PC MINS 20010327CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 27, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVED
APRIL 10, 2001
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7 05 p m at the Fred Hesse
Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard
FLAG SALUTE
Associate Planner Mihranian led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cartwright, Long, Mueller, Paulson, Vannorsdall, Vice
Chairman Clark, Chairman Lyon
Absent: None
Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior
Planner Pfost, Associate Planner Mihranian, Associate Planner Schonborn, City
Consultant Peri Muretta, and Recording Secretary Peterson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairman Lyon noted that the Agenda was an amended Agenda and clarified the
amendment.
Without objection, the Agenda was approved as presented, (7-0)
COMMUNICATIONS
Director/Secretary Rojas distributed 1) eleven items of correspondence regarding
Agenda Item No 4, 2) three items of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No 3,
3) materials relating to the Long Point project for the Planning Commission meeting of
April 10, 2001, and 4) expense report forms
Vice Chairman Clark reported that the California League of Cities Planning Institute in
Monterey had been a very worthwhile and beneficial conference
Chairman Lyon reported that he had received a number of letters regarding Agenda
Item No 4, but that these items were included in the staff report.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of March 3, 2001
Without objection, the minutes were approved as presented, (7-0)
2. Height Variation No. 888 and Site Plan Review No. 8637 — Time Extension:
Sanjay and Kirti Celly (applicants) 27041 Whitestone Road.
Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He explained that the
applicants were requesting a second 180 -day time extension from the date of
expiration, which was February 22, 2001. He explained that in a conversation with the
City Attorney, he was informed that Section 17.86.070(b) clearly stated that only one
time extension may be permitted for a 180 -day period Therefore, per the City
Attorney's direction the Commission may not grant an additional time extension He
explained that he had informed the applicant that if the time extension were to be
denied, the Planning Director may be able to re -issue the planning application providing
that there were no changes proposed in the plans, the project applications had not be
expired for more than one year, and that half the application fees are submitted as filing
fees. Therefore, staff recommended denial of the request for a second 180 -day
extension, thereby deeming Height Variation No 888 and Site Plan Review No. 8637
null and void.
Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to deny the applicant's request, seconded by
Commissioner Long. The application was denied, (7-0).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Variance No. 480: John Steiner (applicant), 30822 Rue de la Pierre.
Commissioner Cartwright noted that his residence was more than 300 feet, but less
than 2500 feet from the applicant's property However, he noted that Rue de la Pierre
was considerably lower than his street and he did not feel there was any conflict in
hearing the application.
Commissioner Long recused himself from hearing the application, as he had not had
the opportunity to visit the applicant's site.
Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining that the pool was
proposed to be placed on a slope of 37 percent, which is considered an extreme slope
He noted that an extreme slope was any slope of 35 percent or greater. He stated that
staff was required to make four findings in order to grant a Variance. He noted that staff
could make only two of the four findings for a Variance, and therefore recommended
denial of the Variance
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Page 2
Chairman Lyon stated that one plan submitted showed a grade of 34 percent while a
different plan submitted indicated a grade of 37 percent. He asked staff for clarification
Associate Planner Schonborn stated that staff had verified the slope to be 37 percent,
based on a topographical survey provided by the applicant
Chairman Lyon asked staff if a Variance would be required for a slope of 34 percent.
Associate Planner Schonborn explained that a slope of 35 percent or steeper is subject
to a Variance application.
Commissioner Mueller asked staff if they had considered what the original slope was at
the site before the lot was developed.
Associate Planner Schonborn answered that that was very difficult to determine,
however based on a site visit, he felt the slope was a manufactured slope that was
created with the development of the tract. He stated that he had no way to determine if
the original slope was less than 35 percent
Commissioner Mueller asked if staff had given any consideration to the noise the pool
equipment would create
Associate Planner Schonborn stated that the Development Code regulates the location
of pool equipment and the noise level that equipment can produce.
Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the deck at the neighbor's house had been
permitted through the city He felt the deck was on a slope of greater than 35 percent.
Associate Planner Schonborn did not know if the deck had been constructed with a
permit
Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.
John Steiner 4950 Verdugo Road, Los Angeles (applicant) stated that he was the
contractor for the project. He stated that he had contracted the services of a local
geologist to study the feasibility of placing the pool on the slope He noted that the
geologist had concluded that proposed project was considered feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint, and would not adversely affect the adjoining properties Mr
Steiner felt the project could be done and asked the Planning Commission to give him
the opportunity to do it.
