atm kiosk _32_

Document Sample
atm kiosk _32_ Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                       MARCH 13, 2006
                                                                                     LOMITA, CA 90717


Next Resolution No. 2006-08

1.      Call to order

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Lomita City Hall, 24300
Narbonne Avenue, Lomita.

2.      Flag Salute

At the request of Chair Servino, Commissioner Campbell led the salute to the flag.

3.      Roll Call

Commissioners responding to roll call by Secretary Schroder were: Campbell, Dever, Nieto, Popelka,
Savidan, and Chair Servino. Commissioner Kaneen was absent. Also present were Community
Development Director Gary Sugano and Associate City Planner Francisco Contreras.

4.      Approval of Minutes

Commissioner Savidan moved to approve the minutes of February 14, 2006. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Popelka which carried by the following vote:

        AYES:   COMMISSIONERS:         Savidan, Popelka, Dever and Chair Servino
        NOES:   COMMISSIONERS:         None
      ABSENT:   COMMISSIONERS:         Kaneen
     ABSTAIN:   COMMISSIONERS:         Campbell and Nieto

Commissioners Campbell and Nieto abstained as they were not present at the February meeting.


Patty Boge, 25445 Narbonne Avenue, asked that the City do a better job of getting the agendas on cable
in a timely manner. The old agendas are left on for a long time. Not everyone can go online and a
person has to physically come to City Hall to look at an agenda to see what is going on. She asked that
current agendas be put on cable 5 to 7 days before a meeting. Mr. Sugano will check with the Deputy
City Clerk.

Commissioner Popelka asked about the status of the second unit at 2050 255th Street. He referred to a
letter received from Mr. Lee regarding his second unit project. Commissioner Popelka said the code
needs clarification as to what constitutes a second unit. He asked what needed to be done to clarify the
language of the code. Mr. Sugano said staff is in the process of updating the second unit ordinance to
make it consistent with State law. The ordinance will be presented to the Planning Commission in two
to three months. At that time, the Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council on the
text amendment to the code. Discussion followed on the current ordinance which is not clear as to
which is the second unit—the existing or the proposed.
                                                                                                  Plan Mts.

All items under the Consent Agenda are considered by the Planning Commission to be routine and will
be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There may be separate discussion of these items
prior to the time the Planning Commission votes on the motion. Specific items may be removed from
the Consent Agenda at the request of any Commissioner or staff.

Commissioner Popelka asked about item No. 7 regarding Mr. Lee’s project. Mr. Sugano said the
Commission could adopt the denial resolution or the application could be continued. The applicant
would submit revised plans to reduce the size of the unit which the Commission would reconsider at a
later date.

It was decided to vote on items 5 and 6 together and to take item 7 separately and continue it off

Commissioner Nieto was not present at the February meeting and asked about voting on the Consent
Agenda items. He was told he could vote on items 5 and 6 but to abstain on item 7. Commissioner
Nieto also had a question regarding CUP 234 as to why they were waiting to finalize the details to take
possession of the property. Dan Schulz, representing the applicant, answered his question.

        1037, a request for a one year extension of time of a site plan review to approve a new retail
        store and pharmacy to be constructed at the southwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and
        Narbonne Avenue and a conditional use permit for the sale of alcohol for off-site consumption.
        This would establish a new deadline of March 16, 2007. Filed for Celso Martinez, Zaremba
        Group, LLC, 4010 Watson Plaza Dr., Suite 290, Lakewood, CA 90712. This application was
        originally approved by the Planning Commission on March 14, 2005.

        RECOMMENDATION: Approval

6.      TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 026076, a request for a one
        year extension of time of a tentative parcel map to allow a three lot subdivision at 25048 and
        25102 Narbonne Avenue. This would establish a new deadline of March 10, 2007. Filed by
        Michael Nichols, Lanco Engineering, 1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 200, Torrance, CA
        90501. This application was originally approved by the Planning Commission on March 10,
        2003. A one year extension of time was approved on March 14, 2005.

