Loading...
PC MINS 19910730MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 30, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Von Hagen at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Commissioners Brooks, Hotchkiss, Katherman, McNulty, Chairman Von Hagen ABSENT None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, Assistant Planner Mike Patterson, and Assistant Planner Paul Espe. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Von Hagen acknowledged receipt of correspondence from Tim Burrell and Karl Wichser regarding the Windport project, from Irwin Frendel discussing Mr. Hon's holdings in the moratorium area, and from Andrew Sargent regarding his testimony at the July 23 meeting on common area open space. CONSENT CALENDAR A. P.C. Resolution No. 91-- approving variance No. 302 and Coastal Permit No. 105 with modifications located at 4100 Sea Horse. B. P.C. Resolution No. 91- —approving variance No. 288, Grading No. 1394 and Encroachment Permit No. 21 with modifications located at 3807 Crest Road. Commissioner Brooks moved approval of the Consent Calendar, Commissioner Katherman seconded and the motion passed without objection. (Commissioner Hotchkiss abstained from voting on the first resolution because he did not participate in it.) NEW BUSINESS A. GRADING NO. 1527; Seeyung Assistant Planner Paul Espe and Seonung-Hee Choe, 4 presented the Staff Report Stallion Road. regarding the applicant's request to allow construction of retaining walls at the toe of the extreme slopes on the west side of the property. Staff's recommendation is to approve the request with conditions. Mr. Espe referred to the Staff 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 30, 1991 Memorandum dated July 30, 1991 amending the recommendation to comply with the 8 foot requirement as specified by the building code. He said the applicant agrees with the recommendations of Staff. No one was present to testify. Commissioner Brooks moved approval of Staff Recommendation No. 2 including the July 30 addendum, Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded and the motion passed 5-0. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. GRADING NO. 1522; Mr. C.S. Wang, 30001 Via Rivera. approval of a 41 downslope wall and 25 cubic yards of Staff's recommendation is Assistant Planner Mike Patterson presented the Staff Report regarding the applicant's request for retaining wall with 31 of freestanding grading in an extreme slope area. to approve the request with conditions. Commissioner Katherman asked why a 90% light and air wall on the top 3 feet was not suggested, and Mr. Patterson said there was no request for that by the neighbors and it didn't seem necessary. Lorne O'Brien, 3009 Via Rivera, PVE (the neighbor immediately downhill from the applicant) testified that when he bought his house in 1973 the neighbors at that time had a 551 retaining wall about 51411 high, and the remaining 501 was a gentle slope to his property, covered with trees and vegetation. A chain link fence on Mr. O'Brien's side of the property line (which is also the boundary between RPV and PVE) was covered with ivy. In the fall of 1990 Mr. Wang purchased the property and constructed (without permits) additions to the wall which resulted in a 71411 wall running 90 feet, removing all the vegetation and piling the debris at the rear of his property. Mr. O'Brien removed the chain link fence and put in landscaping to ameliorate the effect of the massive wall. After the rains in March 1991 the retaining wall began to fail and the City cited Mr. Wang and ordered him to remove the wall or reconstruct it in conformance with the Code. A survey found that the actual boundary line lay 2011 closer to the O'Brien property in the front and 4011 in the rear, and Mr. Wang intends to build the new wall on the actual boundary. There are utility easements on both sides of the line. Mr. O'Brien feels that instead of approving the subject request, the City should require Mr. Wang to fix the existing wall, to regrade the land behind it with a gentle slope so that only 31 of land rests on the existing wall, and then reinforce that wall. He mentioned issues still to be addressed, e.g., 10 trees on the 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 30, 1991 property line would have to be removed if the new wall is built, PVE requires Art Jury approval for removal of trees over 201 in height, access to the root system as well as for construction equipment would have to be from Mr. O'Brien's property and would damage his landscaping, and safety concerns. Mr. O'Brien showed slides of the properties in question. Peter Yu, 30001 Via Rivera, speaking for Mr. Wang, said the wall was weakened when Mr. O'Brien removed a tree without compacting the dirt. He said they have complied with all the City regulations on this application. He responded to Mr. O'Brien's concerns by saying the City would show them how to do the work without going onto Mr. O'Brien's property, and added that the 25 cubic yards of dirt to be added between the new and existing walls was very little when spread over 100 feet. By adding the new wall and keeping the old, it would be stronger and safer. The possible problem of constructing a wall inside the easement, and the jurisdictional problems were discussed. Asked about the possibility of rebuilding the original wall, Mr. Patterson said the Building and Safety Division advised that the wall would have to be torn out and rebuilt with the proper City inspections, since there is no way to confirm what sort of reinforcements and footings exist. Director Benard advised that the City is not going to show the applicant how to build his wall, and that even though the plan may be approved, implementation may not be possible if it requires access to Mr. O'Brien's property and that access is not granted. He stated the jurisdiction issue is one for the applicant to be concerned about, not the Planning Commission. Mr. Yu added that the average setback is 31 and that is adequate footing. Going back to the original wall and eliminating the extension was discussed. Asked what would be legal on the site without need for approvals, Director Benard advised that the applicant would have to restore the extreme slope as it originally existed and put in a retaining wall of less than 31. He could add a non - retaining wall on top, up to a total downslope height of 6 feet. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved acceptance of Staff Alternative No. 1, to deny the application, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Brooks. Chairman Von Hagen suggested continuance to allow Staff to investigate and come back with an alternative recommendation. After discussion, Commissioner Brooks withdrew her second and the motion died. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 30, 1991 Chairman Von Hagen moved continuance to the next available date after Staff has looked into the issues raised. Commissioner Brooks seconded and the motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner McNulty dissenting. PUBLIC HEARING A. DRAFT FOCUSED EIR NO. 31 Senior Planner Carolynn Petru FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 19, presented the Staff Report TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. regarding the applicant's 18947 AND GRADING NO. request to certify the EIR for 1460; Wallace Pollack and a proposed zone change from OH Richard Capellino, end of to RS -2 to allow the sub- Windport Drive. division of the property into 4 single family residential lots. Staff has concluded the proposed project will result in some significant impacts on the environment but has proposed mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to an insignificant level. Their recommendation is to open the public hearing and receive public comments on Draft Focused EIR No. 31. Ms. Petru noted that written comments on the Draft EIR may be submitted to the City until 5:00 p.m. on August 9, 1991. Commissioner Brooks asked about the concerns raised in a letter from the California Water Service regarding the impact of increased irrigation and grading on unstable earth in the area, and Ms. Petru replied that their concerns will be investigated and addressed along with other comments on the draft EIR. With regard to a letter from Mr. Karl Wichser on the subject of the use of piers versus total excavation and recompaction of the site, Ms. Petru said the City geologist has found the pier solution to be acceptable and complete excavation has been considered only for the proposed Windport Drive extension. Chairman Von Hagen stated that he is acquainted with the Pollack and Capellino families and has represented them and collected a commission on their properties. He has not represented them in the last five years, however, and has not discussed the merits of this application with them. The City Attorney has advised there is no conflict of interest in this proceeding. Commissioner Katherman inquired about alternatives to the 6,000 cubic yards of export and also whether RPD style clustering was considered. Ms. Petru said that different pad configurations with some split level houses are being analyzed to see if the amount of export could be reduced, and that the RPD alternative was not looked at, but could be considered. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 30, 1991 The public hearing was opened and Chairman Von Hagen stressed that the purpose was to receive input on the draft focused EIR and not on the merits of the project, which will be discussed at the August 19 meeting. Ms. Petru noted that a letter from Mr. Eldon Swails had been received and distributed to Commissioners. Tim Burrell, 57 Marguerite Drive, representing the applicants, stated that he is very familiar with the EIR process and he welcomes public participation and suggestions on how the project could be improved. His only disagreement with the staff report is the statement regarding the proposed zone change from Open Space Hazard to RS -2; he feels the subject property is already zoned RS -4. Regarding grading alternatives, he said the first proposal called for removing the earth and recompacting it on the entire site, but after study it was found to be environmentally superior to excavate and recompact the area only under the road extension. Regarding parkland, he said the City does not have the ability to acquire the property as a park in its current financial condition. If a group of residents wished to acquire the land and develop it as open space or donate it to the Conservancy or the City, he said they are willing to listen. Addressing the concerns raised in the California Water Service letter, Mr. Burrell said the caissons are engineered to resist lateral forces as well as vertical movement, and an alternative has been developed since the EIR was prepared which calls for less grading. Regarding the "blue line stream", he said they hope to redevelop that area and put in some natural material under it which will not erode and will allow the native habitat to re-establish itself. James Crowley, 6644 Locklenna Lane, spoke for a group of 40 Locklenna homeowners with concerns for the stability of the land. He questioned the use of caissons in a canyon landfill situation with "slope creep." He said that cracks appeared in his home and in other area homes when drilling began for the core samples. He mentioned concerns about living with pounding and earth movement, the liability to the city and the effects on endangered species living in the canyon. Commissioner Katherman suggested Mr. Crowley provide written comment enumerating his concerns and the potential impact of the development on the Locklenna homes. Mr. Crowley asked for an extension of time for comments on the draft EIR; however, after clarification by Director Benard of the time constraints of the State Permit Streamlining Act it was decided that the deadline of August 9 would remain. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 30, 1991 RECESS AND RECONVENE A 10 -minute break was called at 9:30 p.m. Karl Wichser, 29610 Island View Drive, represented the Concord Villa Homeowners Association. He confirmed that the Peninsula Center Library did not have the draft focused EIR available until a few days before the hearing. He showed photos of the canyon taken in March showing the blue line stream to be 101 to 301 in depth and pointed out that large quantities of earth and stones were moved during the rains. Mr. Wichser presented a petition signed by 46 registered voters opposing the project. He expressed interest in discussing with Mr. Burrell the concept of donating the land to the Land Conservancy. Marvin Stein, 6636 Locklenna, expressed concerns about water drainage, building on fill land, pier construction, the impact of the proposed project on plant and animal life and its effect on his property. Georgette Boyajian, 6650 Locklenna, requested help from the Planning Commission in opposing the project due to the instability of the land, saying her house is settling and has huge cracks. She said she has telephoned and written many letters to the City in the past four years. Ms. Petru stated that she has compiled all letters that have been received since 1988 concerning this property and they will be submitted to the Commissioners when the merits of the project are considered. Carolina Oaxaca, 6658 Locklenna, reiterated the concerns raised by the other speakers and asked what liability the City would assume if houses began to slide because of the new construction. Robert Baker, 7 Oceancrest Court, also restated the same concerns regarding water, land slippage, overdevelopment for the size of the area, and erosion. He added that he currently has access through the property from his home to Hesse Park and hoped he would not lose this access. Tim Burrell replied to the comments of speakers. He said his firm paid to have the City geologist inspect the residences with cracks and the geologist's professional opinion should be incorporated into the EIR. Mr. Burrell offered to provide inspection of other homes before the project begins, to serve as a baseline and make sure that nothing related to this project is causing any harm. He explained that the use of caissons in fills has been done successfully since 1959. He said that current subsidence and potential slides caused by water running through the gully will be eliminated by the development. Water will H. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 30, 1991 mostly be redirected into the existing storm drains on Windport. A proposed trail providing access across the project will be incorporated if the public wants it. Chairman Von Hagen advised that all comments received tonight will be incorporated into the final comments on the EIR, along with any others that are delivered in writing before the August 9 deadline. In reply to queries regarding correction of existing conditions and indemnification, Mr. Burrell advised that the applicant was offering to inspect residences and document any problems but was not going to enter into indemnification agreements. He said that if liability was caused by a lack of care or other problem with the proposed development, the law would take care of it. He stated that no two-story homes are being applied for. Bill Craig, 9 Oceancrest Court, asked if the City would have any liability if damage was caused by the builder and the builder could not take care of it. Mr. Benard stated that the City is not in the business of indemnifying developers. Commissioner McNulty moved to close the public hearing and allow the submission of written testimony until August 9, 1991, as established by law. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hotchkiss and passed 3-2, with Commissioners Katherman and Brooks dissenting. Director Benard announced that a new notice will be provided for the meeting of August 19, noticing a public hearing on the merits of the development portions of the project. Commissioners Katherman and Hotchkiss advised they will not be available on that date. After discussion of alternate dates it was decided to hold the hearing on the 19th. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE None. REPORTS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. 7