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company, Subregion 7 and 8) was anticipated to be brief, Commissioner Alberio ' recommended that Agenda Item No. 5 be considered prior to Agenda Item No. 4 (Tentative Tract Map No 45661, Amendment No. 1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 151 - Revision ""A," Kajima Development Corporation) Planning Commission August 27, 1996 MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved to consider Agenda Item No. 5 prior to Agenda Item No 4 The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Mr Bruce Froehlich, Kajima Development Corporation, 901 Corporate Center Drive, Monterey Park, related his concern that the Kajima project had been repeatedly postponed by the City over the past four years and he asked for an explanation as to why Agenda Item No. 4 would be delayed until after consideration of Agenda Item No. 5. C Chairman Clark explained that Commissioner Albeno felt the discussion of Agenda Item No. 4 might take longer than Agenda Item No 5, so it would be appropriate to consider Agenda Item No 5 first MOTION Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the agenda as re -ordered The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. COMMUNICATIONS Staff Director/Secretary Petru noted items of late correspondence as follows: Agenda Item No 2 An overall tract site plan Re -Ordered Agenda Item No. 4 A letter from the Endangered Habitats' League. Re -Ordered Agenda Item No. 5 A letter from Dr, Robert D Parker concerning privatization of the streets A letter from Mr. David J Ross regarding the trails on the adjacent parcel as they effect this particular site. The Planning Commission Resolution pertaining to Addendum No 1 to PR No 32 Planning Commission August 27, 1996 2 Commission Commissioner Franklin mentioned that he had two items of phraseology related to Agenda Item No 2 which he would discuss when the Commission considered that item Commissioner Alberio noted his receipt of a letter from Pacific Bell regarding the City of Santa Barbara's zoning codes for antennae. Director/Secretary Petru verified that copies of the letter noted by Commissioner Alberio will be provided to the Commission CONSENT CALENDAR Considered later in the meeting (see page 6) CONTINUED BUSINESS None Agenda Item No 3 was heard out of order at this time PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 Variance No. 412, Philip Brunner, 3638 Coolheights Drive Commissioner Alberio suggested that the Staff Report be waived Vice Chairman Vannorsdall voiced his preference to hear the Staff Report. Assistant Planner Fox presented the Staff Report per written material of record Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked if the deck was "grandfathered" in. Assistant Planner Fox explained that a 280 square foot portion of the deck was approved by a prior Variance in 1988 and that, since then, the deck has been expanded 61 square feet. Since there were no building permit records of when the deck was originally constructed, it was not considered to be "grandfathered" or legal non -conforming MOTION Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Planning Commission August 27, 1996 Dr. Philip Brunner, applicant, 3638 Coolheights Drive, thanked the Commissioners who visited the site. He presented a model of the deck as it was approved in 1988, showing modifications made over the last 5 years including the latest changes which were made in an effort to appease a neighboring resident Mr. Brunner said that the shed and the hot tub were removed, that a plant shelf was created to cover the retaining wall; that, for safety reasons, a small section (approximately 12' X 4 5' in size) was added to the side of the deck to close in .an open area; that the deck has not been extended further out over the slope, and that it was Staff s advice to not interfere with the integrity of the retaining wall, but to dust make the area look good Mr. Yong B. Im, 3632 Coolheights Drive, rending adjacent to the applicant, related his opinion that this application should have been filed many years ago; that the Variance for the deck was granted in 1988 with the condition that the size of the deck shall not be expanded; that the expansion of the deck impaired his view, that the deck feels like it is in his back yard; and that this Variance should not be permitted and, instead, a penalty should be imposed Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked to whom the Juniper trees on the border of the applicant's and Mr Im's property belong. Mr Im affirmed that the Juniper trees belong to him. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall related his understanding that the Juniper trees block Mr Im's view and he suggested that they either be trimmed or removed Mr Im said that the Juniper trees do not block his view and that they cover the neighbor's fence Commissioner Ng asked if Mr. Im was unhappy with the revisions made to the deck. Mr. Im said that he was not but, it was the principle of this matter that still bothered him. Commissioner Ng mentioned that she stood on the applicant's deck and she could not see through to Mr. Im's property. She questioned if additional trees would make Mr Im happy. Mr. Im said that additional trees would not make him happy Commissioner Franklin asked what Mr. Im would like the applicant to do Mr Im emphasized that this Variance should not be permitted Planning Commission August 27, 1996 4 Commissioner Franklin asked if Mr. Im meant that the applicant should be required to return the deck to the original 280 