        RECOMMENDATION: Approval

Commissioner Popelka moved to approve items 5 and 6 of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner
Campbell seconded the motion which carried by the following vote:

       AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Popelka, Campbell, Dever, Nieto, Savidan and Chair Servino

7.      SITE PLAN NO. 1077 (DENIAL RESOLUTION), a denial resolution to be considered by
        the Planning Commission for a request to construct a second dwelling unit on the property
        located at 2050 255th Street in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zone. Filed by Peter S. Lee,
        2050 255th Street, Lomita, CA 90717.
                                                                                                 Plan Mts.
        RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of Denial Resolution

Commissioner Popelka moved to continue off calendar item 7 of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner
Dever seconded the motion which carried by the following vote:

        AYES:   COMMISSIONERS:         Popelka, Dever, Campbell, Savidan and Chair Servino
        NOES:   COMMISSIONERS:         None
     ABSTAIN:   COMMISSIONERS:         Nieto
      ABSENT:   COMMISSIONERS:         Kaneen


8.      SITE PLAN NO. 1080, a request for a second dwelling unit for a senior citizen at 1941 W.
        257th Street in the in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zone. Filed by Nancy Borland 1941
        W. 257th Street, Lomita

Associate City Planner Contreras reviewed the staff report. The existing 820-square-foot, single-story
single-family residence was built in 1923. The lot is approximately 4,920 square feet in size. There is a
two-car garage with attached workshop located to the rear of the property.

The proposed one-bedroom, second dwelling unit is 625 square feet in size and will be attached to the
existing two-car garage that is located to the rear of the property. A new unenclosed parking space will
be located adjacent to the existing dwelling unit to provide the required parking.

The Lomita Zoning Code requires Planning Commission review and approval for any second dwelling
unit requests in the R-1 zone provided all requirements are met.

Staff also reviewed the project in accordance with Article 75 “Site Plan Review” and advises that the
proposed project is consistent with the required findings. Subject to these findings, Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving Site Plan No. 1080.

The public hearing was opened.

The applicant, Nancy Borland, 1941 W. 257th Street, was present to answer questions. She wants to
build the dwelling for her mother who is 81 years old and lives alone in Big Bear.

Patty Boge, 25445 Narbonne Avenue, wanted assurance that the proposed dwelling would always be for
a senior citizen. She felt that being a senior gives everyone a license to break the rules. R-1 zones in
Lomita are for single family dwellings. She did not understand why everyone is being granted
exceptions to that just because they are seniors. She asked what the difference is between a granny flat,
a second unit dwelling and what a second dwelling for a senior citizen is. She asked if a second
dwelling unit for a senior citizen gets to break more rules than a regular second dwelling unit. Mr.
Sugano answered her questions.

Joan Peightal, 25520 Cypress Street, had questions about second unit dwellings and the General Plan
which says that property had to be 10,000 square feet or larger to have a second unit. She asked when
that changed. Also, she saw on the internet that cities do not have to allow second dwellings. She
asked if second dwellings units were a “may or a “must.” Mr. Sugano answered that cities can set
development standards, but current state law states that there cannot be any discretion involved when
considering second units. If a project meets those development standards, the City does not have the

                                                                                                  Plan Mts.
ability to deny. Therefore it is a “must” and not a “may.” As to second units having to be on property
10,000 square feet or larger, that standard was changed approximately 6 years ago.

As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.

Discussion followed on reducing the garage by 12 inches in order to meet the 3 foot setback

Commissioner Savidan moved to approve Site Plan No. 1080 as presented by staff. Commissioner
Campbell seconded the motion which carried by the following vote:

       AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Savidan, Campbell, Dever, Nieto, Popelka and Chair Servino

9.      SITE PLAN NO. 1078, a request to construct and operate a stand-alone, walk-up ATM
        kiosk at the property located at 1929 Pacific Coast Highway in the C-R (Commercial,
        Retail) Zone. Filed by Agent L.A. Architects, 224 E. Olive Avenue, #305, Burbank, CA
        91502, for Pacific Allied Asset, 3435 Wilshire Blvd., L.A. CA 90010

Associate City Planner Contreras reviewed the staff report. The existing 30,272-square-foot shopping
center was constructed in 1990. The lot size is approximately 85,813 square feet in size.

The proposed prefabricated, unmanned ATM kiosk is 35 square feet and will sit on top of an 18’x18’
concrete slab with a handicap access ramp and security bollards. The project also includes a new 25-
foot light fixture located just south of the kiosk.

If the Planning Commission decides to approve the application, staff recommends that the Commission
direct the applicant to submit a redesigned proposal that would architecturally resemble the existing
structures on the property. The revised plans, including color scheme and finish, are to be approved by
the Director of Community Development.

Commissioner Campbell felt this would be an “attractive nuisance” and a security issue. He felt that the
lighting, the location of the facility, late hours access were a potential for crime. He did not think there
was a lot of attention given to security.

Mr. Sugano thought the lighting in the parking lot was adequate. The Commission could add conditions
relative to video taping (which is probably done anyway).

It was suggested the ATM be located inside a structure.

Commissioner Nieto was also concerned about security and the crime issue. He felt the building would
be a target for graffiti and was not pleased with the aesthetics of the project.

