Loading...
PC MINS 19910813 411 ?/ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 13 , 1991 The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Chairman Von Hagen at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Commissioners Brooks, Hotchkiss, Katherman, McNulty, Chairman Von Hagen ABSENT None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Assistant City Attorney Michael Colantuono, Contract Planner Nancy Hutar, and Assistant Planners Fabio de Freitas, Kim Klopfenstein and Mike Patterson. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Von Hagen acknowledged receipt of numerous letters dealing with the Development Code and the Hon-Zuckerman public hearing. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of July 9, 1991. B. Minutes of July 23 , 1991. C. GRADING NO. 1562 ; Charles Moine, 30 Stallion. Requested Action: Approval of a 7 .5' upslope retaining wall in an extreme slope area for support of a 7' unpermitted cut. Recommendation: Approve with conditions. C. GRADING NO. 1567; Ann McKay, 4178 Miraleste Drive. Requested Action: Allow the construction of retaining walls at the toe of the extreme slopes on the south side of the property. Recommendation: Approve the request with conditions. Replying to a question from Commissioner Hotchkiss, Director Benard stated that both grading applications (items C and D) require geological review prior to issuance of building permits. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved approval of the Consent Calendar, Commissioner McNulty seconded and the motion passed without objection. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 13, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS Director Benard introduced Assistant City Attorney Michael Colantuono who was present to answer questions regarding the Development Code. Chairman Von Hagen stated that a subcommittee consisting of himself, Commissioner Hotchkiss, and Councilmen Hughes and McTaggart, held seven public hearing noticed workshops on the Development Code revisions. Commenting on a letter from Mr. John Sharkey complaining of inadequate public notice, Director Benard confirmed that notices of all Council and Commission subcommittee meetings are put on the TV reader board as a courtesy to the public, and all required newspaper noticing has been done. A. DEVELOPMENT CODE Contract Planner Nancy Hutar REVISIONS. Consideration presented the staff report of proposed revisions to describing the proposed the Development Code Development Code revisions, (Title 17 of the RPV requesting direction from the Municipal Code). Planning Commission for preparation of a resolution recommending city Council adoption of appropriate ordinances. Draft copies of the proposed revisions were made available for public review. Commissioner Brooks asked how the workshops were noticed and how many attended. Ms. Hutar said the State requires that a notice be posted in a public place 72 hours prior to the meeting; the City posted notices in three public places (Hesse Park, City Hall and Ladera Linda Park). There is no requirement for newspaper notice. No members of the public attended the workshops. Commissioner McNulty asked whether appeals to the Planning Commission were to be heard at regular meetings. Attorney Colantuono replied that public hearings must be held but the language was left nonspecific to allow some flexibility. Chairman Von Hagen testified for the subcommittee that there were no substantive changes in policy, but an attempt was made to bring the language of the Code into conformance with State law and the current ordinances and to simplify the layout. Chairman Von Hagen declared the public hearing open. Tim Burrell, 57 Marguerite Drive, appeared as a homeowner to present several suggestions: (1) Put an index in the back of the Code. (2) Freedom of individual expression should be allowed so 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 13, 1991 residents may build or remodel in unique and interesting designs rather than being restricted to neighborhood compatibility. (3) Recent changes by the City Council pertaining to uses permitted in the 251 Coastal Structure Setback Zone should be included in Section 17.72.040. (4) Regulated irrigation should be added as a permitted use in Section 17.72.060. (5) Section 17.74.060 should be changed so that the time limits on RPD's begin and extend on recording of the final tract map for that proposal. (6) Some flexibility in grading should be permitted in cases where there is no effect on the neighborhood (e.g., basements). (7) Limiting fill to 51 is too restrictive in many cases. (8) More flexibility is needed for remedial grading. (9) More quality housing with private outdoor living space is needed for future residents rather than more RPD projects. Mr. Burrell said his HOA is planning to study the revisions and come back with more recommendations. Commissioner Katherman asked him to put his remarks in writing. John Sharkey, 30320 Avenida de Calma, stated it took two trips to City Hall to get a copy of the Development Code revisions and asserted the public notice was inadequate. He said he would prepare written comments for the next commission meeting. Andrew Sargent, 1 Peppertree Drive, asked that the hearing be continued to the next meeting to