Commissioner Vannorsdall asked for clarification on the dimensions shown on the
plans
Jim Weir (representing Anthony/Sylvan Pools) clarified the dimensions of the pool and
the setback from the street as well as the setback from the house
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Page 3
Michael Steiner 4059 Verdugo Road, Los Angeles, discussed the four findings required
to approve a variance application. He stated that he did not feel this was an unusual
piece of property. He also argued that a swimming pool should be considered when
discussing the preservation and enjoyment of a piece of property He noted that the
pool would be placed in fill material but would be constructed in such a way that it will
be a freestanding structure. He stated that the geology report included
recommendations on how that was to be accomplished
Hector Sartori 30822 Rue de la Pierre (owner) stated that would like a swimming pool at
his house not only to improve the lives of his family members, but also to improve the
value of his home and that of the neighbors around his home. He stated that he was
very aware of the added noise a pool might add to the neighborhood and would take
every step and precaution possible to make sure his neighbors were pleased
Commissioner Cartwright stated the findings for a Variance were very important, and
are rarely granted. He felt a Variance should only be granted when there are special
characteristics that make the property unique He noted that staff could not make this
finding in this case He asked Mr. Sartori why he felt this finding could be made or why
it should be waived.
Mr. Sartori responded that he had a piece of property that had a large slope in the
backyard This allowed for very little improvement in the backyard. He felt this was an
opportunity to improve the backyard in a way that could not be done otherwise.
Chairman Lyon asked Mr. Sartori when he moved into his home
Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Sartori if he had considered other properties with pools
before purchasing this property
Mr. Sartori answered that he had looked at many properties, but purchased this one
because of the view and the quiet neighborhood
Henry Liverpool 30828 Rue de la Pierre stated he was the immediate neighbor to the
Sartoris He felt the swimming pool would be an improvement to the neighborhood He
noted that most of the neighbors who had the same type of slope had ice plant or
weeds growing on the slope. He felt a pool was a good use for the area and thought
other neighbors may decide to build pools in the future.
Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if there was a copy of the geology report available
that he could review.
Mr. Steiner presented a geology report for Commissioner Vannorsdall to review
Commissioner Lyon closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Page 4
9 •
Commissioner Paulson asked if many of the properties on Rue de la Pierre had the
same slope of 35 percent or greater
Associate Planner Schonborn stated that many of the slopes were similar to the subject
property, however the only way to know the exact slope was to have each one
surveyed
Commissioner Paulson noted that even though the slope may exceed the City
requirement by only 2 percent, he felt that the Development Code was very specific on
the requirement.
Chairman Lyon did not feel it was within the discretion of the Planning Commission to
waive one of the findings of a Variance He noted that staff could not make two of the
required findings and he had not heard anything that would indicate any of the
Commissioners could make such findings
Vice Chairman Clark stated that the Planning Commission had in the past approved
Variances that the staff did not feel the required findings could be made He felt that 35
percent was a threshold, and the issue was that this slope was only 2 percent from this
threshold He stated he was sympathetic to the applicant's proposal and gave
considerable weight to the neighbor who supported the project.
Commissioner Vannorsdall noted in reading the geology report, that even though the
geologist felt the pool could be built, he felt that given the soils conditions at the site it
would be a high-risk project.
Commissioner Cartwright asked staff how many letters they had received regarding the
project.
Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff had received three letters regarding
the project.
Commissioner Paulson asked staff if there had ever been a Variance application for a
swimming pool in that tract.
Associate Planner Schonborn replied that there had not been a Variance application for
a pool in that tract.
Vice Chairman Clark asked if there had been similar circumstances, meaning pools built
on a slope of greater than 35 percent in neighborhoods which there were no other pools
on the slopes, in which the Variance had been applied for and approved
Associate Planner Schonborn stated that he would have to check the records, but
thought there were two Variances for pools on slopes that had been approved, however
he clarified that he had not performed site visits to verify this
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Page 5
0 •
Vice Chairman Clark wondered what the merits were for the approval of those pools
He felt this might provide the basis for consideration of this swimming pool He felt it
might be appropriate for the Planning Commission to continue the item to provide the
opportunity for staff to look at the records more thoroughly to provide any additional
supplemental information to the Commission in making this decision
Chairman Lyon felt that the past Planning Commissions must have had to make the
appropriate findings to grant a Variance for the swimming pools
Chairman Lyon asked staff when the survey of the applicant's lot was done
Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff had received the survey in November
2000
Commissioner Paulson moved to deny the Variance as recommended by staff,
seconded by Commissioner Cartwright.
Chairman Lyon agreed that the Variance should be denied, however encouraged the
applicant to have the slope re -surveyed to ascertain the true slope on the property
Vice Chairman Clark did not think he could support the motion since staff felt there were
other pools built under similar circumstances He felt more research was necessary
prior to making a decision
Commissioner Paulson repeated the motion to deny Variance No. 480 as
recommended by staff thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 20010-4. Approved,
(5-1) with Vice Chairman Clark dissenting.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
At 8 25 p m the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8 40 p m
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE REGARDING NON -AGENDA ITEMS
Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road asked the Planning Commission not to let Destination
Resorts build a golf course on City property
4. Indian Ridgecrest Gardens (Conditional Use Permit No. 210 et al) Draft
Supplement to FOR No. 27 Indian Ridgecrest Gardens L.P.
Chairman Lyon began by stating that all comments received before April 19, both verbal
and written, would be responded to in the Final EIR.
Senior Planner Pfost presented the staff report. He gave a brief history of the project.
He explained that the City had entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with the
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Page 6
•
developer and the City currently owns the property Mr Pfost explained the current
proposed project and noted that the project had been revised as recently as last week.
He stated that the purpose of this meeting was to take comments on the Draft
Supplemental EIR, even though the project may be revised in the future
Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the property was currently zoned Institutional and if
the property would have to be rezoned for this project.
Senior Planner Pfost stated that the property was zoned Institutional and Open Space
Hazard He explained that the proposed project was not a request to change the
institutional designation, but a request to change the location of the Open Space Hazard
line He further explained that an Institutional Zone allowed for the building of senior
housing
Peri Muretta, preparer of the Supplemental EIR, presented a brief history of the original
EIR and the supplements to that certified EIR. She explained that this supplemental
EIR looked at environmental issues particular to this project. Therefore, environmental
issues that were already included in the original EIR certified in 1989, that are not
significantly different, are not reanalyzed in this document. She explained that the
Notice of Preparation determined four environmental issue areas that needed to be
addressed in this supplement: grading and geology, transportation/circulation,
biological resources, and visual aesthetics Ms Muretta explained the issues
addressed in the supplemental EIR and the mitigation measures proposed
Chairman Lyon asked what the true legal requirement was that was imposed on the City
in terms of affordable housing units
Senior Planner Pfost answered that there were two areas to look at as required by the
State, the City's requirements under the Housing Element and requirements through the
Redevelopment Agency He explained the Housing Element and what it required He
noted that the Housing Element required 8 low-income houses and 5 very low-income
houses to be planned for in the next five years He also noted that if these units were
not constructed by 2005 the City would not be penalized and would only need to show
the reasons the units were not developed Mr Pfost also explained that every City
accrues money through its Redevelopment Agency that is set aside specifically for
affordable housing He explained that the City has reached a point that these funds
need to be spent or portions will be lost to the County
Chairman Lyon noted that 13 affordable housing units were proposed as part of this
project and asked about the affordable housing units proposed at Ocean Trails
Senior Planner Pfost replied that the Ocean Trails project was required to provide for 8
affordable housing units He stated that the City Council had directed this project to
provide 13 affordable housing units
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Page 7
0 •
Chairman Lyon asked if any other locations had been considered as alternatives for this
project.
Senior Planner Pfost explained how the City acquired this property and the different
options the City considered
Chairman Lyon asked why the City bought the property and if the City planned on
continuing to own the property and lease it to the developer or if the City planned to sell
the land back to the developer
Senior Planner Pfost answered that it was his understanding that the intent of the City
was to sell the property to the developer if and when the project is approved He also
stated that it was not the City's intent to manage the units, but to have someone else
manage the units to ensure the affordability continues
Commissioner Cartwright questioned the transportation/circulation study He noted the
letters received regarding the cumulative impact of the project on traffic He asked why
the traffic study did not include a cumulative study
Senior Planner Pfost stated that the traffic study had included a variety of projects that
had been approved, and pointed out a table in the Supplemental EIR listing all of the
developments included in the traffic study
Commissioner Cartwright asked about the status of the extension of the art center and
the development of the property directly adjacent to the subject property
Senior Planner Pfost stated that there had been no application for the expansion of the
art center Regarding the property adjacent to the subject property, Senior Planner Pfost
indicated that an application had been received but was deemed incomplete
approximately 12 months ago
Commissioner Paulson asked for a clarification of the Open Space Hazard Area on the
boundary adjustment.