Commissioner Popelka asked why this was not approved administratively if it meets all of the
requirements. He was told that any new construction in the C-R Zone, even if it meets all of the
standards, etc., requires a site plan review which is a discretionary action.

Commissioner Savidan agreed with Commissioner Campbell that this project is an invitation to crime.

The public hearing was opened.

                                                                                                     Plan Mts.
Mr. Steve Hamilton, L. A. Architects, 224 E. Olive, Burbank, was representing the landlord as well as
the Bank of America. He was willing to redesign the kiosk, add cameras on the exterior (one camera is
in the plans), and the lighting already meets State requirements. As to putting the kiosk in a lobby space,
they find that creates a bigger problem in terms of security. As far as security is concerned, putting the
ATM through a store front would not be any different than putting the kiosk in a parking lot as

Commissioner Campbell thought the proposed lighting is too low. Mr. Hamilton said they go by the
State law. Some cities feel that it is over-lit. Ten foot candles at the machine make it fairly bright.

Commissioner Servino asked if there was lighting to the rear. Mr. Hamilton did not think there was but
it could be added.

George Kivett, 1955 W. 241st Street, was in favor of the project, but would like additional cameras on
the site. He also suggested having the design match the architectural detail of the property. He
understood the security concerns. If the kiosk is visible from the street for bad element it would also be
visible to the police.

Joe Cinquina, 24537 Cadiz Drive, expressed his concern regarding security and asked where the highest
crime rate is in Lomita. He has heard it is Pacific Coast Highway. He was not sure the Sheriff’s
Department would be able to secure that area. If this application is approved, other banks will want to
do the same thing. He believes this will put people at risk. He asked that the application be denied.

The chair closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Campbell pointed out that Bank of American has an ATM across the street inside
Albertsons Supermarket.

The public hearing was reopened as the applicant wished to give his rebuttal.

Steve Hamilton, L. A. Architects, 224 E. Olive, Burbank, noted that the kiosk besides dispensing money
would also be a depository. Other banking transactions could also be done at the kiosk. As to the crime
statistics, he asked to see some information to see if Pacific Coast Highway is the “most dangerous.”
He thought that something less visible would be more of a security issue.

Chair Servino asked Mr. Hamilton if he had any data to support the security issue on the stand-alone
ATM kiosk versus an ATM in a store front or in a building. Mr. Hamilton did not have any data, but he
has been doing ATM’s for banks for 20 years and there are also security issues with ATM’s in lobbies.
Chair Servino asked Mr. Hamilton if they had done any surveys regarding traffic control, ingress and
egress relative to the location of the proposed kiosk. Mr. Hamilton replied that the placement was based
on working with the landlord and where the bank would like to see it placed. Different locations on the
site could be considered, but they felt that for security reasons it would be better to place it near Pacific
Coast Highway.

Commissioner Campbell was concerned for those persons using the ATM and the community, not for
the ATM itself.

Commissioner Nieto asked staff if this application needed a traffic study or trip analysis, daily trips.
Mr. Sugano replied no.

The public hearing was closed.

                                                                                                     Plan Mts.
Commissioner Dever was concerned about the lighting. She considered it a potential crime area.

Commissioner Savidan thought that the corridor along Pacific Coast Highway is an area for strong
armed robberies more so than any other place in the City. This location provides easy access to a main
thoroughfare and freeway. Lights and cameras will not deter some people. He is against the

Commissioner Savidan moved to approve Site Plan No. 1078. Commissioner Campbell seconded the
motion which failed by the following vote:

       NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Savidan, Campbell, Dever, Nieto, Popelka and Chair Servino

Community Development Director Sugano said that since staff had recommended approval, the motion
should be to direct staff to prepare a denial resolution that would be presented at the next Commission
meeting in April.

         AGREEMENT NO. 2003-1, a tentative tract map to subdivide property located at 25819-
         25825 Eshelman Avenue for condominium purposes and modification to a previously approved
         development agreement to allow the development of a 20-unit senior housing development.
         Filed by Peter Fredriksen, 8 Pleasant Hill Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274.

In March and April of 2003, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of General
Plan Amendment No. 2003-1, Zone Change No. 101 and Development Agreement No. 2003-1 to allow
a twenty-four (24) unit senior citizen project at the subject site and changing the general plan land use
designation and zoning to allow residential uses. On April 14, 2003, the Planning Commission
approved a Variance to allow a building height over 27 feet and a rear yard setback of 15 feet instead of
the code required 20 feet.