allow citizens to review it. Mr. Benard pointed out that this meeting is for the purpose of initiating discussion and will move forward to another meeting. Commissioner Brooks referred to the Amended Development Chart (Attachment 3 to the Staff Report) and requested that information be obtained from cities similar to RPV such as Palo Alto or Bradbury concerning their setback standards. She suggested consideration of changing RS -1 sideyard setbacks from 251 to 401. Commissioner Katherman mentioned a need for terms used in the Code (and also in Proposition M) to be defined and interpreted more consistently. Commissioner McNulty asked the status of Proposition M and Attorney Colantuono advised that it is in litigation. He said that the City Council, with the advice of the Planning Commission, has the authority to make changes to Prop M but any such changes will require findings in the ordinance indicating that they are consistent with the intent and purpose of Prop M. He noted that if Prop M should be struck down, all references to it would need to be extracted from the Code. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 13, 1991 Commissioner McNulty moved to continue the public hearing on the Development Code revisions to August 27, Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded and the motion passed without objection. Chairman Von Hagen encouraged residents to provide their testimony in writing as soon as possible so it can be made part of the public record. RECESS AND RECONVENE - A 10 -minute break was taken at 7:55 p.m. B. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT Director Benard acknowledged MAP NOS. 50666 AND 50667, the receipt of numerous TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NOS. communications on this matter. 23004 AND 29070, CUP NOS. Those received with sufficient 162 AND 163, GRADING copies were distributed to PERMIT NO. 1541, AND Commissioners; the remainder COASTAL PERMIT NO. 103; will be copied and distributed PVLHC & Zuckerman, later. Mr. Benard presented Subregion 7 & 8/PVDS. the Staff Report incorporating analysis of recent site layout changes and a photographic view analysis. A list of outstanding issue items was also distributed to the Planning Commission. It was noted that this is the second public hearing on the project application, in addition to an earlier public hearing on the draft EIR. In response to comments received, lot sizes have been increased and deed restrictions on sloping areas will increase the common area open space. Other changes in circulation, trails, grading and view impacts were described. Commissioner Hotchkiss asked about the coastal bluff road, and Mr. Benard said the City's plans call specifically for such a road in Subregions 1 and 7. It need not be a through road but is to differentiate between residential development and open space uses seaward. No private residential structures are allowed seaward of the coastal bluff road. Chairman Von Hagen felt the quality of the golf course seemed to be deteriorating from what it could be. Mr. Benard said he has met with a number of golf design firms and it is felt that this is a quality facility and represents an amenity to the City. The design is still being refined by the developer's golf course consultant. If the operator should wish in the future to hold golf tournaments, City approval would be necessary and public hearings would be required. Commissioner Brooks raised concerns about the number of trails in the golf course area, the amount of grading, and what would be a reasonable number of homes that could be built if the site were 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 13, 1991 developed all residential, without a golf course. Mr. Benard explained that while geotechnical studies are still ongoing, the City will not allow cut and fill operations in areas that are unstable. The two primary cut areas are for needed improvements to PV Drive South, and in Residential Area 1 in order to answer the view concerns of Seaview residents. Regarding all - residential development, Mr. Benard stated that an earlier estimate of 190 homes was on the high side but an exact number has not yet been calculated. That information will be brought back at the next meeting. Chairman Von Hagen declared the public hearing open. Michael Mohler, 25200 La Paz, Laguna Hills (representing the applicant), commented on the staff presentation: A separate bluff road not loading into the homes would reduce conflicts between residents and those using the trails; the golf course management could provide security at night. Regarding Paseo Del Mar, he is opposed to a frontage road on top of a large paved road; safety would be enhanced by paving changes or stops to slow the traffic down. If the developer is to lower Residential Area 1, rather than exporting the dirt they would like to use it in Residential Area 2; this would affect the view only from Paseo Del Mar and the coastal bluff road is intended to obviate this view obstruction. The length of the trails is almost double what was originally called for. They concur that dropping Lot 35 is probably appropriate but object to dropping Lots 53 and 54. Mr. Mohler pointed out that 10,000 sq.ft. of the golf clubhouse is underground cart storage so the active area is 