square feet size Mr. Im said that was what he meant. Commissioner Franklin questioned if Mr Im's concern was the railing or the floor Mr lm responded that both the railing and the floor concerned him. Commissioner Franklin asked if the drawings in the Staff Report were accurate. Director/Secretary Petru advised that the drawings in the Staff Report were prepared by the applicant; that Staff looked at the drawings in the field and they appeared to be fairly reflective of what was there now, and that the drawings were not to scale, but were a fair representation. Commissioner Franklin stated that he did not visit the applicant's property. However, the only apparent difference appeared to be that the deck railing was moved to the left in the bottom figure as opposed to the center figure Director/Secretary Petru advised that the deck was smaller than it is now when it was approved in 1988, and it was expanded toward Mr. Im's property in intervening years, that the applicant modified the deck to move the railing back more than 5 feet away from Mr Im's property line; and that the portion now behind the railing and inaccessible from the deck was cut back to create a plant shelf Commissioner Cartwright noted that he visited the site and he related his difficulty in understanding the privacy issue claimed by Mr. Im. MOTION- Commissioner Albeno moved to close the public hearing The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Commissioner Cartwright expressed his understanding that the deck was approved to extend 12 feet onto the extreme slope, and it still did not extend any further than that; that the deck had been modified so that it did not violate any side yard setback requirements; and that it complied with the Code, excepting that a Variance was necessary because it was a little bigger than originally approved by the City Commissioner Cartwright stated his impression that the deck might be safer than it was previously and he voiced his inclination to support the Staff recommendation to approve Variance No. 412. Chairman Clark asked if the Variance granted in 1988 restricted any further changes to the deck, as testified by Mr. Im. Planning Commission August 27, 1996 Director/Secretary Petru advised that the previous Variance specified the dimensions of the deck, which was how Staff knew it had been expanded She explained that, even though it was only expanded 61 square feet, a new Variance would be necessary because State law prohibits revisions to Variances. Chairman Clark questioned if Staff found any view impairment resulting from the deck and if all the findings necessary to approve it could be made. Director/Secretary Petru advised that Staff found no view impairment and that the findings necessary to grant an approval of the deck in its current configuration could be made Commissioner Aiberio said that he visited the site and could not see any privacy issue, that, because of differences in elevation between the lots, any privacy issues should be from the applicant's other neighbor, and not Mr. Im, that.he could not see any view impairment problems; and that the main view was toward Catalina Island. MOTION: Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to concur with the Staff recommendation to approve Variance No 412 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and ultimately passed by unanimous roll call vote. Discussion continued with Commissioner Franklin suggesting that the dimensions of the deck should be specified in No. 5(a) of the Conditions of Approval. Director/Secretary Petru affirmed that Staff will add the deck dimensions to the Conditions of Approval The motion was passed by unanimous roll call vote, with Commissioner Franklin abstaining (6-0-1). Commissioner Franklin explained that he abstained from voting on Variance No. 412 because he did not visit the site in that he did not think this would be a controversial item. Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period from this date Planning Commission August 27, 1996 0 The Consent Calendar was considered at this time CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of June 25, 1996 Commissioner Franklin modified page 20, paragraph 9, of the June 25, 1996 minutes to read, "...possible radiation because of the microwaves Mr. Buckmelter advised that the antennae would be directed to the west 275 degrees; that the beam power would be..." MOTION: Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to approve the June 25, 1996 minutes as amended The motion was seconded by Commissioner Franklin and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. 2 General Plan Consistency Determination - Island View Homeowners' Association c/o Trish Malin,, Tract No. 38848 Assistant Planner Fox presented the Staff Report per written material of record. He noted that, as mentioned earlier in the meeting during discussion of Staff Communications, an overall tract site plan relevant to this project was distributed to the Commission as a late item of correspondence Should the request be approved, Chairman Clark asked if there would be an observation booth at Whitley Collins Drive. Assistant Planner Fox advised that a booth was proposed through a separate application at the San Clemente Drive entrance and that it would be for observation purposes only; that there would only be a gate at the Whitley Collins Drive access, and that an approval of the request would prevent non-residents from driving into Island View from Whitley Collins Drive. Commissioner Cartwright voiced his impression that, should the request be