Loading...
PC MINS 19961210 IP APPROVED 01/28/97 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 10, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M. by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Alberio. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Ng, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Vannorsdall, and Chairman Clark. Absent: None. Also present were Director/Secretary Petru, Senior Planner Snow, Associate Planner Pfost, Assistant Planner Fox, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Director/Secretary Petru noted that a late request was received from the applicant regarding Item No. 6 (Conditional Use Permit No. 192) to continue the Public Hearing to January 14, 1997 since they were still working with an adjacent homeowner to address his concerns about the proposed project. Therefore, Director/Secretary Petru suggested that Agenda Item No. 6 be considered as the first item of Continued Business. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved for the approval of the agenda, as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and it was so ordered without objection by Chairman Clark (6-0). 110 COMMUNICATIONS Staff Director/Secretary Petru distributed three items regarding Agenda Item No. 4 (Conditional Use Permit No. 17 - Revision "A"): 1) a letter from the City of Rolling Hills Estates providing comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) a chart which was requested by Commissioner Ng comparing the sizes and parking requirements of the various institutional uses along Crestridge Road; and, 3) copies of the Initial Study which was prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Director/Secretary apologized to the Commission that the Initial Study was inadvertently omitted from the agenda packets. Commission Chairman Clark distributed a letter which he had sent to the Mayor and City Council, and noted that copies were also sent to the City Manager and Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Chairman Clark stated that the letter indicated that his tenure as Chairman was to expire at the end of December and anticipated that the City Council would be selecting a new Chairman for 1997 very shortly. However, he noted that this action had not taken place at the last City Council Meeting on December 3, 1996, and had been postponed until January 21, 1997. Chairman Clark also stated that applications were currently being accepted for the vacant Commission seat that was vacated by Commissioner Franklin. Mr. Clark concluded his remarks by thanking the Commission and Staff for a job well done during his year as Chairman. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of November 12, 1996 Commissioner Ng requested that: 1) page 2, paragraph 6 be modified to read as, "such that it covers the wall."; 2) a paragraph be inserted on page 4 after paragraph 2 to read as, "Commissioner Ng inquired why the plot plans were not included in the packet since the application was related to setbacks and that the attached grading plan did not provide any dimensions or setback information." She requested Staff to provide the appropriate information in the future."; 3) page 13, paragraph 4, line 1 be modified to read as, "geology studies from the applicant...", and on the same page, paragraph 6 line 2 be modified to read as, "a date uncertain in order..."; and, 4) page 14, paragraph 3, line 2 be modified to read as, "she would be willing to...". PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 2 Commissioner Cartwright requested that: 1) page 7, paragraph 8 be modified to read as, "but was not deemed complete ", 2) page 8, paragraph 3 be modified to read as, "Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Ng ",and, 3) page 12, paragraph 10 be modified to read as, "that he was aiming to support Staffs recommendation " Commissioner Ng moved to approve the Minutes of November 12, 1996, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (6-0). Chairman Clark indicated that Staff had recommended approval of the remaining two items on the Consent Calendar and asked the Commission for one motion to approve both 2 Variance No. 414; Beth Zacarro, 4338 Exultant Drive. 3 Grading Permit No. 1902; Unocal Corporation, 5656 Crest Road (former service station site.) Vice Chairman Vannorsdall suggested that Agenda Item No 2, Exhibit'A', line 4 be modified to read as, "the following setbacks shall be maintained for the accessory structure and any future construction " Chairman Clark asked if the Commission had any further inquires or wished to further discuss Agenda Item Nos 2 and 3 There was no further discussion for either Agenda Items Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to accept Staffs recommendation, as amended, for Agenda Item No. 2 and to accept Staffs recommendation for Agenda Item No. 3, as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright, and there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (6- 0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 6 Conditional Use Permit No. 192; Pacific Bell Mobile Services c/o Jerome Buckmelter Associates, 5837 Crest Road (California Water Service Facilit % Assistant Planner Fox stated that he received telephone call from the applicant requesting to continue this item to January 14, 1997, since they were still negotiating PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 3 with some of the homeowners in the vicinity of the project site Chairman Clark asked the Commissioners if they had any inquiries or wished to discuss this item Vice Chairman Vannorsdall stated that it was a good idea to continue the Public Hearing to a date as requested by the applicant, so that both parties could work together and resolve any conflicts before the Planning Commission heard this request. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to continue the Public Hearing, as requested by the applicant, to January 14, 1997. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (6-0). 4 Conditional Use Permit No. 17 - Revision W, Variance No. 408, Grading Permit No. 1874 and Environmental Assessment No. 683; Congregation Ner Tamid, 5721 Crestridge Drive. Associate Planner Pfost stated that on November 12, 1996, the Commission opened the Public Hearing regarding this item, heard testimony from the applicant, and continued this item for further discussion to December 10, 1996 in order to allow Staff time to prepare the proper environmental documentation in compliance the California Environmental Quality Act. Associate Planner Pfost noted that on November 12, 1996 the original project included a request for a variance to increase a maximum allowable height of the sanctuary building and that the applicant had determined since that time that the proposed structures could be constructed within the 30 foot height limit. Therefore, a variance was no longer required for the height of the building He stated that there were no other changes to the project since the last meeting and that, with the exception of building height, the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report provided to the Commission on November 12, 1996, remained the same Mr Pfost briefly presented the environmental analysis and stated that in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and distributed for the required 21 -day review period Associate Planner Pfost stated that a letter was received from the City of Rolling Hills Estates during the comment period which identified the following issues of concern 1) Noise - further analysis should be conducted for long-term noise impacts that would result from the school and sanctuary facilities. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 4 Staff determined that there would be no long-term noise impacts since there would be no substantial increases in activity levels at the site. For example, the size of the congregation would not increase and the enrollment at the school would increase only slightly Staff had identified some potential noise impacts related to construction activities and therefore added appropriate mitigation measures to address this issue. 2) Land use - the project would not conform to all zoning standards. Staff indicated that although the project would not comply with minimum parking and side yard setback requirements, the project was mitigated to ensure that these reductions would not result in any significant impacts to the surrounding properties in terms of views, traffic and circulation. 3) Transportation and circulation - the project would provide substantially less than the minimum amount of parking required for the use Staff indicated that the existing parking facilities on the site were adequate to accommodate the demand that would be present during the majority of the year However, twice a year during high holiday observances, off-site parking would also be used. However, Staff noted that this situation exists currently and has not caused a parking problem in the area In addition, the applicant would be required to participate in an annual review of their parking use operations, to insure that there would be no significant impacts of transportation and circulation in the future 4) Aesthetics - the project would not be compatible with the other institutional uses in the area and would be visually obtrusive to the residential neighborhoods in the surrounding areas Staff felt that the proposed project was aesthetically designed to be compatible with other the institutional uses on Crestridge Road. In addition, the property was separated by a roadway and a substantial change in topography from the residential uses in the surrounding area. Therefore, Staff found that the project would not cause any aesthetic impacts. Mr. Pfost also noted that two letters were received from an adjacent neighbor indicating concerns regarding night-time lighting, building height intrusion, roof top mechanical equipment, color of the proposed roof material, roof design of the sanctuary and parking He noted that the applicant's architect had addressed each of the neighbor's concerns in a letter dated December 2, 1996 which was included in the agenda packet for this item. Associate Planner Pfost concluded his presentation with Staffs recommendation for approval of the proposed project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 6 Commissioner Ng asked for an explanation regarding the unsuitable soil condition on the site which was mentioned in the November 12, 1996 Staff Report Associate Planner Pfost replied that there was uncompacted soil on the site that would need to be excavated and recompacted in order to provide a stable base for the foundation of the proposed expansion to the sanctuary building. Commissioner Ng asked if the City was going to require the applicant to help pay for signal improvements at the intersection of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. Director/Secretary Petru replied that the City's Traffic Engineer had recommended that the applicant contribute towards the improvement on the signal at that intersection. However, the Director of Public Works determined that the applicant did not impact the traffic on Crestridge enough to warrant requiring a contribution to upgrading this signal. Therefore, Staff did not recommended this as a condition of approval for the project. Commissioner Ng inquired if any circulation improvements were planned for that intersection in the future. Director/Secretary Petru replied that Staff was unaware of the Public Works Department's pians to modify that intersection in the future. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked if this information was made known to the Traffic Committee. Associate Planner Pfost replied that this protect was not heard by the Traffic Committee Instead, due to the nature of the project, the applicant's traffic and parking study, and the City's Traffic Consultant's recommendations, were reviewed by the Director of Public Works Commissioner Cartwright inquired if Staff agreed with the findings included in the traffic and parking analysis prepared by the applicant Director/Secretary Petru responded that Staff concurred with the traffic studies provided by the applicant, as well as the conclusions of the City's Traffic Consultant and the Director of Public Works Commissioner Cartwright asked if the expansion of the classrooms would impact the demand for parking on the site PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 6 Associate Planner Pfost replied that the size of the classrooms would expanded to accommodate students in grades 1 through 8 However, the demand for parking would not be significantly affected since students in these grade level do not drive and would simply be dropped off at the school building The teachers at the school would be expected to utilize only about 20 parking spaces on the side Commissioner Alberio stated that if the congregation's membership increased, additional parking spaces would be required to accommodate the church members Chairman Clark asked if there were any speakers for this item Mr. Steven Spierer (applicant), 1627 Via Margarita, Palos Verdes Estates, stated that he had met with Mr Anthony Segretto (the neighbor who had submitted the letters of concern about the project) and came to a conclusion where Mr Segretto now supported the proposed project. Mr Spierer indicated that Mr Segretto's support was evidenced by his lack of attendance at the meeting that evening He then asked that the Commission approve the proposed project that evening, due to the fact that the congregation was running on a very tight time frame in terms of coordinating financing and construction of the project. Rabbi Ron Shulman (applicant), 5721 Crestridge Road, stated that the sanctuary would typically accommodate no more than 300 in attendance for worship services at any given time Therefore, the maximum capacity of the sanctuary would not be a relevant measure of the actual use of the building on a daily basis Rabbi Shulman also stated that growth in the membership of the congregation would be limited since the Jewish community was such a small segment of the larger population, therefore, the potential for tremendous growth was not present. Commissioner Cartwright inquired if the number of students would increase when the classroom sizes were expanded Rabbi Shulman replied that the number of students would remain the same Commissioner Cartwright inquired about the traffic and parking situations with the other religious institutions nearby during church events Rabbi Shulman replied that the congregation coordinates its calendar of activities with the other neighboring institutions so that there are no parking conflicts PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 7 Chairman Clark inquired if any traffic and parking problems had occurred in the past where multiple events were held by the congregation and other institutions at the same time. Mr. Spierer replied in October, 1996, both Ner Tamid and the Palos Verdes Art Center held mayor events. Crestridge Road was blocked off at Crenshaw Boulevard and both institutions anticipated bad traffic conditions and limited parking spaces However, much to their surprise, they did not detect any problems, since the traffic flow was steady and parking spaces were available at other nearby institutional sites. Chairman Clark noted that the Initial Study document which was distributed earlier in the meeting would be reviewed by the Commission and that its contents would be considered by the Commission prior to a decision being made on the proposed project RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8.15 P M there was a brief recess unit 8 30 P M when the meeting reconvened Commissioner Alberio suggested that the traffic studies provided by the applicant should be reviewed by Traffic Committee before a decision was made on the project. Commissioner Ng stated that she had no objections about approving the variance for the expansion of the classroom which would align the addition with the existing building, but was very concerned about the variance for the minimum number of parking spaces on the property She noted that the classroom expansion would require 18 existing parking spaces be removed She stated that a parking variance had already been granted when the facility was first construction With regards to allowing the use of off- site parking facilities, Commissioner Ng referred to Development Code Section 17 44.06 which allows the Planning Commission to approve the parking on separate lots, if it is less than or equal to 300 feet of walking distance away from the subject property She then noted that the proposed shared parking with other the institutions on Crestridge Road would be more than 300 feet away, and would work only if the major events did not occur simultaneously Commissioner Ng further stated that if Staff determined during the proposed annual review after the addition was completed that the parking situation was not working out, that the conditional use permit may need to be revoked, which would not be a very desirable situation for the applicant. Commissioner