Senior Planner Pfost explained the Open Space Hazard Area and referred the
Commission to a diagram in Volume 1 of the Supplemental EIR.
Commissioner Paulson requested this diagram be enlarged and displayed at the next
hearing regarding the project.
Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.
Charles Brumbaugh (applicant) reviewed the history of the project. He presented a
drawing of the proposed new design of the project. He stated the project was designed
to lessen any impact the project may have as one drives up Crenshaw Blvd He noted
this new design places the mass of the structures toward the back on the hillside which
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Page 8
will cause much less of a visual impact. Mr Brumbaugh described the different
components of the new project, including a library, office space, restrooms, and parking
He stated that there had been extensive geotechnical analysis of the site and he was
confident that the project site was a safe site to build on He reviewed traffic impacts
and pointed out that the Art Center had not submitted any application for expansion and
the project adjacent to his had been incomplete for the last year
Gene Kiyotoki (architect) reviewed the design of the buildings and other features
included with the project. He stated his hope and concern was that they had designed a
project that was compatible with the surrounding area
Greg Delgado 11 Lariat Lane, RHE (representing JCC Homes) stated that JCC Homes
had entered into a tentative agreement to build the project and was available to answer
any questions
Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr Delgado if he had ever built a project similar to this
one
Mr Delgado answered that JCC Homes had built a number of larger buildings, including
a 65 and an 89 -unit project, and felt the size of this project was in the scope of what
they do
Commissioner Long asked Mr Brumbaugh if this project will offer a shuttle bus service
Mr Brumbaugh answered that the project will provide a van service for the residents
He explained that the van had been budgeted to operate approximately 24 hours per
week.
Commissioner Long asked Mr Brumbaugh what percentage of the resident's
transportation needs would be met by the van service
Mr Brumbaugh stated that he could not answer that question, but realized that a large
number of tenants would not need the service at all
Commissioner Long asked what type of rent would be charged for the units
Mr Brumbaugh responded that the affordable rent on the one -bedroom units would be
approximately $375 per month and market rate for one bedroom was $800 to $1,000
Commissioner Paulson asked if there was an age requirement to be allowed to live in
the facility
Mr Brumbaugh answered that the age requirement was 55 or older
Jim Hathaway 28955 Crestridge Road discussed page 3 2, grading mitigation measures
1 — 4 and page 3 3, traffic mitigation measures 1 — 3 He did not think the EIR should
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Page 9
0 0
be approved until those items were completed, as their implementation would cause
other environmental impacts which need to be considered and included in the EIR He
asked in what ways impacts could be less than significant if the mitigation plans have
not been generated He discussed page 3 6. He felt the EIR should include a minimum
density alternative which would comply with the requirements stated in the staff report
on low cost housing. He noted the requirement was for 5 low cost housing units, yet
this project was proposing 13. He felt that on page 4.1, Table 4-1 was an exaggeration.
He felt the land use and planning should be addressed and the EIR should state how
this project is compatible with the General Plan. He felt the EIR should state in detail
how the project is compatible with the land use surrounding the site. He asked that the
EIR state in detail how the project is compatible with the General Plan in regards to
mass and density of 22 units per acre He asked the EIR show how the project will not
induce area growth. Mr Hathaway asked that the EIR should be updated to reflect the
current state of problems with the local electric power supply, and the EIR should
address what mitigation affects be undertaken prior to approval. He noted the final
sentence in the EIR under Grading and Geology He strongly disagreed that cumulative
impacts from the proposed project would not be significant He noted that the peak
hours were not defined in the EIR. He stated development of the site would result in the
loss of the habitat that will further contribute to the loss of open space habitat in the
region. He felt the EIR Table 5-1 should be modified to state that the grading/geology,
transportation/circulation, and biological resources impacts could all be much less if a
properly designed institutional use, such as a museum or park, were used as the no
project alternative.
Bill Brandlin 5201 Middlecrest Road began by pointing out that the EIR stated the
closest home to the development was approximately 500 feet away. He disagreed,
saying the closest home was on the east side of Crenshaw Blvd, less than 200 feet
away He noted a statement in the EIR saying there was no proposed development
adjacent to this project He felt this was misrepresented and noted that there was an
application to develop the project currently at the City. He felt this was significant in that
the traffic density would be significantly higher. Mr. Brandlin also felt that there were no
affordable housing units necessary to be built, as they had until 2005 to build the units
and even then the City would not have to build them. He noted there were other options
available. He also noted that, with Ocean Trails building 8 affordable housing units,
only 5 should have to be built at this project
Ross Anderson 28870 Crestridge Road stated he was concerned with a number of
issues, but would confine his comments to geology. He noted that the Hilltop
Association, of which he is a member, has retained legal council and has also retained
an environmental firm to study some of the technical issues contained in the EIR. He
stated that they would submit more precise and accurate observations in the coming
weeks. He felt exceptions were being made to the General Plan in allowing a protect
this size to be located on this piece of property. He noted the presence of a passive
landslide a few hundred feet away He felt the Indian Peak slide, coupled with the fact
that this project hovers above a pre-school, that there is a passive landslide to the west
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Page 10
0 0
of the project, and the extreme slopes on the property may not be dangerous
individually, but he felt the cumulative risk was quite large from a geological viewpoint.
Leonard Freeland 28809 Crestridge Road pointed out that at an earlier discussion with
the developer, the developer had mentioned that this project was not economically
feasible He felt this was very important in view of the fact that the developer has stated
in the past he will sell this project in a few years Mr Freeland stated that all of the
amenities discussed are nice but do not pertain to the few units that are going to be the
low income units. He did not feel that much of the original EIR written in 1988 was
pertinent today. He stated that he had been in the financial area of projects for many
years and these types of projects, where there is low income housing, were a product
for Wall Street to sell on a tax loss basis
Marlys Lindenmuth 6104 Scotmist Drive stated she liked the area in its natural state.
She felt there was enough traffic along Crenshaw Boulevard. She stated that most
people lived up here for the beautiful open spaces. She felt the City should let the
County have any excess money from the City's Redevelopment Agency
Monica Mortensen 5419 Meadowcrest Lane explained that a law had recently passed in
the State of California that did not allow living designation to seniors only. She stated
that once seniors were living in the homes they could then have their children,
grandchildren, or whomever live with them She felt this greatly affected the density of
the area.
Yola Gerst 28829 Crestridge Road wondered why no other property had been
considered for this project She noted that this was a very dangerous and busy
intersection presently and the project would only make the problem worse.
Glenn Arbuthnot 28856 Crestridge Road felt the EIR was based on a lot of predictions
and assumptions and studies done in 1988 He felt decisions should be based on
current facts. He discussed the traffic study done two years ago in 1999. He noted that
the study was done in the middle of the summer when traffic is usually low. He also felt
the land was going to slide and that there was technology available to measure whether
the land has moved since the last time it was tested
Chuck Taylor 5441 Middlecrest Road stated that his house was close to 100 feet from
the proposed project. He did not want this type of project in his backyard. He stated
that in the traffic study, the EIR did not include the reopening of Ridgecrest School He
noted that the school reopening has greatly impacted the traffic in the area. Mr Taylor
did not understand why the City Council had entered into an exclusive negotiating
agreement with a developer of this inappropriate project. He stated that when entering
Rancho Palos Verdes the first thing one would see was this high density, inappropriate
project
Linda Puentes 5575 Mistridge Drive stated this project would be directly behind her
property and she would see it every day. She was concerned that there had been no
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Page 11
flags on the site showing the proposed project. She too was very concerned with the
added traffic from this project. She stated that she had moved to her home specifically
for the open space and the quality of life
Maxine Trevethen 5649 Mistridge Drive did not think the proposed project should be
approved and it did not meet the needs of the seniors on the Peninsula She stated that
as a senior, she would not be interested in living in a 600 to 700 square foot cubicle.
She too was very concerned with the traffic in the area. She did not think the traffic
study took into consideration all of the other projects, both pending and approved, along
Crestridge Road. She felt a wiser course of action would be to subsidize the rent of
qualified people in existing apartments.
Ray Math rys 5738 Whitecliff Drive stated he had written a letter to the Planning
Department concerning the proposed project, but he would discuss only the issue of
traffic considerations at this time. He questioned whether the traffic survey included
service vehicles and visitors to the site. He was also concerned the close proximity of
the proposed driveways to Crenshaw Boulevard was bound to create conflict with the
traffic on Crestridge Road. Mr. Mathys estimated there were 12,000 to 15,000 vehicles
passing through the intersection of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Blvd each day He
felt the noise and exhaust levels created by vehicles accelerating to climb the hill could
be intolerable to anyone living in the project
Robin Rahn 28846 Crestridge Road stated that Planning Commission had just denied a
property owner the right to build a swimming pool on a slope of 37 percent, yet felt
many of the slopes surrounding this project were far greater than 37 percent. He did
not know how the Planning Commission could then support this project if the slopes
were indeed greater than 35 percent. Mr. Rahn said that the main reason he was
objecting to the project was the traffic and safety issues He explained that his son and
many other children cross the street twice a day to and from school. He asked the
Planning Commission to look at the traffic going up and down the street today during
peak hours, which he considered from 7 a.m. and 8:30 a.m.
Dale Hanks 5225 Middlecrest Road stated his concern was for the safety of the
residents of the project. He felt that residents trying to make a left turn from the blind
corner onto Crestridge Road will be putting themselves at a great risk. He felt it was
essential that this project be designed in such a way so that left turns were prohibited
from the project
Peter Hazelrigg 5208 Middlecrest Road objected to the size of the project and felt the
original EIR should be looked at and updated to fit the current project. He objected to
the added traffic and the dangerous intersections that are in the area. He wondered
why a senior center could not be built on this site. He felt the City could give the land to
the seniors to build a senior center, there could be overflow parking for the art center,
and there would still be open or park space.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Page 12
Luella Wike 29172 4ceanridge Drive asked if the developer had done a market survey
to determine the need for senior housing for Rancho Palos Verdes, and if the City
Council had intended this project to be used for Rancho Palos Verdes residents or for
any senior citizen from off the hill. She wondered if the developer was expecting the
two bedroom units to have two occupants or three or four people per unit. She was
very concerned that there was not adequate parking for the number of residents Ms
Wike asked who would manage the project after it was built and if the City was planning
to oversee the affordable housing units. She discussed her concerns with geology,
especially where there is an encroachment into the open space hazard area She felt if
the land was disturbed by grading there was a potential for a landslide. She stated that
she did not want horse trails to be included with this project She was very concerned
about the traffic and the cumulative affect of all of the projects along Crestridge Road
She asked where the fire lanes were to be located. Finally, she asked if the 13 low cost
units would be compatible with those at full price.
Barbara Arbuthnot 28856 Crestridge Road objected to the impacts of the project, both
visual and aesthetic. She felt the location and configuration of the building made it
appear to be a three story structure from both Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Blvd.
She objected to the new design in that there were no elevation sketches. She felt the
new design was impossible for anyone to truly evaluate in terms of aesthetics. She too
was concerned with the cumulative effect on traffic in the area.
Chairman Lyon thanked the audience for their comments and stated that their
comments and concerns would be addressed in the Final EIR.
Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.
NEW BUSINESS
5. Indian Ridgecrest Gardens Draft Planning Commission Processing
Schedule: Indian Ridgecrest Gardens
6. Long Point Resort — Revised Draft Planning Commission Processing
Schedule.
Chairman Lyon felt it would be best to discuss both items together as the schedules
were interdependent
Staff distributed to the Commission a consolidated schedule.
Chairman Lyon discussed the schedule and noted there were a total of 6 meetings
tentatively scheduled for Long Point and a total of 4 meetings tentatively scheduled for
the senior housing project. He stated that this schedule was prepared knowing that
some Commissioners could not attend all of the scheduled meetings.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Page 13
The Commission discussed different dates and different options that could be used for
the meetings. The Commission agreed that the Saturday meetings would be best held
at 1:00 p m and not go beyond 4.30 p m They also discovered that they did not have a
quorum for the Saturday, May 12 meeting and they deleted it from the schedule and
agreed to reschedule that meeting at a later time if deemed necessary
Commissioner Long wanted to make a comment regarding the Long Point project He
noted that he would be interested in knowing whether an alternative had been
considered that involved development on the site coupled with a golf course outside of
the Long Point property on other property owned by the developer, such as property in
the moratorium area.
Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.
Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road stated that Mr. Hon had previously owned the Long
Point property and had considered putting a golf course on the Filliorum property but
concluded that it would require too much grading
Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.
There being no objection, Chairman Lyon adjourned the meeting at 11:17 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2001
Page 14