approved, Island View residents would get all the benefits of a private street without any of the expenses or liabilities which accompany it. Assistant Planner Fox clarified that, should the request be approved, access would be controlled only at one point, Whitley Collins Drive, that the San Clemente Drive access would remain open; and that the Island View Homeowners' Association originally requested private streets, but could not get 100% of the Island View residents to agree to it Chairman Clark questioned why this matter was not the subject of a public hearing. Planning Commission August 27, 1996 0 0 Director/Secretary Petru advised that determinations of consistency with the General Plan were not public hearings, however, the City Council holds two public hearings for requests to vacate public streets. She clarified that this topic was not before the Planning Commission at this time for final action, that it goes to the Traffic Committee and the Planning Commission for different reasons with recommendations from both bodies being forwarded to the City Council for consideration in the final action on vacating the street. Chairman Clark clarified that the matter before the Planning Commission at that time was an assessment as to whether or not the vacation would be consistent with the General Plan. Following a request for clarification from Commissioner Alberto, Director/Secretary Petru advised that San Clemente Drive was used as the main entrance to the tract, that Whitley Collins Drive was a secondary access; that the observation booth at San Clemente would be manned, but there would be no gate there, that the gate at Whitley Collins would be unmanned, that the observation booth would be located on public property; that the City's encroachment policy was recently amended to allow observation booths through an Encroachment Permit, that, when the Conditional Use Permit Revision and an Encroachment Permit for the observation booth were presented in the future for the Commission's approval, the Commission will be asked to analyze the booth through the criteria adopted, and that traffic stopping devices would be prohibited because the streets would still be public. Commissioner Ng asked if the Island View Homeowners' Association would be responsible for maintaining the portion of Whitley Collins which would be vacated. Director/Secretary Petru advised that, should the request be approved, the vacated portion of Whitley Collins would become part of the Island View Homeowners' Association's common open space and would be maintained by the Association. Commissioner Ng questioned if the City monitors the sweeping of private streets. Director/Secretary Petru advised that the City does not monitor the sweeping of private streets; but, the CC&Rs contain a requirement that, because of maintenance issues, the Homeowners' Association must get permission from the City to lower their monthly dues. Commissioner Ng asked if the Homeowners' Association maintenance fees will be increased if the request was approved. Director/Secretary Petru indicated that a possible fee increase was an internal Homeowners' Association issue. Planning Commission August 27, 1996 8 • 0 Commissioner Alberio asked if the City had a mechanism to rescind the vacation of public properties. Director/Secretary Petru explained that the City does not have such a mechanism, that the property would have to be offered back to the City by the Homeowners' Association. Chairman Clark advised that the matter before the Planning Commission at this time is to make a recommendation to the City Council based on whether or not the Commission felt that the request was in conformance with the City's General Plan, and not to make a final determination regarding whether or not the street should be vacated Commissioner Franklin requested clarification regarding Section 3 of the P C Resolution, which would guarantee the proper upkeep of the vacated portion of the street. Director/Secretary Petru advised that, because this was a Residential Planned Development (RPD), there must be a Homeowners Association and CC&Rs for the maintenance of all common areas, therefore the City had the proper assurances that the Homeowners' Association had the ability through their CC&Rs to levy fees in order to maintain the vacated property Commissioner Franklin related his concern regarding the vague nature of Section 3 and he suggested that it be modified to include a requirement that the area shall be maintained as a street. Director/Secretary Petru said that she could see Commissioner Franklin's point if, at some point, the Homeowners' Association wanted to take the pavement out and make it a landscaped area. Commissioner Franklin suggested that Section 3 be modified to reflect that the portion of Whitley Collins Drive to be vacated shall be maintained as a street to the same standard as other City streets. Commissioner Franklin stated his concern over the vague nature of Section 4 of the P C Resolution with regard to the dedication of non -vehicular easements to be reserved by the City He related his assumption that there will be a pedestrian walk way and suggested that it be specified in the written text and illustrated in the applicable figure Commissioner Cartwright asked if any other areas in the City have a finite number of access points to public streets with observation booths and gates, such as those proposed, where the City maintains the streets inside Planning Commission August 27, 1996 9 0 0 Director/Secretary Petru advised that this is the first request of