Loading...
CC MINS 19921207 ADJM I N U T E S RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1992 The meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor McTaggart at 6:30 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file. The meeting immediately recessed to a closed session to discuss pending litigation. The meeting reconvened at 7:00 P.M. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, roll call was answered as follows: PRESENT: BROOKS, RYAN, KUYKENDALL AND MAYOR McTAGGART LATE ARRIVAL: BACHARACH (at 8:10 P.M.) Also present were City Manager Paul Bussey, Assistant City Manager Pamela Antil, Environmental Services Director Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Public Works Director Trent Pulliam, City Attorney Carol Lynch, and City Clerk Jo Purcell. CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Lynch announced that a closed session was held to discuss the matter of J. M. Peters Co. vs. the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. CEREMONIAL EVENT Mayor McTaggart presented a ceremonial proclamation to Charity Driscoll in recognition of her efforts to urge a manufacturer of medical equipment to reduce the amount of packaging used to ship their equipment, thereby reducing the amount of trash in the waste stream. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Ryan to approve the agenda. Motion carried. COUNCIL REORGANIZATION (306) Selection of Mayor: Mayor McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilman Ryan, to appoint Mayor Pro Tem Brooks as Mayor. Motion carried. Selection of Mayor Pro Tem: Mayor Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Ryan, to appoint Councilman Kuykendall as Mayor Pro Tem. Motion carried. Mayor Brooks presented to Councilman McTaggart a memento in appreciation of his term as mayor. RECESS: Mayor Brooks declared a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 7:15 P.M. RECYCLE DRAWING: Palos Verdes Peninsula News reporter Gary Amo drew a card from the recycle lottery drum. CONSENT CALENDAR The consent calendar was approved as follows on motion of Councilman Kuykendall, seconded by Councilman Ryan. Adopted a motion to waive full reading of all ordinances and resolutions adopted at the meeting with consent to the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all councilmembers after the reading of the title. MINUTES Adopted the minutes of November 9th and 17, 1992, RESOL. NO. 92 -111 RATIFYING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOL, NO. 92 -65 (1410 X 1203) Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92 -111 RATIFYING SECTION NO. 3 OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 92 -65 REGARDING THE WAIVER OF APPLICATION FEES FOR THE RESUBMITTAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 23548 FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 26559 SILVER SPUR, BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 92 -112 (602 X 1505) Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92 -112 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92 -99, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992 -93, AND PROVIDING $2,500 OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO LACTC FOR THE METRO GREEN LINE EIR. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE - REQUEST FOR EASEMENT (450 X 1201) (1) Approved the request from California Water Service for an easement for water line purposes within Grandview Park. (2) Directed staff to prepare and execute the necessary easement documents and to charge City costs to the applicant. RESOL. NO. 92 -1;13 - INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS (1502) Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92 -113 ESTABLISHING STOP REGULATIONS AT THE INTERSECTION OF CRESTWOOD STREET AND GENERAL STREET. RESOLUTION NO, 92 -1,14- REGISTER OF DEMANDS Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92 -114 ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID. The motion to approve the consent calendar carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: KUYKENDALL, RYAN, McTAGGART AND MAYOR BROOKS NOES: NONE ABSENT:BACHARACH PUBLIC HEARINGS: OCEAN TRAILS (SUBREGION 7 & 8) - RESOLUTION NOS. 92 -115, 92 -116, 92 -117, 92- 118, & 92 -119 (701 X 1411) Mayor Brooks opened the public hearing on the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision on the Ocean Trails Project. The City Clerk reported that notice of the public hearing had been duly published and that written protests received by the City were included in the Council's agenda packet. Environmental Services Director Onderdonk presented the staff memorandum of December 7th and the following recommendations: (1) Adopt a resolution approving the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 36. (2) Adopt CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1992 PAGE 2 NA a resolution approving the revisions to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 and denying the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's re- approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23004. (3) Adopt a resolution approving the revisions to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 and denying the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's re- approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20970. (4) Adopt a resolution denying the appeals, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's approval of the revisions to Conditional Use Permit No. 163, Coastal Permit No. 103 and Grading Permit No. 1541 for the residential planned development. (5) Adopt a resolution denying the appeals, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's approval of the revisions to Conditional Use Permit No, 163, Coastal Permit No. 103 and Grading Permit No. 1541 for the public golf course. Planning Administrator Petru summarized the significant differences between the revised Ocean Trails plan and the June 1, 1992 plan: (1) the residential land use had been reduced by 7.3 acres; (2) the golf course land use had been reduced by 19.8 acres; (3) the land to be offered for dedication to the City for public access and habitat preservation had been increased by 27.1 acres; (4) the land to be offered for dedication to the City to preserve the bluff face had been increased by 3.4 acres (due to a revised title report); (5) golf holes 8 and 10 had been relocated away from the bluff face; (6) in addition to the relocation of Paseo Del Mar, a pedestrian access corridor with an average width of 75 feet had been provided along the bluff top between Halfway Point and Shoreline Park; ( 7 ) the number of public parking spaces at Half Way Point had been increased from 50 spaces to 75 spaces, for a total of 145 spaces for the project. ( 8 ) six additional pedestrian trail segments had been added to the plan to increase public access to the coastline; and, ( 9 ) A 25 foot common open space buffer lot around the perimeter of the VTTM No. 50666 and a 50 foot wide common open space buffer lot around VTTM No. 50667 had been added to protect the adjacent habitat areas from tract grading operations and brush clearance for fire control. Ms. Petru then summarized the trails proposed for the project: whereas six new pedestrian trail segments had been proposed, the Planning Commission recommended approval of four: (1) trail to the overlook where Hole 8 was previously proposed, (2) the trail down the west side of Forrestal Draw,-(3) the trail down the east side of Half Way Point to the shoreline, and ( 4 ) the trail from La Rotonda Drive to the trail running through the East Bluff Preserve. Additionally, on November 11 and 24, 1992, the Recreation and Parks Committee reviewed and concurred with the proposed trail alignments with two exceptions: (1) the location of the trail between the West Bluff Preserve and Half Way Point Park should be as close to the bluff top as possible along the entire length of the trail segment; and, (2) the trail down the west side of Half Way Point should be retained. Continuing her report, Ms. Petru stated that following the Coastal Commission's denial of Coastal Permit No. 103 on August 12, 1992, the property owners met with the Coastal Commission staff and representatives from the State and Federal wildlife protection agencies to discuss modifications to the project design to address their specific concerns. This new plan reduced the size of the proposed 18 hole golf course and residential common open space lots in order to create specific public open space lots which were being offered for dedication to the City. Those public open space lots would provide public access to the coastline, passive public recreational opportunities and habitat preservation and enhancement areas. Preservation of the public access and biological resources would be further supplemented by inclusion of additional trails and habitat areas within some of the common open space lots. In conclusion, Ms. Petru stated that the Planning Commission and the staff felt that the modified project fully complied with the provisions of the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan and Development Code. Additionally, the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1992 PAGE 3 Planning Commission would be reviewing the final Public Amenities Plan, Biological Resources Preservation /Habitat Enhancement Plan, Golf Course Plan and Runoff Management, and Water Quality Control Plan before the start of grading or construction. Representing the appellants, Palos Verdes Land Holdings Co. and the Zuckerman Building Company, was Mike Mohler, who stated that this appeal was made to expedite the process not to protest the Commission's action; that one of his concerns was the fact that he was not invited to the November 14 and 24, 1992 Recreation & Parks Committee meetings where the issue of trails was discussed; and, that he disagreed with the Parks & Recreation Committee recommendation which was made after the Planning Commission's approval. With regard to the trail down the Half Way Point, he cited no objection to it except for the concerns about the bluff face erosion and liability; that the radio controlled model airplane area could be accommodated, but expressed concern about resulting liability and the fact that the model planes would be landing in inter -tidal areas and again was concerned about the public liability issue. He presented the following documents in support of the project's present design, provision of public access, and habitat enhancement and protection: a