In May and June of 2003, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 2003-1, Zone
Change No. 101 and Development Agreement No. 2003-1 to allow a twenty-four (24) unit senior citizen
project at the subject site and changing the general plan land use designation and zoning to allow
residential uses.

Following City Council approval, the applicant submitted Tentative Tract Map No. 60165. The map
was reviewed by the County of Los Angeles and it was determined that due to County Fire requirements
the rear yard setback had to be increased therefore, the project was reduced in size from 24 to 20 units.

The General Plan designates this site as High Density Residential, which allows 43.6 units per acre. The
project has been reduced to 20 units and has a density of 35.42 units per acre.

Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses

 North    C-R (Commercial Retail)
          Current land use is commercial.
 South    RVD-2,500 (Multi-Family Residential)
          Current land use is vacant.
 West     C-R (Commercial Retail)
          Current land use is commercial.

                                                                                                  Plan Mts.
 East     R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
          Current land use is institutional/school.

As mentioned previously, this project was approved by the City Council and Planning Commission in

 Development             Allowed/Required             Previous Project          Proposed Project
 Density                 43.6 units per acre          42.5 units per acre       35.42 units per acre
 Min. Lot Size           5,000 sq. ft. min.           24,594 square feet        24,594 square feet
 Min. Lot Width          50 feet min.                 50 feet min.              50 feet min.
  Front                  20 feet min.                 20 feet                   10 feet*
  Side                   5 feet min.                  5 feet                    5 feet
  Rear                   20 feet min.                 15 feet                   57 feet
 Unit Size               n/a                          665-1,010 square feet     861-990 square feet
 Building Height         35 feet                      35 feet                   35 feet
 Parking                 n/a                          50 spaces                 40 spaces
 Open Space              Interior Common              Interior Common           Interior Courtyard and
                         Courtyard                    Courtyard                 Rear Common Open
 Storage Space           200 cubic feet per unit      200 cubic feet per unit   Not shown**
*Architectural projection above garage entrance
** Condition of approval

On December 12, 2006, the Los Angeles County Subdivision Committee reviewed the tentative map
and recommended approval subject to the attached conditions (Exhibit F).

The project is subject to review per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance
with CEQA guidelines, an initial study was prepared to identify if the project may result in potentially
significant adverse effects on the environment. Upon completing the initial study, no areas were
identified as potentially being affected. The initial study and mitigation measures (ND 2006-2) were
made available for public review and comment on February 22, 2006. Based on the above, no
significant adverse effects are expected to result from the project.

Notices of this hearing dated March 2, 2006, were mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius
from the subject property, posted at City Hall, the Lomita Post Office, the Lomita Library and at Lomita

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Tentative Tract
Map No. 060165 subject to the conditions and Modification to Development Agreement No. 2003-1.

Commissioner Dever recused herself as she lives near the project.

Commissioner Savidan asked staff if the Commission was reconsidering the entire project. Mr. Sugano
has a call into the City Attorney, but he believed the Commission’s discretion is limited based on the
previously approved Development Agreement. If there is some concern with that, the project may be
continued. The Commission may hear from the public and after that, give staff direction.

                                                                                                 Plan Mts.
Commissioner Savidan thought that because of the Development Agreement, the Commission has an
obligation to do certain things. Basically, this is a new Planning Commission and a new City Council
and personally he feels that if this were to take its normal course, things may be a little different. The
Commission may have to act on this and approve certain things, but basically the project is already
approved. He asked if that was correct.

Mr. Sugano replied that is partially correct. Even though the Commission and the Council may be
different today, a prior Council approving a Development Agreement would essentially run with future
commissions and councils. The Commission would not have the same discretion with this type of
project as it would if the Commission had never seen a conditional use permit or some other application
with a new project.

Commissioner Campbell asked if it is correct that the Commission has limited or no discretion or it has
some discretion. He then asked what would happen if the Commission voted not to approve the project.
He would appreciate knowing how much authority the Commission has.

Mr. Sugano recommended not doing that at this point as he has not yet spoken to the City Attorney
about exactly what discretion the Planning Commission has in this case. If the Commission is thinking
of denying the project, he recommended continuing it. He will speak to the City Attorney and get
some direction from her. He cannot say specifically how much discretion the Commission has on this

Commissioner Popelka agreed with Commissioner Campbell as he too would like to know how much
authority the Commission has.
Commissioner Savidan voted against the project the last time it came up before this Commission. He
agreed it should be continued, have the City Attorney look at it and give the Commission some direction

Commissioner Campbell moved to continue this item on the basis that information is lacking relative to
what the Planning Commission is responsible for. Commissioner Savidan seconded the motion.