its kind in Rancho Palos Verdes and that the Wallace Ranch Homeowners' Association approached the City Council earlier this year on a number of issues, amongst which was placing a manned observation booth at the entrance to the tract. Subsequent to an inquiry from Chairman Clark, Director/Secretary Petru explained that the S & S Homeowners' Association obtained the 100% agreement of its residents required to vacate the streets in that particular tract (Tract No 33206); that the request was approved by the City Council because of the substandard design of the streets and other General Plan issues; that the Island View tract was planned with public streets in mind; that the Island View street dimensions are significantly larger than those in the S & S track; and that the Island View tract enjoys a more central proximity in the City than does the S & S tract. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked for input regarding the future of the trail in the area near Island View Director/Secretary Petru advised that the original approval of the Island View tract included a requirement for a pedestrian trail easement along the back side of the lots on the ridge similar to the McBride trail near the Seacrest development to the west But, when the tract was graded and the finished grade certified for the pads, it was discovered that the trail easement was placed on an extreme 21 slope She explained that it would be difficult to implement the trail within the easement and that it would require a great deal of grading and retaining walls; that there had never been a trail developed in this location, but the easement still existed, and that it was likely that the question of whether this area should be vacated will be presented to the City Council in the future when the Conceptual Trails' Plan was updated. Chairman Clark reviewed that, if approved, this would be the only part of the City having this kind of configuration with an observation booth, a gate and public streets on the inside. Commissioner Cartwright asked for input regarding procedures if this request should be approved Director/Secretary Petru advised that the Planning Commission recommendation, along with the Traffic Committee recommendation, would be forwarded to the City Council, who would take the final action to vacate the street Commissioner Ng requested information about Fire Department emergency access with gates. Director/Secretary Petru advised that lock boxes are generally required to override the system and open the gate in case of an emergency Planning Commission August 27, 1996 10 Chairman Clark asked how many subdivisions in the City currently had privatized streets Director/Secretary Petru indicated that Staff was not sure of the total number of subdivisions having privatized streets, but there were a number of gated developments with private streets in Rancho Palos Verdes Commissioner Franklin voiced his understanding that the issue before the Commission at this time was whether or not to vacate the portion of Whitley Collins Drive, and that it had nothing to do with the request for an observation booth and gate. Director/Secretary Petru verified Commissioner Franklin's understanding. She noted that, should this request be approved, the observation booth and gate will be presented for the Planning Commission's consideration in the future MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved to accept the Staff recommendation that a vacation of a portion of the 29800 block of Whitley Collins Drive would be consistent with the General Plan The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall and ultimately passed by unanimous roll call vote Prior to roll call vote, Commissioner Franklin suggested that the motion be amended to include the revisions to Sections 3 and 4 of the Resolution as he suggested earlier in this discussion As the maker of the motion, Commissioner Alberio accepted the proposed amendments to Sections 3 and 4 of the Resolution. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall, who seconded by motion, also accepted the amendment. The motion was passed by unanimous roll call vote (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Agenda Item No. 5 (re -ordered No. 4) was considered at this time. 5. Ocean Trails Habitat Conservation Plan - Zuckerman Building Company and Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company, Subregions 7 and 8 (A 269.9 Acre Site Located South of Palos Verdes Drive South between the Portuguese Bend Club on the West and Los Angeles County Shoreline Park on the East) Secretary/Director Petru presented the Staff Report per written material of record Planning Commission August 27, 1996 11 # 0 MOTION Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Mr Ken Zuckerman, 2 EI Portal, Palos Verdes Estates, Zuckerman Building Company, called attention to the difficulties associated with the negotiations with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) relevant to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) He commended the related efforts of Mr. Mike Mohler, who was previously the Project Manager and was now the Project Leader for the HCP. Mr Mike Mohler, 24 Hillgrass, Irvine, distributed and reviewed minor changes to the HCP Contrary to the implication on page 2, paragraph 1 of the Staff Report, he clarified that the Implementing Agreement can be signed after the Coastal Commission takes action Commissioner Ng related her opinion that it would seem sad to trap and get rid of the Cowbird Mr. Mohler explained that that requirement was at the direction of the CDFG since this species was a parasite on the California gnatcatcher, which was a protected bird species Ms Sandy Medeans, 4048 Palos Verdes Drive South, distributed and read aloud a letter from Mr Ludwig Zeit relating Mr. Zelt's support of a minimum 50 foot common area buffer adjacent to the Portuguese Bend Club property line and the nearest street and/or private property line and Tentative Tract 50666 In his letter, Mr Zelt urged the Commission not to forward this item to the City Council until the promise for such a buffer was upheld. Chairman Clark clarified that discussions regarding the common area are on- going and that the matter before the Commission at that time was the HCP, not the public trails. Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that information regarding the outcome of any future meetings between Planning Department Staff and interested parties about the common area could be provided to the Commission. Director/Secretary Petru advised that Staff will provide input to the Commission on the negotiations at the next regularly scheduled Planing Commission meeting following the negotiations. She mentioned that the next meeting at the site was scheduled on Thursday, August 29, 1996, 6.00 P M MOTION: Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Planning Commission August 27, 1996 12 Commissioner Ng commended the thoroughness of the NCP Commissioner Cartwright recalled that one of the documents pertaining to this item said the HCP was much more restrictive than the Biological Resources Protection Plan (BRPP) and he related his understanding that the CDFG requirements were what were being examined Director/Secretary Petru advised that the City had requirements regarding biological impacts which were part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project, that there were a number of issues the BRPP had in common with the HCP, that it was the Planning Commission's role to make sure that all of the mitigation measures were considered and adequately addressed in the HCP, and that Staff concluded that they had been adequately addressed in the document Commissioner Ng asked who will be responsible for monitoring compliance with the HCP. Director/Secretary Petru advised that the resource agencies will be primarily responsible for monitoring compliance with the HCP, but, the City will have a part in it as well. MOTION- Commissioner Albeno moved to approve the Staff recommendation to approve the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Ocean Trails Project and adopt P C. Resolution No. 96-30. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and ultimately passed by unanimous roll call vote. Discussion before roll call vote included Chairman Clark commending the comprehensive nature of the HCP Commissioner Franklin related his understanding that the HCP provided for a permanent organization funded beyond the life of the revegetation process itself He questioned if there is a link between the permanent organization and the City organization in any way Mr Mohler explained that the HCP calls for a 5 -year monitoring/maintenance program with quarterly and monthly updates to be provided and that, beyond that time, annual reports would be provided Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if Dr Atwood will be involved with the gnatcatcher study. Mr Mohler confirmed that Dr Atwood was independently studying the gnatcatcher at this time, but, due to a possible conflict of interest, the Ocean Trails project was not dealing with him on a professional basis. Planning Commission August 27, 1996 13 Chairman Clark questioned if the HCP was a bench mark representation to the State and Federal Governments. Mr Mohler responded that the HCP was a state-of-the-art program which should be considered as a warning to the development community as to what will be required in the future. The motion to approve the HCP and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 96-30 was passed by unanimous roll call vote (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8 45 P M there was a brief recess until 9.00 P M when the meeting reconvened At this time, Agenda Item No 4 (re -ordered No 5) was considered 4 Tentative Tract Map No. 45661 - Amendment No. 1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 151 - Revision A - Kaiima Development Corporation (A 59 Acre Vacant Parcel Located at the Southwest Corner of Crest and Highridae Roads Director/Secretary Petru presented the Staff Report per written material of record Commissioner Ng asked if the City would have to vacate the streets in order for them to become private. Director/Secretary Petru explained that, because the streets are not yet dedicated, the City would be amending the Tentative Map Conditions of Approval to change the requirement from public to private streets. At the request of Commissioner Vannorsdall, Director/Secretary Petru described the three emergency access points within the tract and the emergency exits in the cul de sacs as proposed Commissioner Whiteneck related his concern over the hazardous nature of cul de sacs because those living there cannot get out in an emergency Commissioner Cartwright asked if the applicant would have to provide an easement for the equestrian trail to cross Crest Road. Director/Secretary Petru advised that there was a Condition of Approval for this project which addressed trying to work with the City of Rolling Hills Estates to provide an equestrian crossing to link Rancho Palos Verdes equestrian trails to those in Rolling Hills