Ng concluded by stating that the project would result in significant adverse impacts on the adjacent neighbors due to the increased demand for street parking, as well as an increase in safety hazards to pedestrians who would be required to park off-site and walk a long distance to the facility Commissioner Ng is also concerned that if the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 8 Commission approves the reduced parking space requirement, is it going to grant the same right to future project proposals? Is the Commission going to require only 20% of the required parking when Marriott constructs the care facility on the adjacent lot? Chairman Clark responded that each case would be considered individually on Its own merit. Commissioner Whiteneck stated that he could not support the proposed project if there was a possibility of a new facility being built in the area which would also request a reduced parking standard and to share parking facilities with the other institutional uses in the area. Commissioner Cartwright stated that he believes that the parking would be adequate most of the year, since the size of the congregation would not increase The only significant overflow would occur on two occasions per year, as it had in the past, and the congregation has had a good history of being able to work with their neighbors to resolve any parking issues Therefore, he generally supported Staffs recommendation. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall stated that he was concerned with the parking situation and suggested that the traffic study should be reviewed by the City's Traffic Committee Mr Spierer stated that he respected the Commission's request to have the Traffic Committee review the project He went on to explain that, in the past, Ner Tamid was able to use the Mormon Church's facilities to conduct their high holiday services, but recently, due to insurance problems and a conflict with an agreement the International Red Cross to have access to the facility during emergency situations, the Mormon Church headquarters was now prohibiting outside groups from future use of its facilities (excluding the parking lot, which still could be used by the congregation). Therefore, Ner Tamid was requesting that the Commission approve the proposed project, so that the congregation could construct its own facilities. Although not used to its full capacity during most of the year, the facility had to be the size that was proposed to accommodate attendees at the worship services for the two major Jewish holidays (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur). Mr. Spierer stated that if a decision was made that evening, they would submit the project into plan check on December 26, 1996, be prepared to bid the project on January 2, 1997, seek permits on February 14, 1997, break ground on February 15, 1997, and complete our building by October 1, 1997 Based on this schedule, the new sanctuary would be completed in time to accommodate this coming year's two major events Mr Spierer stated that, since they could no longer use the Mormon Church's facilities, the congregation has no other alternative if the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 9 proposed project was not approved by the City in a timely fashion. He requested that the Commission not delay the decision by having the Traffic Committee conduct an additional review of the project, but to approve the proposed project that evening Chairman Clark asked Mr Spierer when the Mormon Church had rescinded the use of their interior facilities to the congregation. Mr. Spierer replied the last time the congregation was allowed to use the facilities was in 1996. The use was scheduled to expire in 1995, but the Mormon Church headquarters made a singular exception for Ner Tamid Therefore, this extension was now expired and believed that if the congregation requested another extension it would not be granted by the Mormon Church. Chairman Clark asked how long the congregation had been planning this project Mr Spierer replied that this project began approximately July 1995 Chairman Clark asked Mr Spierer to confirm that the main purpose for the proposed protect, if approved, was to accommodate large gatherings for the two Jewish holidays Mr. Spierer replied that Chairman Clark's statement was correct. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked Mr. Spierer if it be possible for the congregation to hold worship services at other synagogues in the vicinity if the proposed project was not completed by October 1997 Mr. Spierer replied that it would be impossible due to the fact that Ner Tamid and the other neighboring synagogues all conduct the Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur on the same days and that their facilities are always full Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked if it was possible for the congregation to use other denominational churches for worship services. Rabbi Shulman replied that they had spoken to other neighboring churches to use their facilities on their two busiest holidays of the year, but unfortunately none of the other facilities in the area can accommodate the approximately 1,000 people who attend each worship service. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked what the congregation's plan would be if the Mormon Church headquarters decided to remove the reciprocal parking agreement. He was concerned that if the Mormon headquarters prohibited the use of their building to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 10 • 0 congregation, they may also refuse use of their parking facilities, which would result in overcrowded street parking. Mr Spierer replied that the agreement they had with the Mormon Church to use their building was only on a verbal basis, but that the reciprocal parking agreement was executed in writing with the Mormon Church headquarters. Chairman Clark asked if the written reciprocal parking agreements with the various institutions in the area included revocation or termination language Mr. Spierer replied that the agreements only have revocation language and can be revoked at any time. However, he stated that, if the Mormon Church headquarters canceled their agreement, the congregation would still have access to the other neighboring institutions, but if those go away, then the congregation would have a problem Commissioner Cartwright asked how long the congregation had been using the Mormon Church's parking facilities. Rabbi Shulman replied approximately that it had been fourteen years. Commissioner Cartwright observed that the congregation never had any parking conflicts with the Mormon Church during the past fourteen years, even during Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, since there was 290 parking spaces available at the Mormon Church He also noted that the Staff Report indicated that the critical reason for completing the proposed project by October 1997 was because there was a risk of loosing funding However, after listening to testimony that evening, the reasons seemed to be more towards accommodating the large crowds expected for the two busiest Jewish holidays in 1997. Mr Spierer replied that the critical reasons to complete the project by October 1997 were: 1) to accommodate the large crowds in the sanctuary on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur; and 2) certain funds had been pledged by congregation members subject to those contributors being able to use the facility for family religious celebrations that were planned for the coming year (Bar Mitzvahs and Bat Mitzvahs, for example) He then stated that they had contractors that were ready to start construction, provided that the project could be submitted into plan check by December 26, 1996. Director/Secretary Petru stated that it would not be possible for the congregation to submit their plans for plan check on December 26, 1996 since City Hall would be closed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 11 for the holiday break and even if the Commission took action that evening, the appeal period would not expire until January 2, 1997 Commissioner Ng asked Mr Spierer if the congregation would consider decreasing the square footage of the school addition, so that the existing 18 parking spaces would not be eliminated. Mr Spierer replied that the expansion of the school facility was absolutely necessary for educational needs of the congregation and that the parking spaces that were being eliminated were unnecessary Commissioner Ng disagreed with Mr Spierer and stated that the proposed addition provided only 20% of the total number of required parking spaces. Director/Secretary Petru suggested that the applicant might consider phasing the project, so that the sanctuary and social hall would commence construction first This would give the City an opportunity to study how the parking situation is performing before making a decision on the classroom addition, which would be considered as the second phase of the project Commissioner Alberio asked Mr Spierer if they would consider in phasing the proposed project Mr Spierer replied that they could phase the project, but not in the manner suggested by Director/Secretary Petru, since construction of the classroom expansion would need to begin immediately following the completion of the sanctuary and social hall Therefore, there would be no time to study the parking in between construction phases. Mr Richard Landry (project architect), 11333 Iowa Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, stated that phasing could be possible according to the two sets of plans that they had prepared Commissioner Ng moved to approve the proposed project in two phases, where the sanctuary and social constructed would constitute the first phase The classroom expansion would be constructed as the second phase, pending observation of traffic and parking impacts created by the construction of the first phase. The motion died due to a lack of a second. Commissioner Alberto moved to defer a decision until input is received from the Traffic Committee in January, 1997 The motion died due to a lack of a second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 12 Commissioner Cartwright moved to accept Staffs recommendation The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. The motion failed due to a tied by a roll -call vote (3-3), with Commissioners Albeno, Ng, and Vice Chairman Vannorsdall dissenting. Chairman Clark moved to continue the Public Hearing to January 14, 1997, in order to receive input from the Traffic Committee for further discussion between Staff and the applicant and also requested that the Traffic Committee hold a Special meeting early in January. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed by a roll -call vote (4-1-1), with Vice Chairman Vannorsdall dissenting and Commissioner Whiteneck abstaining. Mr. Spierer requested permission to submit their plans to plan check. Chairman Clark replied that the project could not be submitted into plan check since the Commission had not made a decision on the project and the public hearing had been continued to January 14, 1997 Mr. Spierer asked if this project would be scheduled to be heard at the January 14, 1997 meeting under Continued Business. Director/Secretary Petru stated that this item would be scheduled as a Continued Business item for the January 14, 1997 Commission meeting. However, if the Traffic Committee was unable to meet prior to that time, the Commission would need to then continue this item for the January 28, 1997 meeting RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9 50 P M there was a brief recess until 10.00 P.M when the meeting reconvened 5 Conditional Use Permit No. 82 - Revision 'A' and Encroachment Permit No. 26; The Island View Homeowners Association, c/o Trish Malin, 43 Santa Catalina Drive. Assistant Planner Fox indicated that Lieutenant Mike Grimaldi from the Lomita Sheriffs Station was in the audience, and was available to answer questions, as requested by the Commission at the previous hearing held on this project Chairman Clark requested that Lieutenant Grimaldi address the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 14, 1996 Page 13 Lieutenant Mike Grimaldi, Lomita Sheriffs Station, Lomita, CA, provided crime statistics for Island View Tract and stated that in 1995 there were 7 reported crimes, which consisted of 3 acts of vandalism, 2 auto fires, 1 mall theft, and 1 family disturbance, and in 1996 there 8 reported crimes which consisted of 1 stolen vehicle, 1 missing person, 1 lost property, 1 vandalism, 1 stolen community property, 2 petty thefts, and 1 mail theft Lieutenant Grimaldi stated that the types of crimes that are most common in the Island View Tract were acts of malicious mischief. He mentioned that calls were received from residents on Santa Catalina Drive in 1996 regarding 2 suspicious person, 1 vehicle theft, 3 silent alarms, 1 gambling party and, 2 panic alarms. On San Clement Drive calls were received during the same year for 1 mail theft, 1 loud music from a car, 1 juvenile disturbance, 1 family disturbance, 1 suspicious circumstance and 1 act of vandalism. Chairman Clark stated that if the community was gated at both entrances these statistics would probably be much different, i.e. lower Lieutenant Grimaldi agreed with Chairman Clark's statement Chairman Clark asked Lieutenant Grimaldi if he had any comments regarding the installation of video cameras at the main tract entrance, as requested by the applicant Lieutenant Grimaldi stated that he believed video cameras would be more useful in solving rather than deterring crime Chairman Clark asked Lieutenant Grimaldi what the level of participation was like in the Island View Tract's Neighborhood Watch Program. Lieutenant Grimaldi replied that the program was very active Chairman Clark thanked Lieutenant Grimaldi for his attendance at the meeting and then asked for the Staff Report. Assistant Planner Fox briefly went over the Staff Report and stated that the crime analysis presented that evening was one of the issues that the Commission had requested additional information on at the October 22, 1996 meeting. He also stated that there was a memorandum from the City Attorney included in the agenda packet regarding privacy issues when using video cameras Assistant Planner Fox noted that the adjourned meeting held on November 2, 1996, which consisted of a Commission and Staff site visit to the subject property, was continued to November 12, 1996. However, due to the late hour that this item was heard at that meeting and the unavailability of the applicants at the next regular meeting of November 26, 1996, the item was continued to a second adjourned meeting scheduled for November 16, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 14 Unfortunately, due to scheduling conflicts, the applicants were unable to attend and, therefore, the meeting was cancelled Mr Fox stated that the item was then placed on the November 26, 1996 agenda with a recommendation to continue it to December 10, 1996 In conclusion, Assistant Planner Fox stated that Staff recommended approval of the request, subject to conditions of approval which were attached to the resolution prepared for each permit. Chairman Clark requested Staff to forward a letter of appreciation to Captain Dickinson for having Lieutenant Grimaldi present at the Commission's meeting and for providing the crime statistics for Island View Tract. Commissioner Cartwright asked Staff why they recommended approval for the proposed project when in the past it was noted that Staff had consistently recommended denial of private, gated communities Director/Secretary Petru stated that prior Councils had been clearly against any type of restricted access to residential neighborhoods in the City However, the Council had recently approved private streets for the Seacliff Hills Tract, which was located across the street from the Ocean Trails project. One of the main reasons that the Seacliff Hills Homeowners Association had requested a gated community was because of their concerns regarding malicious mischief, similar to that experienced in the Island View Tract. In addition, she mentioned that the Council had already taken preliminary actions to vacate a portion of Whitley Collins Drive and had discussed at length with the Island View Homeowners Association the idea of installing controlled access at both ends of the subdivision Director/Secretary Petru also noted that the General Plan does not contain an outright prohibition against gated communities, and instead contains findings to allow them in certain situations Vice Chairman Vannorsdall noted for the record that he was not present at the site visit held on November 2, 1996, but stated that he had visited the site with Assistant Planner Fox at a later date Commissioner Alberio wanted to clarify that the final vacation of Whitley Collins had not yet been approved by the City Council Director/Secretary Petru replied that Commissioner Alberio's understanding was correct. Chairman Clark asked if there were any speakers for this item