booklet to the City Council from the Zuckerman Building Company/ Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company, dated December 7, 1992 relative to the issue of Ocean Trails Public Access and Prescriptive Rights; a letter dated December 3, 1992 signed by Ira Mark Artz, P.E. , with the firm of Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, responding to Mr. Mark Gold's comments in the November 5, 1992 letter from Frank P. Angel to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission; a letter dated December 4, 1992 from Richard Ford Ph.D., the subject of which was an evaluation of runoff management and water quality control measures for the residential and golf course development in Subregions 7 and 8 of Rancho Palos Verdes and their relationships to the adjacent marine environment; a December 5, 1992 letter from the State Department of Fish & Game endorsing the draft habitat plan enhancement plan; December 7, 1992 letter from Jeff Opdycke, Field Office Supervisor for the United States Department of the Interior concerning the project's mitigation ratios and goals. In conclusion he stated that they entered the habitat agreements voluntarily; that there was no requirement for them to do it; that the habitat plan was designed with protection of certain species in mind even though there were not listed as endangered by either the State or Federal governments; and, that they will follow through with these habitat plans whether or not certain of these species were found to be endangered. Mr. Ken Zuckerman, 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West, presented a December 4, 1992 letter from Jean Mackay, Staff Ecologist for the Audobon Cooperative Sanctuary System, which contained a preliminary report in response to the information sent by Mr. Zuckerman in the Resource Inventory Handbook. Additionally, Mr. Zuckerman presented a petition signed by approximately 322 persons stating support for a public park, 83 homes and a golf course project. Speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club and other petitioners in this matter was their attorney Frank Angel who said that since they were the appellants they were entitled to this presentation and to a rebuttal; that the project appellant had standing to appeal; that the appeal should not have been heard and dismissed because the decision was in his favor and that the appeal was to accelerate the process; that he (Mr. Angel) didn't have sufficient time to review the staff report since he had not received it until the day of the meeting and had insufficient time to read it; and, that he wanted the Council to read the material that he had submitted. (Mr. Angel submitted a letter dated December 7, 1992 which had the following 12 exhibits: Palos Verdes Peninsula News Article, dated August 15, 1992 re "Coastal Commission Nixes RPV Development;" Letter dated December 1, 1992 from U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Mr. Sands; Professor CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1992 PAGE 4 Hartmut Walter, Assessment of project's new plan on biotic resources, November 24, 1992; Chase Langford, Cartographer, UCLA Department of Geography, Cartographic Analysis of project's new plan, December 1992 (Maps "A" through "E ") ; Comments and illustrations of Sierra Club, et al, in support of Appeal No. A5- RPV -92 -229; Professor Anthony R. Orme, Assessment of geomorphologic impacts of project, August 4, 1992; Anthony R. Orme, "Mass Movement and Seaclif f Retreat Along the Southern California Coast," Southern California Academy of Sciences (1991), pp. 58 -79; Letter dated August 4, 1989 from State Department of Housing & Community Development to City Manager; Letter dated March 4, 1991 from State Department of Housing & Community Development to City Manager; Letter dated February 27, 1992 from State Department of Housing & Community Development to City Manager; memo dated September 2, 1992 from State Department of Community Housing to City Manager; and Excerpts from General Plan State Guidelines, which he referenced throughout his testimony.) Continuing with his presentation, Mr. Angel stated his disagreement with the project proponent's statement that the Coastal Commission remanded the project to staff for only minor and technical changes; and, that if the resubmitted project was approved by the Council it would not be in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act. Citing specific characteristics of the revised project, he stated that the linear increase in public pathways was 2000 ft.; that this did not reduce the project's affect on the environment; that it did not eliminate any residential units or eliminate any of the golf fairways; that according to a letter from the U. S. Fish & Wildlife the project had not been significantly modified; the footprint of the housing development had not been changed; and, that no consideration was given to other site alternative designs. Citing statistics of the proposed project's grading, he said that the grading application would still cut 964,000 cu. yards; that the project would result in irreplaceable loss of rare plant species; would have severe impact to the resident bird species; that the project would still violate policies of the General Plan; that the fairway "D" green, adjacent to an active park, exposed the public to risk from golf balls; that the site is not suitable for the project; that the green fees would be more than $150; and, that this recreational use did not mitigate the impact of the project. With the use of drawings of the project site, Mr. Angel showed the "cut and fill" sites and questioned if the proposed grading plan does fully mitigate the effects of grading. He said that the golf course encroaches the coastal setback line; that the recreational use should be a lower intensity; that golf courses uses herbicides and other fertilizers that affect endangered species; and, that golf courses use more water than any other recreational uses. Mr. Barry Jones, President of Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Carlsbad, Ca.., summarized his technical background and expertise on the subject of gnatcatcher; stated that the developer's habitat enhancement plan met strict requirements of Federal and State agencies; that as a result of negotiations they developed a plan that these agencies were in agreement with; that some details have to be worked out; that the setback line referred to in the September 8, 1992 letter was intended to be part of the discussion with resources agencies; that it was only intended to be a concept; that they would work with the resource agencies to come to an agreement; and, that the line was no longer relevant. With regard to the condition of the site, he said that the site as it currently exists it is in a very degraded state and is continuing to degrade; that past uses, military and agriculture, and the current active uses on the property continue to degrade the habitat and create erosion problems; that unless there is some sort of management plan the site will continue to degrade; that the site is heavily degraded by foreign weed species that quickly out- compete the native species; that with the habitat enhancement program there would be a net gain in habitat quality and quantity; and, that the site has only 13 acres of high quality sage. He said that there is a net gain in the habitat quality; and, that this program provides a CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 7f 1992 PAGE 5 long term management plan. (During Mr. Jones' testimony, Councilwoman Bacharach arrived, the time being 8:10 P.M.) Speaking in favor of the project were the following persons: Robert Agli, President, Ocean Terrace Condominium Association, who read a prepared statement expressing the Association's support for the project; Chip Zelt, President, Community Association of Tract 16540 ( upper Portuguese Bend Club) , who presented a prepared statement dated December 71 1992, expressing the support of the Association for the project. ( These statements are on file with the City Clerk's Office.) Others speaking in support of the project were as follows: Ken McNeill, 6619 Monero Drive, speaking on behalf of the Palos Verdes Chamber of Commerce; Juan Forteza, 4021 Via Larga Vista, Palos Verdes Estates; Susan McNeill, 6619 Monero Drive; Kevin Sears, representing the Seacliff Hills Homeowners Association, 3324 Palo Vista Drive. Their comments centered on the following: that golf courses can create habitat; that one of the developers lives on the Peninsula and is sensitive to the needs of the community; and, that the developer has met with the homeowners and discussed this project with them. Speaking in opposition to this project were the following persons: Andrew Sargent, 1 Peppertree Drive, representing the Coastal Conservation Coalition, who presented a prepared statement dated December 7, 19920 (This document is on file with the City Clerk's Office.) He requested that the Council postpone a decision on this project until an agreement has been prepared and all of the details are in place, until the funding mechanism is in place; that the conditions are extremely complex; and, that a decision on this should be postponed until the Council and the public has had a chance to read the information. John Sharkey, 390320 Ave. de Calma, presented a prepared statement, dated December 7, 1992, which explained his concerns about the project; summarized the objections of the Coastal Commission; addressed the issues of parking, the golf course, the coastal set -back zone, and Coastal Specific Plan requirements. (Mr. Sharkey's letter is on file with the City Clerk's Office.) Also speaking in opposition were the following persons: Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine; Gar Goodson, President of Save Our Coastline 2000, 1709 Via Zurita, Palos Verdes Estates, who presented a written statement requesting that the Council reject this project. (Mr. Goodson's letter is on file with the City Clerk's Office.) Linda Miller, representing the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horseman's Association, Carriage Lane, Rolling Hills Estates; Chris Stavros 28612 Stokowski Drive, San Pedro; Angelica Bussi, President, South Coast Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, 1354 Stonewood Court, San Pedro, who presented a written statement addressing habitat and species protection issues. (Ms. Bussi's letter is on file with the City Clerk's Office.) Elizabeth M. Kelley, 6611 Vallon Drive; and, Parks & Recreation Committee member Ed Kennedy, 2713 Vista Mesa Drive. These speakers' comments focused on such issues as: the design protection of the sensitive flora and fauna; the inclusion of equestrian usage of the site; whether a golf course was needed in the City; the stability of the area's geology; and, the preservation of a complete bluff top trail by moving the golf course more inland thus allowing pedestrian and bike trails along the entire length of the bluff top. Planning Commission Chairman Robert Katherman, summarized the Planning Commission's concern with safety in eliminating the western segment of the bluff road; that the Commission limited the bluff -top road from crossing at Forrestal Canyon with a cul -de -sac for safety reasons and to prevent damage to the habitat. Additionally, he reported that the Commission eliminated the trail on the west side of Halfway Point; that the bluff top trail in the area where Hole 8 was CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1992 PAGE 6 previously located ended in a cul -de -sac as an overlook; and, that the trail along the bluff top between the West Bluff Preserve and the Halfway Point Park was moved as close as possible to the bluff top. With regard to the other trail on the west side of Half Way Point, he stated that the Commission eliminated it because of the steepness and for safety reasons; that a much safer trail existed on the east side of Halfway Point, which the Commission recommended to the City Council. Council then briefly deliberated on the project and focused on the following: if an alternative site was available for the radio controlled air planes; clarification that the funding mechanism for the habitat preserve would be through special maintenance districts; and, the fact that the golf course will provide funding to maintain the public amenities. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:05 P. M. Mayor Brooks declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:17 P.M. Speaking in rebuttal Frank Angel requested clarification that the heliport was not a part of this project and that such a feature would have to go through the conditional use permit process. He stated that the area has been used for agriculture for decades; that there is implied dedication of the trails; that an easement for the conversion of the adjacent Ocean Terraces was required as a condition of approval; and, that when the project was before the Planning Commission, doubt was expressed about the financial feasibility of the golf course. He inquired about the status of the 100 acres in the switchback area and if it had been used as mitigation for the Seacliff Hills project; and, questioned if there was an alternative site for the golf course clubhouse. He submitted a copy of a January 31, 1980 letter to the City from Coastal Commission relative to the approval of the City's Local Coastal Plan. Speaking in rebuttal, Mike Mohler summarized the alterations that had been made to the project to meet the concerns of the neighbors in the project area. Continuing his rebuttal he stated that some of the letters submitted by Mr. Angel were out of date; that the letter from the United States Department of the Interior dated December 7, 1992 was not signed by the person in charge; that he had never gone on record quoting $150 golf course fees; that the conditions of approval were those conditions in place on November 5, 1992 and that there was no public testimony from any of the project proponents at that Planning Commission meeting; that the conditions of the project had been long standing; that the golf course is a public use; that the project is consistent with the coastal plan; that there is a natural resource overlay district in the coastal area; and, that no development could have been approved in Subregion 1 if the presence of the overlay prohibited any development. He rebutted the comments of Mr. Starkey and Mesdames Bussi and Kelly stating that the project was designed to provide public access to the coast, stating that there are six vertical access trails leading to the bluff top trail; and, that the first people who can get access are the public and not the residents or the golfers. Council then inquired about the purpose of the December 1st letter from the United States Department of the Interior to Mr. Ed Sauls; and, requested clarification that the public amenities would have to be in place before anything else is built on the project site. Councilman Ryan moved, seconded by Councilman McTaggart to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Next Council inquiries centered on the following: if Council knew enough about this project at this time in view of the comment in the December 7th letter from the United States Department of the Interior stating that details remained to be worked out; what agreements that would be necessary relative to the long term CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 71 1992 PAGE 7 funding for the future habitat enhancement; how binding the conditions of approval were; if any leeway existed relative to the relocation of the golf course clubhouse in case the proposed location did not work out; and, if the golf course constituted public use. Additional comments focused on what benefits would accrue to City residents from this project; the golf tax that would be general fund revenue; the establishment of a maintenance district to maintain the habitat and some of the recreational uses; and, the fact that staff would have to enter into some kind of negotiations to determine the value of the "conservation easement" proposed on the Switchback area. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -115 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING THE ADDENDUM TO FINAL E.I.R. REPORT NO. 36, IN CONNECTION WITH REVISIONS TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS, 50666 AND 50667, RE- APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NOS. 20970 AND 23004 AND REVISIONS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 162 AND 163, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 103, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1541 FOR AN 83 LOT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, AND AN 18 -HOLE GOLF COURSE AND RELATED FACILITIES IN COASTAL SUBREGIONS 7 AND 8 (OCEAN TRAILS) was introduced by title and adopted on motion of Councilman Ryan, seconded by Councilman Kuykendall. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -116 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A REVISION TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50666 AND DENYING THE APPEAL, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REAPPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23004 FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH 40 SINGLE - FAMILY LOTS, A PUBLIC GOLF COURSE AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE LOCATED ON A 153.9 ACRE SITE IN COASTAL SUBREGION 7 AND 81 WHICH IS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL KNOWN AS OCEAN TRAILS was presented by title and adopted as amended in Condition 13, of Section "L" (Easements) on motion of Councilman Kuykendall, seconded by Councilman Ryan. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -117 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A REVISION TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50667 AND DENYING THE APPEAL, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REAPPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20970 FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH 43 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, A PUBLIC GOLF COURSE AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE LOCATED ON A 107.5 ACRE SITE IN COASTAL SUBREGIONS 7 AND 8, WHICH. IS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL KNOWN AS OCEAN TRAILS was introduced by title and adopted on motion of Councilman Ryan, seconded by Councilman McTaggart. Motion carried. 92 -118 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEALS, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE REVISIONS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 162, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 103, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1541 FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IN ASSOCIATION WITH VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 50666 AND 50667 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NOS. 20970 AND 23004 IN COASTAL SUBREGIONS 7 AND 81 WHICH IS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL KNOWN AS OCEAN TRAILS was presented by title and adopted on motion of Councilman Ryan, seconded by Councilman Kuykendall. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -119 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEALS, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 163, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 103, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1541 FOR A GOLF COURSE AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IN ASSOCIATION WITH VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 50666 AND 50667 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NOS. 20970 AND 23004 IN COASTAL SUBREGIONS 7 AND 8, WHICH IS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL KNOWN AS OCEAN TRAILS was presented by title and adopted on motion of Councilman Ryan, seconded by Councilman McTaggart. Motion carried. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 10:32 Mayor Brooks declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:40 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1992 PAGE 8 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 37885 - GRADING PERMIT N09 1390 - FORRESTAL (1411) Mayor Brooks opened the public hearing on the Modifications to Grading Application No, 1390. The City Clerk reported that notice of the public hearing had been duly published and that written protest letters were part of the agenda packet. Responding to Council inquiry, City Attorney Lynch opined that the City Council only had jurisdiction over the grading plan; that nothing else was before the Council with respect to the tract' s conditions, configuration, or the conditional use permit; that all of these matters were subject to prior approvals; that the only reason grading was before the Council at this meeting was because in prior approvals the Council specifically reserved to itself and to the Planning Commission the jurisdiction to address the grading plan. Therefore, she concluded that the Council was not be able to make any changes with respect to the tract's configuration; and, that this restriction was not based on any settlement but only on the State Tract Map Law. Environmental Services Director Onderdonk presented the staff report of December 7th and the following recommendation: (1) Adopt a resolution certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and Addendum and (2) Adopt a resolution approving modified Grading Application No. 1390. Senior Planner Joel Rojas presented the Revised Project Analysis: that the proposed grading plan was a modification of the "variable slope" grading alternative which was conceptually approved by the City Council on February 18, 1992. The development of the variable slope alternative was based on the Council's objectives for a quarry slope cut which would have employed a combination of cut gradients to minimize slope grading and also to more closely resemble the existing slope contours. As such, this meant that the grading configuration of the quarry slope face involved trimming the slope at variable gradients of .75:1, 1:1, and 1.5:1. Under the variable slope alternative, the development area grading (creation of lots and streets) and the quarry slope trimming would result in 199,480 cu. yards of excess cut. It was proposed that this excess cut would be disposed of in the quarry bowl, exported off -site or a combination of both. That the modified grading plan, which was referred to as the "variable slope /on -site balance" alternative in the FSEIR addendum, involved the following modifications: (1) the limits of the variable quarry slope trimming was shifted slightly (30 ft. ) towards Forrestal Dr. That the revised trimming plan would result in a reduction of cut material from the quarry slope. (2) To accommodate the revised quarry slope trimming, the roadway alignment of Forrestal Dr.,, within the residential development area, had been shifted slightly (10 - 20 ft) away from the quarry slope. To accommodate the roadway shift, one lot had been eliminated from the row of 7 lots closest to the quarry slope and lots 1 - 15 had been reduced in size. This reduced the previously approved Tentative Tract Map from 42 to 41 single family residential lots. (3) That the limits of the variable slope grading had been extended approximately 150 to 300 ft. in a southeasterly direction along Forrestal Dr., to create a fill area for excess cut material. In former proposals, the excess cut material was proposed to be placed in the quarry bowl or exported off -site. ( 4 ) That the redesign and slightly extended area for the quarry slope grading resulted in a balance of cut and fill within the development area and quarry slope areas of the site. This eliminated the need to export any excess cut material off -site. Although the modified plan could also be implemented with no fill material placed in the quarry bowl, a minimum amount of material (which would not exceed 10,000 cu. yards) would be placed in the quarry bowl to correct previously identified drainage problems. Continuing his report, Mr. Rojas, stated that the property owner proposed CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1992 PAGE 9 modifications to previously denied Grading Application No. 1390 which resulted in no excess cut material being placed in the quarry bowl, no off -site export of material, and no additional retaining walls, grading or significant lot /roadway modifications to the tract development. An Addendum to the Final Supplemental EIR had been prepared which found that the revised project would not result in any new significant impacts, but rather avoided or reduced impacts to air quality, traffic, noise, biological resources and visual resources. Impacts involving geotechnical stability issues would remain essentially the same. Furthermore, supplemental and /or revised mitigation measures identified in the FSEIR Addendum for the revised project had been incorporated into the project conditions of approval. In conclusion, Mr. Rojas reported that staff believed that the plan addressed the major concerns previously identified by the Council, particularly the concerns involving f ill in the quarry bowl and of f -site material exportation. Under the modified plan, however, the reviewing geologists recommended that the quarry bowl be restricted from public access due to the remaining rockfall potential. The Council in the past, however, has expressed that access to the quarry bowl should be allowed the public. Although the proposed creation of a fill slope adjacent to the quarry slope trimming would result in balanced on -site grading and would substantially minimize impacts to the quarry bowl, more detailed geotechnical studies were necessary to precisely evaluate the stability of the fill slope and to provide specific geotechnical recommendations. Lastly, Mr. Rojas, said that the Council's concerns about the grading for the tract development, as expressed by the Seaview Homeowners Association, were not affected by the modif ied grading plan. The FSEIR addendum, however, did document how the Seaview HOA concerns had been responded to by the recommendations and conclusions of the current grading plan. Council deliberation then centered on whether the lot alignments were still being raised; what specific improvements had been made to the drainage; the number of trucks that would have been necessary without these changes; if it was possible for the developer to deed the quarry bowl to the City; if there was a requirement to replace coastal sage scrub; and, the appropriateness of having signs at the bottom of the quarry and a fence at the top. Councilman Kuykendall moved, seconded by Councilman McTaggart to amend the proposed resolution to require a fence at the top and signs at the bottom of the quarry bowl. Motion carried. Planning Commission Chairman Robert Katherman said that the Commission decided to take no action on this project because of the limited amount of time they had to examine the project and the limited amount of discretion in proposing alternative designs. Representing the appellant was Bob Trapp, who said that since July they have been trying to find a solution that meets the Council's concerns and that the plan meets all of the criteria set out by the Council; that the plan is a 67% reduction in the amount of cut and fill; that it is a balanced site that would not require any trucks going on and off the site; and, that the drainage and biological issues have been mitigated. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, inquired why there would be no exporting of fill. Speaking to the agreement between the City and J. M. Peters & Co, City Attorney Lynch said that the revised grading plan was part of a settlement but that it could not be signed unless the Council approved the grading plan. Representing the Seaview Homeowners Association was Sharon Solari, who submitted CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 71 1992 PAGE 10 a prepared statement signed by her and Dr. Uday Patil, G.E. This statement addressed the geotechnical issues for this grading application and requested careful consideration of these issues. (This letter is on file in the City Clerk's Office.) City Attorney Lynch clarified the EIR process and the responses to the public comments. Stating that it was important that the Council base their decision on the evidence and not speculation and the geologists' responses to that speculation. There being no response to the Mayor's call for additional public testimony Councilwoman Bacharach moved, seconded by Councilman McTaggart to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Councilman Kuykendall moved, seconded by Councilwoman Bacharach to approve the staff recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 92 -120 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH GRADING PERMIT NO. 1390 AND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADDENDUM TO EIR NO. 16 and RESOLUTION NO, 92 -121 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING GRADING APPLICATION NO. 1390. The motion carried. Councilman McTaggart moved, seconded by Councilman Ryan to accept the settlement agreement with J. M. Peters Co. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: KUYKENDALL, RYAN, McTAGGART, BACHARACH & MAYOR BROOKS. NOES: NONE (At 11:46 P.M. Councilwoman Bacharach requested to be excused from the remainder of the meeting and the meeting of December 15th.) RESOLUTION NO. 92 -122 & ORDINANCE NO, 283 AMENDING THE PERS AGREEMENT (1202) It was the consensus to waive reading of the staff report. Councilman Kuykendall moved, seconded by Councilman Ryan to adopt RESOL. NO. 92- 122 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ANNOUNCING ITS INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES and to INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 283 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. The motion carried. SELECTION OF COMMITTEE & COMMISSION CHAIRS (106) City Clerk Jo Purcell presented the staff memorandum of December 7th and the recommendation to make the selection of committee and commission chairs for the forthcoming year. Mayor Brooks presented her recommendations concerning the selection of commission and committee chairs as outlined in her December 7th memorandum: Planning Commission - reappointment of Robert Katherman as chair. View Restoration Committee - reappointment of Paul Weisz. Long Range Finance Committee - reappointment of Ken Dyda. Traffic Committee - appointment of Bruce Edelson. Parks & Recreation Committee - appointment of Marilyn Lyon. Councilman Ryan moved, seconded by Councilman McTaggart to approve these recommendations. Motion carried. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1992 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS (306) It was the consensus of Council that Mayor Brooks and Mayor Pro Tem Kuykendall should serve as the City's delegate and alternate respectively to the City Selection Committee and the Sanitation Districts. It was the consensus that the remainder of the Council Committee assignments be made at the December 15th meeting. ADJOURNMENT: At 11: 5 5 P.M. Councilman Ryan made a motion to adjourn. Mayor Brooks announced that the meeting was adjourning in memory of Alan Lambie, a graduate of Miraleste High School an o in honor of the service personnel who died in Pearl Harbor 54 years ago. ATTEST: I Y LERK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1992 PAGE 12