Mr. Sugano added that if there is any other item or questions the Commission would like to ask the City
Attorney, let him know now as part of the motion.

Commissioner Campbell asked if the Commission has no discretion on any item that comes before the
Commission, he would rather not have it on the agenda, pass it on to someone who has the authority to

Commissioner Nieto asked if public comment should be heard at this time.

Mr. Sugano said that would be up to the Commission. If it is continued, notices will be mailed out

The motion carried by the following vote:

       AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Campbell, Dever, Nieto, Popelka, Savidan and Chair Servino

9.      CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 242, a request to construct 16 detached senior housing
        units and a setback modification to allow a 10 foot rear yard setback instead of the code
        required 15 feet for the property located at 25316 Ebony Lane in the R-1 (Single-Family
                                                                                                  Plan Mts.
        Residential) Zone. Filed by LCT Design Group, 112 N. Earl Street, San Gabriel, CA 91775, for
        Goodrich Pacific LLC.

Community Development Director Sugano reviewed the staff report. In August of 2005, the applicant
withdrew his application for Conditional Use Permit No. 225 to allow a 42-unit low income senior
citizen project and submitted an application for a 16-unit detached senior citizen condominium project.

On December 13, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for a 42-unit low income senior
citizen project and continued the item to its meeting of January 10, 2005. Excluding the applicant,
twenty-four people spoke at the public hearing.

The Commission requested that staff provide additional information regarding the City’s ability to
provide the following services to serve the project:

    Water availability
    Wastewater/sewer services including capacity
    Water flow availability for fire protection services

On October 14, 2003, the Planning Commission continued a public hearing for a proposed 51-unit low-
income senior citizen housing project. The applicant was given direction to meet with interested
neighbors and to reduce the number of units.

On November 12, 2002, the Planning Commission denied a request to allow a 51-unit low-income
senior citizen housing project on the subject site. This application was filed as Conditional Use Permit
No. 215, a separate application. The Commission expressed concern with the compatibility of a 51-unit
senior citizen housing project with the surrounding single family residentially zoned neighborhood. In
addition, the Commission felt that a six or seven unit single family development may be more
appropriate in this particular neighborhood.

Pursuant to Section 11-1.52 of the Lomita Zoning Code, senior citizen residential projects are permitted
in the A-1, R-1, RVD zones subject to a Conditional Use Permit.

There are sixteen (16) 2-bedroom units proposed each containing 2½ bathrooms. The unit sizes are
1,838-1,889 square feet in size. All of the units are detached and would also have two-car garages.

The proposed project consists of sixteen (16) two-story detached units located along the north and south
side of the property. Landscaping is proposed along the front and rear setback areas and along the rear
of all of the units (approximately 270 square feet for each unit) on the north and south side of the

The subject site will be accessed from Ebony Lane. The on-site driveway is 26 feet and would
accommodate two-way traffic. A turn-around area is provided in the center of the development.

The Public Safety and Traffic Commission (PSTC) reviewed and approved the traffic study at their
meeting on January 25, 2006. The PSTC recommended the following conditions which have been
added to the draft resolution:

           Installation of a “No Left Turn” sign exiting the project site onto Ebony Lane/Walnut Street.
           At developer’s expense, if necessary to accommodate the installation of the aforementioned
           sign, removal of existing trees.
           Installation of a “Right Turn Only” pavement arrow on the northerly half of the driveway
           exiting the project site.
                                                                                                 Plan Mts.
           Painting of a minimum of 68 feet of red curbing along the project frontage (to be determined
           by the City’s Traffic Advisor)

A traffic study was prepared by LIN Consulting, Inc. for the proposed project. The traffic study
concluded that the proposed project would generate an additional 60 trips per day with 4 additional a.m.
peak period trips and 5 additional p.m. period trips.

The parking requirement for senior citizen projects is 2 enclosed parking spaces per unit. The project is
providing a two-car garage for each unit. The guest parking requirement is 6 open spaces and the
project is providing 17 guest parking spaces. Therefore, the project meets the zoning code requirement
for parking.

The proposed elevations are contemporary in style with stone accents and decorative windows provided
on each building elevation. The roofs are red tile with the elevations consisting of four varieties of
cement plaster.

The City’s Public Works Director has certified that the City will be able to provide adequate water
service in connection with the proposed water distribution system for the project. There is a standard
condition that requires two separate fire flow tests prior to building permit issuance and prior to
occupancy to ensure that minimum fire flow requirements are met.

A sewer study dated December 13, 2005 was approved by the County of Los Angeles Department of
Public Works. The study concluded that the flow from the project would cause the subject segment to
operate at 112.9% capacity which is below the maximum 125% capacity set by the County.