Estates, and that, currently, no such crossing existed Planning Commission August 27, 1996 14 Commissioner Alberio stated his concern about the proposed removal of 80,000 cubic yards of soil Director/Secretary Petru advised that the original project was to be balanced on the site, however, the developer was required to lower the pad heights on some of the lots, which would necessitate the export She noted that this issue was completely separate from what was before the Commission at that time At the request of Vice Chairman Vannorsdall, Director/Secretary Petru advised that the maintenance of all the open space areas in the tract would be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association Commissioner Cartwright asked if the Crooked Patch Trail would remain should the proposed revisions to the project be approved Director/Secretary Petru verified that, should this project be approved, the Crooked Patch Trail would remain. However, the project was conditioned to require that the Crooked Patch Trail be put back into its correct easement. In answer to questions from Commissioner Franklin, Director/Secretary Petru advised that on -street parking would not be allowed on Crest Road; that parking would be allowed on Ocean Terrace Drive; and that many of the people who live in the area utilize the existing trails. MOTION. Commissioner Franklin moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Mr Bruce Froehlich, 901 Corporate Center Drive, Monterey Park, stated that most of the revisions had to do with the deletion of the off-site debris basin; that emergency access would be provided; that the deletion of the off-site debris basin and the requirement to build an on-site detention basin resulted in an increase in exported excavation, that the streets will be designed with public standards; and that trail access will not be changed Chairman Clark asked if there would be access to bicyclists if the streets become private. Mr. Froehlich advised that the streets would be private and bicyclists would not have access to them; however, bicyclists could access the development via the trails. Director/Secretary Petru mentioned the difficulty of keeping bicyclists off of Crooked Patch Trail, which is not dedicated as a bicycle trail, but as a pedestrian/ equestrian trail. Planning Commission August 27, 1996 15 Mr Froehlich provided input at the request of Commissioner Whiteneck about plans for emergency access to the cul de sacs. He stated that the reason for the private streets and gated entrance was to prevent vehicles from bringing in people who will commit crimes. On behalf of The Ranch Homeowners' Association, Ms. Dianne Alexander, 49 Country Meadows Road, related the Homeowners' Association's primary concern over traffic safety, particularly at the entrance of this development. She said that the width of the Country Meadows entrance at The Ranch was the same as that proposed for this development and it did not provide enough room for delivery trucks to turn around, that this was the third development within 400 feet of one another where trucks would be backing out onto Crest Road, and that, should the gates be granted, the entrance should be redesigned Ms Alexander related concerns over the possibility of view impairment (especially of Catalina) resulting from this development and asked that relevant verbiage be clarified in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Commissioner Alberio pointed out that The Ranch delivery entrance was on Highridge Road, but trucks deliver on Crest Road He asked what the Homeowners' Association had done about this problem Ms. Alexander said that a notice regarding the delivery entrance was placed in the Homeowners' Association's newsletter and that delivery signs were posted Commissioner Franklin commented that The Ranch could go to the Traffic Committee to discuss this matter Director/Secretary Petru advised that the Planning Commission approval of this request was contingent on the City Council also taking action on the Tentative Map to privatize the streets. Mr John Muckel, 6024 Ocean Terrace Drive, related his understanding that developments must have two entrances and exits, which was why this development had emergency access available at each of the cul de sacs, and he noted that the Seacrest area does not have two entrances and exits. He voiced concern over privatized streets in the area because the access to the trails would be sealed off and because Seacrest would be the only area in which cars could be parked Mr Muckel said that he had no problem with the tunnel removal,' but he did have a problem with the safety issues related to a horse crossing at Crest Road Following a question from the Commission, Mr Muckel stated that he would like to see some consistency in what developers were required to provide Chairman Clark advised that the Planning Commission does not deal with the decision to privatize streets, but whether or not the concept of privatizing is consistent with the General Plan Planning Commission August 27, 1996 16 Vice Chairman Vannorsdall mentioned that he utilizes the trails in the area and he related his observation that very few cars were parked in the Ocean Terrace Drive area to access the trails. MOTION Commissioner Whiteneck moved to close the public hearing The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. Director/Secretary Petru advised that most people will continue to park on Ocean Terrace Drive to access the trails, that the Monaco area also has public streets and there would be a connection to the trail