Loading...
PC MINS 19910212 PC MINS 19910212 Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 1991 PAGE 1 is MISSING ADDENDUM TO FEBRUARY 12, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Chairman Von Hagen made the following addition to his statements regarding the Kajima Project on Page 5, Paragraph #2 lin bold face type): * That the lots backing up directly to Crest Road would be a problem with their backyard fences, even with the grade differential, creating a privacy issue similar to that in Island View, whereby residents with rear yards abutting the major thoroughfare tended to put up solid fences inside the 90% light -and -air tract fences. PLANNING COMMISSION TING February 12, 1991 i The public hearing was then continued indefinitely with no objection. (Note: Public Hearing Item "B", the Kajima project, had been noticed to start at 7:30pm, so the following item was heard out of order) NEW BUSINESS A. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT The staff report was waived. NO. 20 Commissioner McNulty moved, Crest Rd. at San Pedro seconded by Commissioner Hill Kathermman and passed without objection, to adopt the staff recommendation to permit 5 ft. high wrought iron fences in the public right-of-way on the west side of Crest Road, subject to conditions of approval. Director Benard also noted that no protest against the project had been received. RECESS AND RECONVENE A 25 -minute break was called at 7:05pm. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. Associate Planner Terry 46651, ENVIRONMENTAL Silverman presented the staff IMPACT REPORT report regarding the Kajima, Crest/Highridge applicant's request to certify the EIR for a 76 -unit Residential Planned Development on 32 acres of a 59 -acre parcel, with the remaining undeveloped portion designated for three common open space areas and public trails. Staff's recommendation is to open the public hearing and receive comments on the Draft EIR. Commissioner Katherman asked why the EIR consultant had been retained by the applicant rather than the City, and Director Benard replied that the staff had reviewed the document and felt it was adequate for public review, but that the City would select a consultant to take the EIR to the final stage. Mary Nastronero, 3420 Ocean Park, Santa Monica, representing the applicant, explained the project would preserve the area landform, and also that the developer would control, but not alter the course of, the natural drainage flow, by reducing peak flow levels. In response to a query from Commissioner Hotchkiss, Ms. Nastronero stated there had been 3-5 geological borings performed on the site, and that more would be done to further investigate the area. Eugenie Bond, 6023 Ocean Terrace, spoke in opposition to the proposed project because of potential traffic problems, and asked why a signal at the Crest/Highridge intersection had not been investigated in the EIR. Chairman Von Hagen noted Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION TING February 12, 1991 that the intersection had been studied extensively, and that as yet had not been found to warrant a signal, but that perhaps this project if approved would change that situation. Barbara Marbell, 5863 Ocean Terrace, also objected to the project because of potential traffic problems, especially with regard to the proposed project entrance on Highridge, which Ms. Marbell stated would be dangerous to neighborhood children. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine, also spoke against the project, stating she felt the geology and hydrology in the EIR was inadequately addressed. Don Alexander, 49 Country Meadow Road, president of The Ranch Homeowners Association, objected to the project, citing loss of views and the safety of the Country Meadow/Crest intersection, and stated he felt the density of the project was too high. Diane Alexander, 49 Country Meadow Road, expressed her opposition to the project, stating that the EIR density figures needed to be re-examined for accuracy, and that the view analysis was incorrect due to poor quality photos that did not accurately represent the potential view impairment. Ms. Alexander also pointed out that there were many more two-story houses in the proposed project than in The Ranch. Leon Ackoplantz, 5880 Crest Road, also objected to the project because of increased traffic onto Hi.ghridge. Tom Alley, 6304 Sattes Drive, also opposed the project because of high density of homes. Dr. Robert Faries, 58 Misty Acres Road, echoed the density concerns of Mr. Alley, stating that the height of the homes would adversely impact his view, and that he would seek his own legal relief if Kajima was allowed to build the project as proposed. -.Barbara Dye, 7035 Hartcrest, representing the Trails Committee, outlined the results of their meeting regarding the project, stating that they felt the recreational uses of the area would be affected, and that mitigation measures to bring the trails up to standard were not sufficient. Ms. Dye also expressed their concerns with the Crest Road crossing, proposing a possible tunnel easement or connector with RHE trails. She also made specific expansion suggestions on certain trails and asked that the Kajima Trail be made equestrian, with better residential access to all trails from the project. Ms. Dye also asked that the trail along Crest Road be bench -cut. Sunshine, 6 Limetree, suggested that the catch basin access Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION TING 10 February 12, 1991 road be coordinated with the nearby trail to avoid duplication and impact on area vegetation, and that the trail crossing the culvert was negatively affected which needed to be addressed. Steve Gerhardt, BIR consultant, noted that the density figures had been compiled through a review of the Tentative Tract Maps and City information. Mary Nastronero then responded to the Commissioners inquiries regarding the double -frontage lots, stating that they had originally backed up against Crest, but had been altered to answer view corridor concerns. She also stated she had been at the Traffic Committee meeting, where those Commissioners had recommended that the crossing and light be at Highridge, and that there not be two entrances on Crest, since they would be too close together, but one entrance on Crest and one on Highridge was preferred. Ms. Nastronero also expressed her objection to benching the Crest Road trail, stating that it would be inappropriate to bring the trail down into the subdivision. Commissioner Katherman asked why the parkway was over the utilities, and Ms. Nastronero replied that the Department of Public Works had requested this configuration. The public hearing was closed, and Director Benard noted that the next fully -noticed meeting for the Conditional Use Permit would address all aspects of the development. Commissioner McNulty expressed the following concerns: * That the Crest Road entrance was a traffic hazard and should be addressed by the Traffic Committee; * Why the west end of Sattes had to be a cul-de-sac; * That a more detailed explanation of the water detention basin, including the effect of a 100 -year storm be addressed, but that the 80% drainage reduction was laudable; * That the view corridors should be more detinea and that the developer should make more effort to limit any view impairment along Crest. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated his concerns as follows: * That the homeowners of the few one-story homes protecting the view corridors would want to have two-story homes also, and what measures could be taken to make sure this wouldn't happen; * Why the Sattes cul-de-sac has no turnaround capability and should just be a through street; * If there was a potential of percolation from the retention basin, and that perhaps there should be groundwater monitoring wells. Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION TING February 12, 1991 • Commissioner Katherman expressed the following concerns: * That canyon borings need to be done soon before preparation of the Final EIR so that information would be available prior to taking action on the project. * That the impacts on air quality should not be an issue with only 76 homes in question; * That drought -tolerant plantings should be mandatory; * That the developer look into the possibility of recycling the detention basin water; * If there is any way to put specific restrictions on each lot; * That a light at Highridge is necessary for safety; * That the feasibility of a tunnel crossing be looked into; * That there be a time limit on the EIR. Chairman Von Hagen stated he agreed with the comments of the other Commissioners, and added the following points: * That getting signalization at Highridge would be easier as area density builds, especially if the Northrop area is also developed, and that the Traffic Committee should take another look at this issue with these points in mind, especially with regards to the entrances from both developments onto Crest Road; * That the lots backing up directly to Crest Road would be a problem with their backyard fences, even with the grade differential, creating a privacy issue; * That the sizes of the smaller lots in relation to the building pads and density should be reexamined; * That the need for increased public services should be examined, especially if the Northrop site is developed, because the closest fire station would be the small one in Rolling Hills; * That better photos are needed to prove the view impairment mitigation; * That the real problem in the area trails would be the linkage between RPV and RHE, and that perhaps signalization would be the best solution. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE STAFF REPORTS There were no questions from the audience. Director Benard noted that he had distributed project schedules to the Commission, and also discussed division of expenses for Commissioners that wanted to attend the League of California Cities convention. ADJOURNNENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50pm. Page 5