Therefore, there is sufficient capacity in the Lomita Trunk Sewer and the JWPCP to convey and treat
the wastewater flow from the proposed project. In addition, there is a recommended special condition
that requires a sewer will serve from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works prior to
building permit issuance. If minimum local capacity standards cannot be met, upgrades would be
required to comply with those minimum standards prior to final occupancy.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit
No. 242.

The public hearing was opened.

George Kivett, 1955 W. 241st Street, had originally opposed the project, but now feels the applicant had
gone to some length to bring the project down to scale. He was concerned about line of sight regarding
egress and also concerned that density was being increased in an R-1 neighborhood. He did not want to
see variances regarding setbacks.

Joe Cinquina, 24537 Cadiz Drive, asked if this project was originally low income senior and if it had
changed. Staff replied it was but no longer is low income. It is now market rate. Mr. Cinquina asked if
a new traffic study had been used. Mr. Sugano replied a new revised study had been submitted based on
this project. The study was approved by the City’s Public Safety and Traffic Commission. Mr.
Cinquina asked if the revised study had been done at the peak hours before school and when school lets
out. He wants that addressed. Mr. Sugano said he would have to check. Mr. Cinquina also had
questions regarding the fire flow test, if he understood correctly that an upgrade is needed to have this
type of structure or is the upgrading planned anyway during the next two years. According to Mr.
Sugano the existing conditions based on the City’s Water Master Plan dictate that that segment be
improved as the existing water pipe is about 50 years old and considered substandard. The City intends

                                                                                                  Plan Mts.
to do those improvements regardless of this project. Mr. Cinquina expressed his concern regarding the
infrastructure and approving this project.

To a question from Chair Servino, Mr. Sugano said that if the City did not go ahead and provide those
water-related improvements, the developer would have to provide improvements to insure that his
project could be served, that it would not negatively impact the surrounding properties as well. The
improvements will have to take place—either by the City or the developer.

Ms. Tracy Aflleje, 1904 253rd Place, who lives across the street from the proposed project, expressed
her concern regarding the traffic and lack of parking, especially during the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 a.m.
and 3 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Parking is allowed only on one side of the street. She was also concerned in
the increase in crime and the lack of water pressure.

Vashi Gulamnabj, 25304 Ebony Lane, spoke about the peak-hour traffic in the morning and evening, the
elderly people in the trailer park, the school, the safety and the lack of water pressure,

Denise Marrufo, 25132 Andreo Avenue, asked what makes the project senior, if it would be ADA
accessible, etc. She felt that if the housing was going to be offered to seniors, she wanted to be sure that
seniors would be living there and would be able to use it. A two-story structure did not seem ADA,
senior friendly. Mr. Contreras said those would be questions the developer should answer.

Joan Peightal, 25520 Cypress Street, asked the size of the lot, the number of square feet of the entire
development and the lot size per unit. She also had questions regarding the setbacks, if the setbacks
pertained to the back yards both sides and what backed up to the proposed project. She thought the
setbacks should be 15 feet.

Commissioner Nieto and Mr. Sugano answered her questions. The lot is 48,050 square feet which is 1.1
acres. The proposed density is 14½ units per acre. The north and south set back is considered the side
yard setback for a condominium development. The rear yard setback is the property line on the east
side of the property. There are two residential units that back up to the property and there is a flag lot
configuration off of 253rd. Essentially, there are seven units to the rear of the property south of 253rd.
The lot footprint per unit is 3,002 square feet.

Dave Hill, 1843 W. 254th Street, asked if the 16 senior housing units would be sold as condos or would
they be rented. Staff replied that the developer proposes to sell the individual units as detached
condominium units.

Patty Boge, 225445 Narbonne Avenue, urged the Planning Commission to request a moratorium on all
senior housing as the City Council did last year. She also discussed the GPAC. She opposed this senior
housing project at this location.

Joann Ferrin, who lives on the 1700 block on 254th Street, asked who regulates that only seniors buy and
live in these units. Who is the watch dog? Mr. Sugano replied that the units would be deed restricted.
The title would show that only a senior could be the buyer. She asked who is responsible to make sure
that seniors would live there. Mr. Sugano replied the City would be responsible and there is also a
condition that limits individuals that would live there to be 60 years of age and no family member under
age 60 could live there. Ms Ferrin was also concerned about the traffic.