Ms. Trish Malin (applicant), 43 Santa Catalina Drive, stated that for the past two years the homeowners and Staff had invested a lot of time on the proposed project. Ms Malin PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 15 • 0 mentioned that the Homeowners Association had implemented some of the suggestions made by the Planning Commission at the site visit by cutting shrubs at the San Clemente main entrance to 42 inches in height for visibility purposes. In addition, the Association would agree to lowering the proposed wall heights to improve visibility at this intersection for pedestrian safety. Ms. Malin also stated that the Association was willing to incorporate the Commission's suggestions for the Whitley Collins Drive entrance, such as using bollards at the pedestrian entrance, adding a vehicular turn- around on the inside of the gate, and providing adequate signage to ensure that visitors understood that they were welcome in the Island View Tract. She also stated that their overall object was to improve safety and security to the community. Commissioner Ng asked if the Homeowners Association would consider gating the entrance at Crenshaw Boulevard and leaving Whitley Collins Drive open. Ms. Malin replied that Crenshaw Boulevard was the main entrance to the tract and if the main entrance was gated, it would cause great inconvenience for the residents and visitors entering or exiting the tract. She felt that it would also negatively impact the traffic flow on Crenshaw Boulevard, since cars would be backed up on this roadway waiting to enter the tract seven days a week. Commissioner Cartwright noted that the application form submitted to the City stated that the intent for the proposal was to restrict felons, non-residents and through traffic. However, he believed that the manned observation booth, which was intended as a psychological barrier to deter the criminals would also deter the general public, giving them the impression that they were not allow to enter or pass through the community. Ms Malin stated that it would be a psychological barrier for only those entering with the wrong intentions, such as malicious mischief. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked if the homeowners had considered other alternatives, such as security patrols and, if so, what were the results. Ms. Malin replied that they had used Westec Security to patrol the area for a period of three months, but were still having problems, since there was only one patrol car securing the area and they could not be at all places at all times. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall suggested maybe two security patrols for the tract were necessary, one at each entrance to the tract, in order to eliminate some of the criminal activates that had occurred in the tract. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 16 Ms. Malin replied that she thought that having a patrol car sating at each entrance to the tract would pose more of a physiological barrier for visitors than the homeowner's current proposal. Mr. John Hellow* 15 Santa Catalina Drive, stated that he lived very near the main entrance of the tract and at least once a week, between the hours of 1.30 A.M. and 3.00 A M , he would hear the sounds of screeching tires and loud music on the street outside his house He would then rush outside to see what was happening, but would only catch a glimpse of the vehicle exiting the tract. Mr. Hellow stated that he had telephoned the local authorities many times to apprehend these intruders, but they were always unable to catch them. He believed that the Lomita Sheriffs Department supported the proposed project since the community had many incidents occur in the past and that by approving the request it would aide in apprehending future violators Ms. Lois Larue. 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that she was in favor of an open city Ms. Larue stated that she did not understand why the homeowners of Island View wanted to install a gate since the entrance was so beautiful, but if that is what they requested and City Council has approved similar projects, then why not have the applicant's request approved instead of making them go through additional time delays Vice Chairman Vannorsdali moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ng, and there being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (6-0). Commissioner Whiteneck stated that he had two initial concerns about the project The first was regarding the safety of pedestrians using the entrances to the tract and the other was having signs posted at the entrance to the tract He was not as concerned about pedestrian safety since the shrubs had been cut and the height of walls would be reduced, but he was still concerned that having signs posted at the entrances would be a deterrent to the public Commissioner Alberio suggested that video cameras be installed at both entrances to the tract Commissioner Ng stated that she had no objection to the video camera being installed, but felt that only one end of the tract should have restricted access and the other should be left completely opened Commissioner Cartwright stated that he had no objections of gate being installed at Whitley Collins Drive, but that he was not in favor of the manned observation booth at San Clemente Place. He felt that the manned observation booth would not be an PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 17 effective deterrent for those entering the tract with legal activities in mind, and would only discourage law-abiding citizens who wished to enter the tract. The interior streets in Island View are public. He was concerned that putting a gate at one end and a manned booth at the other would create defacto private streets Commissioner Cartwright felt that this was an inappropriate use of public funds Vice Chairman Vannorsdall stated that the community was concerned with safety However, he believed that their concerns could be addressed by having two patrols, one at each end of the tract, and installing video cameras at each entrance He felt that this could be cost effective and, therefore, the gate and observation booth installations would not be necessary Chairman Clark stated that he had no objections with the use of video cameras, signs posted indicated for security purposes, or the use of patrol cars to secure the community during peak periods, as mentioned by the applicant. However, he did have objections to having either a manned or unmanned observation booth at the main entrance to the tract. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to allow the applicant to install video cameras at both entrances to the tract and obtain two security patrol cars for trail period of six months to see if this method resulted in a significant decrease in vandalism and other related crimes The motion died due to a lack of a second Commissioner Ng moved to allow an unmanned gate to be installed at Whitley Collins Drive and one video camera to be installed at Crenshaw Boulevard, with no tract entrance observation booth allowed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. The motion was amended to allow a second camera at the Whitley Collins entrance if the Homeowners Association desired it, to not allow the modification of any of the existing common walls at the San Clemente Place entrance and to not allow bollards in the pedestrian access way on Whitley Collins Drive. The motion was passed by a roll call vote (5-1), with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. Director/Secretary Petru noted that Staff would need to revise the Resolutions prepared for this item for consideration by the Commission at the next regular meeting on January 14, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 18 7 General Plan Amendment No. 23, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment No. 6, Zone Cha Senior Planner Snow briefly presented the Staff Report and stated that the proposed land use change involves three properties located at the southwest corner of Palos Verdes Drive South and Seacove Drive He indicated that the current uses of the sites were office uses at 6108 and 6118 Palos Verdes Drive South and a fire station use at 6124 Palos Verdes Drive South, although the General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan and Zoning Map designations were single family residential The proposed project was intended to create consistency between the existing uses on the site, which had been ongoing since before the City was incorporated, and the City's land use and zoning designations Staff was seeking preliminary comments from the Commission regarding the proposal to change the land use and zoning designations to commercial office for the two properties with office building currently on them, and institutional for the existing fire station Mr Snow noted that the Negative Declaration prepared for Environmental Assessment No 686 was still in the public circulation period Therefore, the Commission could not take action on the project until the next meeting on January 14, 1997 Commissioner Ng asked why 6108 Palos Verdes Drive South was included Director/Secretary Petru stated that Staff had included this property, since the existing commercial office use on the site was in conflict with the underlying residential designation Commissioner Ng asked what about the minimum lot size required in an institution zone Director/Secretary Petru stated that there was no minimum lot size required in that zoning district. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there was a drainage course located behind the subject properties Senior Planner Snow replied that there was a drainage course behind the subject properties, but that it was located on a different parcel Chairman Clark asked if there were any speakers for this item Mr. Robert Haase (applicant), 20 Seacove Drive, stated that he owned the property at the corner of Seacove Drive and Palos Verdes Drive South, that he was in favor of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 19 proposed land use and zone change, and that he would be happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have had about the property Ms. Lois Larue. 3136 Barkentine Road, gave a history of the previous uses on the properties prior to the incorporation of the City, indicated that the "drainage course" was actually "lower Barkentine Canyon" and should be referred to as such, and stated that she was not in support of the request, even though Mr Haase maintained his property beautifully Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the Public Hearing on January 14, 1997, seconded by Commissioner Ng and, there being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 8. Pre -Agenda for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of Tuesday, January 14, 1997. Commission None. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Ms. Lois Larue, 36 Barkentine Road, invited the Commission to the Cabrillo Marine Museum on December 12, 1996 for a seminar on Toxic Waste in the Catalina Channel She also requested that Staff put the various agenda items in separate binders at the table outside the meeting room ADJOURNMENT At 12:40 A.M. Commissioner Whiteneck moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng, and approved by acclamation, (6-0) . NAGROUP\PLANNING\PCMIN\MIN12.10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 1996 Page 20