22,000 sq.ft. He stated it was never their intention to host golf tournaments and they understand a special City permit through the public hearing process would be required. Documentation of the developer's meetings and negotiations with local homeowners associations was distributed and Mr. Mohler said they have committed to several changes requested by residents and there may be additional ones in the next two weeks. Concerns of homeowners regarding geology, grading, view obstruction, traffic, water usage, habitat destruction and incongruent architecture have been addressed. He pointed out that the final design guidelines will also go through the public hearing process. Mr. Mohler stated the developer will seek to build no more than 113 units on the property and is willing to restrict the golf course area from further development so that if it is not built or goes out of business the area will revert to open space. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 13, 1991 Stating the plan has gone through an evolution process and become a better plan, he submitted 300 support cards from residents and said they will continue to work with the community in the next few weeks. James O'Malley, 25200 La Paz, Laguna Hills, representing PVLHC, explained their process of visual analysis using computer-aided design analysis. He presented photographs showing the current viewpoints and the effects of the new development. Lee Byrd, 3663 Vigilance Drive, spoke for the Ladera Linda HOA. Their biggest concern is the geological stability of the land and he asked that the geologist come to a meeting to interpret the report for residents. He also wanted to see the CC&R's in writing and mentioned concerns about impact of the development on the recreational facilities of Ladera Linda. Preston Dent, 32551 Seacliff Drive, represented the Seacliff Hills HOA and said they would like to work with the developers on their concerns regarding views, geology, and the total number of homes being constructed. Lawrence Burke, 3437 Palo Vista, also representing Seacliff Hills HOA, referred to his letter of June 16 concerning footprint and lot sizes and asked about the roadway. Director Benard clarified that there would be improvements to PVDS but no realignment in the South Shores Slide area. Bob Moore, 3200 La Rotonda Drive, #212, speaking for the Board of Directors of Ocean Terrace, said the residents have met with the developer and will meet again in the next two weeks. After that meeting a poll of their homeowners will be taken and the results will be presented to the developer. Chip Zelt, 4100 Sea Horse Lane, said he was for the project except for the road cutting down by the Portuguese Bend Club. He submitted a map of how he would like the road realigned. Lynn Robey, 4031 PV Drive South, mentioned concerns regarding geology, indemnification, traffic, lot coverage and open space. Doug Foster, 4246 Admirable Drive, stated the area between Portuguese Bend and Halfway Point has a unique assemblage of marine life. He asked if a species list had been compiled, if studies had been done on the effects of human foot traffic and drainage on the area, and if the City has ever pursued Marine Life Preserve status for the area. 11 M PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 13, 1991 John Beringer, 3412 Seaglen Drive, spoke as President of the RPV Council of HOA's. He referred to submitted correspondence concerning Shoreline Park, the school district property, geologic stability, water usage and indemnification. He suggested the applicant be required to post an insurance policy, bond or cash deposit to indemnify the City and homeowners for damages suffered as a result of land movement for a period of 10 years after project completion. Angelika Brinkmann-Buri, 1354 Stonewood Court, San Pedro, stated for the California Native Plant Society that not all their concerns have been met; i.e., the new plan has one golf hole and two vista points in the bluff. She cited the need to protect rare plants and sensitive habitats, said the Native Plant Society opposes the golf course, and called on the City to fulfill the requirements of CEQA. Andrew Sargent, 1 Peppertree Drive, maintained the golf course is illegal and submitted a list of questions for the Planning Commission to answer in writing and at a public hearing. Sally Reiter, 4102 Dauntless Drive, asserted the developer and �A the City should indemnify*residents against any damages from the project and expressed concerns regarding water, ground stability, wildlife, and usable trails. John Sharkey, 30320 Avenida de Calma, submitted written testimony asserting that the Staff Report is written from the developer's viewpoint and disagreed that the RPD criteria should pertain only to the residential portion of the application. He pointed out that the developer mailed out 5,000 cards requesting approval of the project and received only 300 in favor of it. RECESS AND RECONVENE - A 15 -minute recess was taken at 10:00 p.m. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated the project does respond to the needs of coastal residents and contended a course is not open space. She disagreed that a CUP could given to the applicant for a golf course under the terms Coastal Specific Plan and the General Plan. She is also concerned for preservation of the canyons and topography, preservation of view corridors. Sunshine, 6 bluff road and street residential not golf be of the and Limetree Lane, expressed her belief that the coastal concept does not comply with regulations, the trails layout should be revised, covenant restrictions on lots should not be counted as RPD open space, and 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 13, 1991 suggested that a parkway is needed along PV Drive South. She requested that the applicant provide comments on the proposals submitted in her written testimony. Raymond Green, 3200 La Rotonda Drive, #406, submitted a written statement of technical comments and questions. He supported the right of a landowner to develop his property for profit as long as he complies with the rules and restrictions imposed upon other landowners, but felt in this case extra profits were being taken through development of a golf course and high density residences at the expense of the neighbors. He asked that the applicant explain what benefits he is offering to the residents and the City. Uday Patil, 4011 PV Drive South, presented his review of the developer's geotechnical reports and expressed concerns regarding inadequate data. He feels more tests are needed and the results should be thoroughly studied before going forward with planning. He mentioned problems with control of surface and subsurface water, erosion of the bluffs through wave action, and overall shoreline stability. Mary Casdburi, 3941 PV Drive South, asked that the City geologist review all geotechnical reports and make his findings public, and would like all geotechnical engineering data also reviewed by an independent expert, preferably a leading researcher in a university. she is concerned about rare plants and animals in the bluffs and said a large buffer zone is needed. Sharon Solari, 4145 PV Drive South, said they needed time to evaluate documents before meeting with the developer. She is concerned about indemnity and said the developer should be required to post insurance, cash or bond to indemnify residents. Chairman Von Hagen clarified that the developer is required to post a bond to cover public improvement aspects of the project. Vincent Yen, 3931 PV Drive South, expressed concerns similar to Andrew Sargent's. He said he would make further comments after reviewing the Staff Report. Richard Casaburi, 3941 PV Drive South, addressed the problem of view preservation. He said the Coastal Development Design Guidelines adopted by the City Council on April 21, 1981 require adequate greenbelts and view protection and urged the Planning Commission to uphold these requirements. Chris Stavros, 28612 Stokowski Drive, stated he is an environmental engineer and this plan is a very poor environmental 8 0- 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 13, 1991 design. He said we don't need a golf course and appealed to the Planning commission to preserve what open space is left in Palos Verdes. Alfred Sattler, 2235 W. 25th Street, #123, San Pedro, lives next to Shoreline Park and wants the open space, tide pools and wildlife to be maintained in their natural state. He mentioned the adverse impact of public access on tide pools. Jerald Simon, 4272 Stalwart Drive, said he preferred open space to a golf course and had safety concerns for trails going across the golf course, use of water, traffic. He would like the homes to be built on much larger lots. Anthony Spignese, 4125 PV Drive South, agreed with the previous speakers and asked who would be responsible if a landslide occurs after completion of the project. He felt that the Planning Commission should be held responsible for any damages. Commissioner Brooks moved the public hearing be continued to August 27, Commissioner McNulty seconded and the motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Katherman asked if an approved geotechnical report would be available at the August 27 meeting and Director Benard said he could not guarantee that but it would be available if it is finished. Commissioner Katherman said it was important to know which areas are buildable before proceeding, and suggested remanding the matter to the City Council. The suggestion was discussed but not accepted by Commissioners. Chairman Von Hagen stated that geology seems to be the overriding consideration of residents. He advised that Perry Ehlig, the City consultant, is one of the leaders in the study of landslides, and has a reputation for being conservative. He analyzes the studies done by the developer's geologist and orders additional borings if he feels they are required. The City will not issue a building permit if the geology is not sound. Concerning indemnity, the Chairman said the City does not indemnify residents against building projects. If damages occur, the issue is litigated in the courts. He repeated that bonding from the developer is required, not indemnification. Chairman Von Hagen said the City geologist has stated that a properly designed golf course is good because it controls runoff and the landscaping enhances stability of the land. Conditions of development will be discussed at future meetings. Regarding recreational facilities, the Quimby Act requires developers to 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 13, 1991 provide for onsite and offsite facilities adequate for the residents. Commissioner Brooks asked the difference between view corridors and view points or vistas. Director Benard explained that view corridors and vistas have to be identified statically by photos. Staff has taken photos of all views and vistas identified and Mr. Benard said more would be taken if needed. Regarding the RPD designation, Mr. Benard said the City feels it is consistent with the Code. The number of homes that could be built is somewhere in the 160-170 range and he will have more specific figures at the next meeting. Commissioner Brooks expressed her feeling that the City is rushing through the project and the residents need more time to study the issues. Commissioner McNulty pointed out that the property in Palos Verdes is owned by individuals and the City's only control over it is to try to get the best development possible and not to pass anything that is not acceptable geologically. Director Benard added that state laws control the processing of development applications and this project must be granted those rights of due process or the City will be in jeopardy of litigation. Commissioner Hotchkiss pointed out that open space is not available for the City to claim, and there are restrictions on working with other people's private property. RECESS AND RECONVENE - A 5 -minute break was taken at 11:35 p.m. C. MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT Assistant Planner Kim NO. 415 - APPEAL; Mr. and Klopfenstein presented the Mrs. Sam Houston, 30412 Staff Report regarding the Rhone Road. applicant's request to approve the appeal, thereby allowing a 6% reduction in open space. Staff's recommendation is to deny the appeal, thereby sustaining staff's partial approval of the request. The existing open space before improvements is 1.8% less than the required 60% and staff considers the driveway coverage excessive at 36% A possible plan was discussed to offset some of the additions by cutting out a portion of the driveway and converting the area to landscaping. The public hearing was opened. Sam Houston, 3042 Rhone Drive, contended that the driveway is as long as it needs to be to go from the street to his house plus an 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 13, 1991 area necessary to turn his car around. The driveway is too steep for safe backing down. Rich Telford, 1112 Ocean Drive, Manhattan Beach, Architect, submitted photographs and maintained any reduction would be unrealistic and would constitute a hardship for the family and their guests. None of the neighbors have objected to the proposal. He suggested one board could be removed from the trellis to cut down the coverage. Mr. Benard stated that if the trellises in the front and rear were made 900 light and air they wouldn't be counted as lot coverage, and with the additions the structure would be only 250 feet (or 2%) over the required 60%. Mr. Houston said that would be more acceptable than cutting out any of the driveway. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved to approve Staff Alternative No. 2 granting the appeal as requested, because of the slope of the driveway and because the differential between the pad elevation and street elevation necessitates a large driveway area. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McNulty and passed 5-0. D. VARIANCE NOS. 303 AND Reading of the Staff Report 304; 30524 Via La Cresta was waived regarding the and 30604 Via La Cresta. applicant's request to allow two walls located within the intersection visibility triangle to exceed 30" in height. Assistant Planner de Freitas pointed out an error in the Staff Report under Site and Project Description: the middle 13 foot portion of the walls will have a maximum height of 51011, not 50". The public hearing was opened. As no one spoke on this item, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNulty moved to approve Staff Alternative No. 1 to approve Variance Nos. 303 and 304 as submitted, Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded and the motion passed 5-0. CONTINUED BUSINESS - None. NEW BUSINESS - None. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 13, 1991 QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE - None. REPORTS A. STAFF Director Benard announced that the City Council would like a tour of Subregion 7 (probably between August 21st and 23rd) and it would be a good opportunity for Planning Commissioners to also look at the property from the site. The applicant will stake out the property to identify the various areas. commissioner Brooks and Chairman Von Hagen indicated their availability on the 22nd and 23rd; the other Commissioners were unavailable during that period. B. COMMISSION Chairman Von Hagen reported that the City Council rejected the Planning Commission recommendation on Kajima and continued the application. Chairman Von Hagen requested that Perry Ehlig or someone from his office be present at the next public hearing on the Hon - Zuckerman application to explain to the public the safeguards the City follows and why indemnification is not necessary. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 p.m. to August 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. 12