Chair Servino asked if there would be a homeowners association and would the association be the one
that made sure everyone complied with the CC&R. Mr. Sugano replied they would be the first line of

                                                                                                     Plan Mts.
Ted Buell, 1737 254th Street, was concerned about the water system. He has been waiting for a new
water line for 10 years. He also had questions at the 125% of sewer capacity. Also the water
availability letter is 3 years old. He asked for current information. Mr. Sugano stated he received a
revised letter from the Public Works Director today. Mr. Buell reminded the Commission that they had
asked for tests and felt that this letter is someone’s opinion that they have enough flow. They asked for
a fire flow test at the time they asked for a water flow test, a sewage test and a traffic study. These were
all asked for a year ago and have not been expanded on.

Mr. Sugano said the City is aware of the water pressure problem. The City’s master plan has identified
that there is a deficiency. Upgrades will have to be made to the system regardless of this project. It will
be one to two years to do the segment between Pacific Coast Highway and 254th Street.

Rose Bungard, 25216 Walnut Street, had questions regarding ingress, egress from the proposed project,
the traffic and what would be done about it. She was told the Public Safety and Traffic Commission had
approved the project. She also said that the traffic study was done when school was out and asked what
qualifies a senior.

Julie Cinquina, 24537 Cadiz Drive, asked if the ingress and egress to the project was in the plans.

Chair Servino said the Public Safety and Traffic Commission had approved the plans and the public
could attend their meetings. Ms. Cinquina said she has n ever been informed about items going to the
Traffic Commission. The Planning Commission should know how people will go in and out of the

Commissioner Nieto read the conditions that were imposed on the project by the Traffic Commission
regarding signage, egress, red curb painting, etc.

Rose Bungard, 25216 Walnut Street, noted that some cars going from Ebony Lane to Walnut Street do
not pay attention to the Right Turn sign, not even deputy sheriff’s cars

Ms. Erin Rice, 2032 W. 259th Place had questions of Commissioner Popelka regarding CC &R which he

John D. Cozza of Svorinich & Associates, Inc., 728 W. 38th Street, San Pedro, representing the applicant
Goodrich Pacific, LLC, gave his rebuttal regarding setbacks. The 10 foot setback allows for more
guest-parking. He referred to the red curb which would help visibility when driving out of the property.
He also discussed the infrastructure and stated sometimes the water flow problem is on the residents’
own property. He explained what is meant by the 125% capacity of water flow. He also discussed the
CC& R’s which put restrictions on who lives in the units. For two-story homes, the owner will have the
option of installing senior elevators which meet ADA requirements for seniors. There will be a
homeowners association who self-police and the restriction are recorded with the County. The
homeowners association is recorded with the Secretary of State. The by-laws will be available on-line
through the Secretary of State web page. The residents would not have the option of having their grand-
children live with them or their off-springs. As to the timing of the studies, the County has updated and
validated those studies as of today. He also discussed the original 42 unit project which the City
Council said could not be denied by the Planning Commission. Nevertheless, the applicant withdrew
the application as he wants to have a viable project. The project will bring value to the neighborhood.

Commissioner Savidan asked Mr. Cozza who had prepared the traffic study. The response was LIN

                                                                                                      Plan Mts.
Commissioner Nieto asked about regulations of the proposed elevators. Mr. Cozza thought they were
regulated by the State.

The public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Dever asked for clarification on the water pressure. She also asked if the improvement
would help the water pressure on 253rd Street, etc. Mr. Sugano said the project would provide water
pressure to meet minimum standards and would not make the condition worse for the surrounding
properties. The City project would help the existing residences with low water pressure. If the
proposed project happens first, the project would be helped.

Commissioner Campbell had concerns about the Los Angeles Unified School District and was troubled
by its attitude. The developer has bent over backwards and he supported the project.

Commissioner Campbell moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 242.

Commissioner Popelka agreed with Commissioner Campbell that the developer had done a lot to scale
down the project. He like the project and seconded the motion to approve.

Commissioner Savidan liked the project but not the traffic situation in the area. He felt the project
would make the situation worse.

       AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Campbell, Servino and Popelka
       NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Dever, Nieto and Savidan

Community Development Director Sugano noted that it was a tie vote therefore the motion did not
carry. He suggested further discussion.

Commissioner Nieto liked the project, but not in this location. He would rather see fewer units due to
the school children and the parking situation. He was concerned about the elevators, the upkeep, the
water pressure, etc.

Chair Servino thought the real problem is the traffic and that the developer was being penalized.

Commissioner Savidan thought that perhaps it would be economically feasible to have the developer
construct fewer units and come out ahead.

Staff recommended that the Commission direct staff to bring back more information next month.
Commissioner Kaneen will be able to participate if she listens to the tape and reviews the minutes.