there, and that the public parking issue may become critical should there be a proposal to privatize the streets within the Seacrest tract in the future Commissioner Cartwright stated that, when he walked on the trails in the Ocean Terrace Drive area, he tried to park on Highridge Road He related his impression that this project could be facilitating another set of trails and that, should they come to be, it would be much more attractive than it was now and more people would utilize the area Commissioner Cartwright noted the importance of considering the cumulative impact of trails in separate developments and pointed out that private streets have not always been in vogue Director/Secretary Petru advised that Staff was looking for a recommendation from the Commission as to whether or not the streets in this tract should be private. Commissioner Franklin suggested that the requested changes to the Conditional Use Permit should be considered separately The Commission agreed With regard to Policy 21 in the General Plan, Commissioner Franklin pointed out that the conditions for establishing private streets states that the criteria " shall include." and that other criteria may be used He noted that, according to Urban Environmental Element IV, "It is the goal of the City to carefully control and direct future growth towards making a positive contribution to all elements of t'he community " He discussed that the goals specified in the General Plan are intended to benefit all residents, and not just those who live "behind the gates," and emphasized that this should be considered along with transportation issues when making a determination on this request for private streets. Addressing Policy No 2 (open space), Commissioner Franklin noted that open space must be for the benefit of the entire community, and not just for those who "live behind the gates." Planning Commission August 27, 1996 17 Commissioner Franklin contended that gating this area would be against the goal of the Sensory Environment Policy. However, he acknowledged that residents appear to want gated communities. He suggested that, until this project was built and security problems arise, it would be premature to limit the access and he, therefore, recommended denial of Request Nos 2 and 3 (private streets and access gate). On the question of equestrian trails and the tunnel, Commissioner Ng asked if Staff plans to meet with the City of Rolling Hills Estates to discuss this matter. Director/Secretary Petru advised that, in 1991, the City of Rolling Hills Estates was in favor of the tunnel and that, when the Cayman development came before that city earlier this year, the requirement for a similar tunnel easement was eliminated on the Rolling Hills Estates side by the time the Tentative Tract Map was finally approved. Commissioner Ng asked if the City of Rolling Hills Estates had any suggestions as to how equestrians will cross the street. Commissioner Cartwright noted that the matter before the Commission at this time was to eliminate the tunnel because it would not be completed on both sides of Crest Road. MOTION. Commissioner Franklin moved to accept the Staff recommendation for Request Nos 1 (off-site drainage improvements), 4 (equestrian trail tunnel easement), 5 (traffic signal bond), 6 (miscellaneous amendments to the Conditions of Approval) AND to deny Request Nos 2 (private streets) and 3 (access gate). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and ultimately passed by a majority roll call vote Prior to roll call vote, discussion continued with Commissioner Franklin stating his opinion that it would not be consistent with the General Plan to have private streets and access gates Commissioner Alberio contended that there would be no problem with private streets and that they would be in conformance with the General Plan Commissioner Franklin said that he would not mind having the streets configured so that they could be privatized in the future, should the residents so desire and should security needs arise. Planning Commission August 27, 1996 18 0 Commissioner Cartwright related his general agreement with Commissioner Franklin on all the issues, excepting the private streets and access gates He noted that, earlier in the meeting, the Commission conceptually approved something much more complicated than this with a gate and observation booth for the Island View development and observed that people appear to be concerned about security Vice Chairman Vannorsdall stated that there was not that much crime in Rancho Palos Verdes and that he does not understand the concerns regarding security Chairman Clark related his understanding that gated communities have more of an appeal in today's real estate market. Commissioner Ng expressed her concern that, if all the communities in the City become gated, the only public streets remaining will be Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards. She agreed with Commissioner Franklin's opinion that all the streets and open space within this tract should be available for the benefit of the entire community The motion passed by a majority roll call vote (5-2), with Commissioners Alberio and Cartwright dissenting. Chairman Clark said that he found Commissioner Franklin's comments about privatization both thoughtful and practical and that he agreed that gating or recommending to the City Council that privatization would be consistent with the General Plan at this time would be inappropriate. He clarified that the Commission approved Tentative Tract Map No 46651 Amendment No 1 and Conditional Use Permit No 151 - Revision "A" with the exception of private streets and the access gate The Commission and Staff reviewed and modified Exhibit 'A" Conditions of Approval, Tentative Tract Map No 46651 - Amendment No 1 as follows. Page 1, No B1 it from the Director of Public Works." Page 6, No G4 "The developer shall be..." Page 7, No G7 " The Storm Water Pollution Plan shall be reviewed and and approved by the Director of Public Works." Page 9, No H2 "The proposed on-site streets shall be public and designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Pubtic Works, pursuant to the following specifications. " Planning Commission August 27, 1996 19 No H2b "`D' Street shall be 44 feet in width " No H2c "All streets shall have a standard vertical type curb " The Commission and Staff reviewed and discussed Exhibit 'A" Conditional Use Permit No. 151 - Revision "A" as follows Page 5, No. 2a & b Eliminate all references to private streets. Page 6, No. 2 Eliminate all references to private streets Page 7, No 211 " of costs for the signal for the project's " Page 14, Ltd, Eliminate in its entirety. Director/Secretary Petru supplied input regarding the City's Affordable Housing Programs. She explained that Staff was in the process of preparing a housing program for projects like the Kajima project which had a general condition requiring the developer to participate in any applicable housing programs in place at the time the project begins construction She related Staffs support of requiring compliance with such a condition for this project at the time the finished tract grading was certified The Commission agreed. At this time, discussion returned to regular agenda order NEW BUSINESS G Director/Secretary Petru briefed the Commission on the Planning Commission's work program for the next six months She provided input on the Ocean Trails' items to be presented for the Planning Commission's consideration prior to November 1, 1996. She advised that a number of smaller Conditional Use Permits will possibly be presented for the Commission's consideration over the next six months and that the Congregation Ner Tamid is asking for a sizable expansion to their facility Commissioner Franklin suggested a joint Traffic Committee/Planning Commission meeting to consider the Congregation Ner Tamid request Planning Commission August 27, 1996 20 Director/Secretary Petru further advised that a request from Pacific Bell has been received to install a PCS antenna tower at the California Water Service facility on Crest Road. Commissioner Franklin suggested that all the Pacific Bell antenna items should be handled at one time Director/Secretary Petru explained that the Pacific Bell antenna items require separate applications, that they were submitted to the City at different times; and that the City was required by State law to handle them in a certain time frame Commissioner Franklin stated his understanding that basic issues were common to all of the Pacific Bell antenna items Director/Secretary Petru said that each antenna site had unique circumstances Director/Secretary Petru noted that there was a proposal for a General Plan Amendment for a portion of the Marriott site to change it from Institutional to Single -Family Residential and that, should the City Council adopt the changes proposed to the Development Code, the Planning Commission would be seeing most of the future Height Modifications requests. Chairman Clark expressed his understanding that, when the City Council recently addressed that portion of the Code, they agreed that the Planning Commission should consider all of the Height Modification requests Director/Secretary Petru clarified that the City Council decided to have the Planning Commission consider all the Height Modification requests having potential view impairment, which will be approximately 95% of them. She explained that the City Council had directed both the View Restoration Commission and the Planning Commission to develop a set of guidelines for View Restoration Permits and Height Modifications, respectively, which were somewhat related with one another Director/Secretary Petru noted that the Wayfarers Chapel had asked for an additional continuance to October 1996. In answer to a question from Commissioner Alberio, she verified that the City won the Taco Bell lawsuit. Planning Commission August 27, 1996 21 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 7. Pre -Agenda for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of Tuesday. September 10, 1996 Director/Secretary Petru reviewed items contained on the Pre -Agenda for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of Tuesday, September 10, 1996, With Pre -Agenda Item No. 4 in mind (Minor Exception Permit 500 - Appeal), Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested that the City Attorney attend the September 10, 1996 meeting. Chairman Clark indicated that he will discuss this issue with Staff. Commission Commissioner Albeno suggested that smaller drawings of projects under consideration by the Planning Commission should be provided to the Commissioners Following a brief discussion of the idea, Director/Secretary Petru confirmed that in addition to the full size plans normally supplied to the City by the applicant, 11 X 17 copies of these same plans witl be provided to the Commissioners COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None ADJOURNMENT At 10.40 P M , the meeting was duly adjourned to Tuesday, September 10, 1956, 7:00 P M, Hesse Park Planning Commission August 27, 1996 22