At the request of Mr. Cozza, the public hearing was reopened.

Mr. Cozza encouraged the Commission to go with this project rather than a reduced project. He felt that
this is a “select market,” a market with covenants and restrictions, for senior citizens. If the project
were reduced to six or nine units, a family with four kids with four cars could occupy those homes.

He compared the current cost for construction with the cost five years ago. He noted that every time
they delay the project, the cost increases. They have tried to address everyone’s concerns.

Commissioner Campbell thought that even one house on the property, which is already there, would not
satisfy all of the people. Forty-two units is outrageous. If it were nine units, the community would be
                                                                                                    Plan Mts.
saying that nine is too many. As far as traffic is concerned, the project is not the problem. The school is
the problem.

Joe Cinquina, 24537 Cadiz Drive, agreed with a lot of what is being said. However, after the project is
built the developer will not be around but the residents will have to suffer through it. There is money to
be made if it is only nine units. This is definitely a density and traffic congestion issue. Anything less
is better. He asked about the tie vote and if that meant it did not pass. Did it not pass because there was
not a majority? He asked what the ruling is. Mr. Sugano said a simply majority is needed to pass a
motion. If it is deadlocked, then the motion does not carry. Mr. Cinquina said since the Commission
already voted doesn’t that mean that the project was disapproved because there was not a majority vote.

Commissioner Nieto said that means the motion failed and there can be more deliberation to make a
decision or continue the item. Commissioner Nieto thought that the residents in the vicinity of the
project would prefer more water pressure than more parking. He thought that a real, true water study is
needed to find out how this project will impact the surrounding area.

Community Development Director Sugano reiterated that the City’s Water Master Plan has already
identified this entire segment as having a deficiency in terms of water pressure. If this project goes
forward, the developer will be required to upgrade and not impact the surrounding properties. In most
cases, the upgrade will probably improve the situation for a number of the surrounding properties. Staff
can bring back some information from the City’s Water Master Plan that shows the deficiency. Any
type of new construction is going to mitigate that if the City has not already done the improvements.

Commissioner Nieto asked if Mr. Kau had a diagram that shows the water pipes and the way it flows
and the pressure. Mr. Sugano will take a look at the master plan to see if there is anything like that for
this segment.

Commissioner Nieto moved to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 242. Commissioner Dever second
the motion which carried by the following vote:

        AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nieto, Dever, Campbell, Popelka, Savidan and Chair Servino



At their last meeting the City Council discussed having a session for “Goal Setting.”             The City
Administrator will be the facilitator. April 24, 2006 is the tentative date.

The second meeting of the GPAC was on March 8, 2006, with some discussion on mixed-use. The City
is in the process of hiring a consultant to assist the City with that process. That should go to the City
Council the first meeting in April.



Chair Servino is taking a facilitation class and can give material on it to anyone who is interested.

Commissioner Nieto asked about the status of the “prolonged” projects.
                                                                                                        Plan Mts.
Community Development Director Sugano said the County building code says the building official can
grant extensions every six months. There are no local provisions prohibiting that. The City has made it
known to a couple of those parties that the City interpretation of that policy is going to be that there
needs to be some progress made toward finalizing the permit.

Commissioner Nieto asked if the Commission could impose a percentage of continued progress to get to
the final stage. Community Development Director Sugano said the City Council has that ability through
local ordinance. He did not think it was as simple as a percentage because it is a very, very subjective.
A local ordinance would have to be prepared addressing that and it would have to come from the City

Commissioner Savidan thanked staff for their hard work on tonight’s items. He asked staff for a copy
of the traffic report on the last item (CUP 242) to be included in the April packet. It would be helpful in
the decision-making process. Staff agreed to do that.


Commissioner Nieto will attend on April 3 and Chair Servino will attend on April 17, 2006.


The Planners Institute is next week in Monterey, CA. Two Commissioners and one staff member will
be attending.


Commissioner Savidan moved to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion
which carried unanimously.



In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in
this meeting, you should contact the office of the City Clerk, (320) 325-7110 (Voice) or the California
Relay Service. Notification 48-hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.

(Only comments directed to the Commission from the podium will be recognized. Comments directed to
the audience or generated from the audience will be considered out of order. Any person may appeal
all matters approved or denied by the Planning Commission to City Council within 15 days of receipt of
notice of action by the applicant. Payment of an appeal fee is required. For further information,
contact City Hall at 310. 325.7110.)

                                                                                                    Plan Mts.
\\athena\d\shared\community development\planning\planning commission\pc minutes\2006\06 03 13
(pc minutes).doc

                                                                                         Plan Mts.

Shared By: