Loading...
PC MINS 19920319G, t MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING MARCH 19, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Katherman at 7:14 p.m. at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: Commissioners: Byrd, Hayes, Katherman, Mowlds, Alberio, Lorenzen Staff: Acting Director of Environmental Services Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, and Assistant Planner Fabio deFreitas ABSENT: • Commissioner Clark REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Carolynn Petru advised the Commission that there were no staff reports. Ms. Petru distributed to the Commission copies of a March 4, 1992, memorandum prepared by Commissioners Clark and Mowlds containing four motions regarding conduct of Planning Commission Meetings. FIRST MOTION A request to speak on an item must be submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the completion of the remarks of the first speaker on the item. No request forms will be accepted after that time and no additional speakers will be allowed to speak on the item being discussed. MOVED by Comm. Mowlds -- that the motion be adopted. Seconded by Comm. Alberio. Chairman Katherman commented that this penalizes people who arrive late. Motion passed unanimously with the one negative comment by Chairman Katherman. SECOND MOTION All speakers will be limited to a five (5) minute presentation unless added time is agreed to by the Commission prior to the commencing the discussion. i Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 2 In response to a question by Commissioner Hayes as to procedure if there are more people requesting to speak on one side of the issue, Commissioner Mowlds explained that the City Council allots the same amount of time to each side of the question, i.e., if there are 4 speakers at 5 minutes each in favor, the opposition will be allowed 20 minutes even though they have only 2 speakers. Comm. Mowlds further stated that the City Council sometimes reduces the amount of time to 3 minutes if the number of speakers would result in an excessive amount of time. There being no objections, the motion was unanimously passed and so ordered by the Chairman. The Third and Fourth Motions from the memorandum from Commissioners Clark and Mowlds were tabled. Ms. Petru distributed copies of correspondence received relating to the public hearing on the PVLHC/Zuckerman project: 1) A concept proposal by Comm. Clark dealing with affordability/accessibility to the golf course for the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, and 2) A letter from "The Silent Majority" (undated) requesting that an attached copy of a newspaper article, The Regulatory Wrongs Done to Property Rights (undated) be introduced into the record. CONSENT CALENDAR A. P.C. Resolution No. 92-15; approving Variance No. 315 and Grading Permit No. 1620 with conditions located at 11 Saddle. (PE) Comm. Mowlds commented that Page 3, I.C. calls for a privacy screen "on the northern side of the property line at the top of the transition slope to the toe of the slope". Comm. Mowlds believes what was asked for is a screen to the end of the trellis, not all the way down the hillside. Chairman Katherman commented that the walkway in front of the trellis should also be covered. AGREED - That this sentence on Page 3, Para. 1.0 of this resolution shall be amended to read: ". . . at the top of the transition slope to the highest retaining wall". B. P.C. Resolution No. 92-16; approving Variance No. 318 for an existing deck in the rear yard located at 6 Avenida de Camelia. (TS) 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 3 C. P.C. Resolution No. 92-17; recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 600 and approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 49067 to City Council, and P.C. Resolution No. 92-18 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 154, Grading Permit No. 1420, Coastal Permit No. 95, and Variance No. 297 located at Palos Verdes Drive South and Yacht Harbor Drive. (FF) Regarding Item C, Assistant Planner deFreitas presented a brief report on minor modifications which have been made in the Tract Resolutions and the Conditional Use Permit and related applications. There was one request to speak on Item C, so that item was taken off the Consent Calendar. MOVED by Comm. Hayes -- That Items A and H of the Consent Calendar be approved. Seconded by Comm. Mowlds. Without objection, Items A and 8 were approved. Ms. Petru reported on appeal rights regarding Items A and H as follows: There are 15 days (beginning on 3/20/92) in which to submit a written appeal with a $235.00 appeal fee for the item to be considered by City Council. Regarding Item C. Consent Calendar: Sharon Solari, 4145 Palos Verdes Drive So., President of Seaview Homeowners Association, read from a written statement (copies distributed) regarding problems of dust control, and requested dust monitoring by individual agents other than the contractor. Chairman Katherman stated that this is in reference to Condition No. 16, Page 8 of the C.U.P. Conditions of Approval, and Mr. deFreitas confirmed that this is the standard condition. Ms. Petru stated that the grading inspector is the person who primarily monitors dust on site. Also, a representative of Public Works monitors conditions of the streets on a regular basis --every day during most active grading; otherwise, on a complaint basis. Summary of discussion by Commission: In this type of grading, water trucks rather than hoses are needed, with regular watering of the site. They know of no technical method of measuring dust in the air. Comm. Alberio suggested that the developer be asked to explain how he plans to handle this problem. Chairman Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 4 Katherman suggests establishing a system to respond quickly to homeowners' complaints. Ms. Petru recommended that Condition 16, Page 8 of 18, of the Conditional Use Permit, Conditions of Approval be modified to read as follows: "A fugitive dust control plan (including clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Environmental Services and the Director of Public Works and shall control dust by regular watering, or other dust preventative measures in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403." APPROVED with no objections. MOVED by Comm. Hayes -- That Item C on the Consent Calendar be approved as amended. Seconded by Comm. Byrd. Unanimously passed and so ordered. Chairman Katherman reiterated the appeal period concerning this Item: 15 days on the Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Coastal Permit, and the Variance. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map and the Negative Declaration go to City Council automatically. PUBLIC HEARING A. Vestino Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 and 50667. Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 23004 and 29070. Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163. Grading Permit No. 1531 and Coastal Permit No. 103% PVLHC and Zuckerman, Subregion 7 & 8/PVDS. (CP) Requested Action: Approve an BO lot single family residential development with an 18 -hole public golf course, clubhouse, and passive open space. Recommendation: Provide Staff with direction regarding the location of the golf course clubhouse and the draft conditions of approval. Comm. Hayes referred to the memorandum from the Acting Director of Environmental Services, dated March 19, 1992, Page 3, "Public Amenities", Paragraph 3, which outlines the recommendations of the Recreation and Parks Committee for a nature center to be provided in the clubhouse with a percentage of green fees to be used to hire a naturalist. Comm. Hayes objects to the developer being required to use green fees to hire a naturalist. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 5 Comm. Byrd asked, in view of a newspaper article [3/19/923 on recirculation of the E.T.R., what this would do to the approval cycle of the project; what dates can be expected for final getting City Council action? With the Chairman's permission, Mr. Byrd then excused himself from the meeting, since he had abstained from discussion and voting on this project. Ms. Petru responded that a Supplemental E.I.R. was sent to the State Clearing House today [3/193, and that the documents include the Biological Report and expanded E.I.R. Addendum If the 45 -day review period began an the 19th it would run until May S, which is a weekend, and so it would thein be carried over to Monday, May 4. Ms. Petru advised that the Planning Commission can do one of two things: 1) Wait until the documents have been circulated and comments are received back from responsible agencies and the public and respond to those comments before sending the E.I.R. to City Council, or 2) Send the project up to City Council, making it very specific in the Conditions of Approval that the'Planning Commission is making recommendations only on the Conditional Use Permit, Coastal Permit and Grading Permit (not the E.I.R.), subject to approvals on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and the E.I.R. by the City Council. Ms. Petru felt that some comments received may change the mitigation required, but will not change the level of significance, since biological impacts have already been found to be significant in the draft E.I.R. circulated last June. Regarding Continued Hearings, Comm. Mowlds requested that the Commission hear no further discussion on clubhouse Location No. 1, since that location has been thoroughly covered in the past. The Commission agreed that unless there is new information on Location No. 1, testimony during this hearing will be limited to Locations 2 and 3, as identified in the staff report. Chairman Katherman officially opened the Continued Public Hearing and called upon Staff for a presentation. In her staff report, Acting Director Petru again referenced the two pieces of correspondence distributed earlier in the meeting (from Comm. Clark and from "The Silent Majority", and briefly reviewed her memorandum of March 19, 1992, and attachments. Ms. Petru requested direction for the Staff on: Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 6 1. Alternative Clubhouse Locations (Site plans and drawings by the developer were on display.) 2. Public Amenities and Public Parking 3. Trails, Placement and Type (Exhibit map displayed). 4. Vista Points (Location and Configuration) 5. Development Standards & Design Guidelines (Residential Lots) 6. Updated Biological Survey SPEAKERS Michael A. Mohler, Applicant, 25200 La Paz. Laguna Hills, representing Palos Verdes Land Holding Company and the Zuckerman family interests. Mr. Mohler made the following observations on the Staff Report: Item 5, Page 1: He is concerned about how parking for the 1.2 acre overlook park might be handled (this is a change from location 1). He cautions that parking could be difficult; PVLHC would be looking for some input :n submitting their final road design. Mr. Mohler reviewed their analysis of clubhouse locations (with site plans and drawings displayed), and agreed to eliminate discussion on Location No. 1 as the Commission wishes. He stated that alternative No. 2 has a slightly reduced two-story structure, above grade, on Paseo Del Mar, immediately west of the school property. The benefits of this location are an easier returning nine holes and more buffering from surrounding residential areas. A concern is the geology and the 1.5 factor of safety. If it is not 1.5 as originally factored, the developer feels it would be very close. PVLHC would need the City's cooperation to build a clubhouse on this site. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 7 Comments and Questions: Comm. Mowlds stated he understands that if you can achieve 1.5 by mechanical means (dewatering wells), that would be acceptable to the City, and he asked if PVLHC objects to putting in dewatering wells. Mr. Mohler responded that they would have no objections to putting in dewatering wells. Comm. Alberio advised that he believes if we only have a 1.2 safety factor and the developer is willing to hold the City harmless, there would be no problem. Chairman Katherman advised that as a result of conversations with residents of Ocean Terrace, he understands there is a concern about "nighttime activities" on Paseo Del Mar, and asked what kind of security measures the applicant proposes if Location No. 2 is chosen. Mr. Mohler responded that they would have to discuss that factor, but there would be, at the inception, alarms with central station call to the police and personnel inside the building --initially, until they find out what security measures are needed. Mr. Mohler stated that the Conditions in the "Draft Conditions of Approval" relating to alternative clubhouse Location No. 2 is acceptable to the applicant as written. Regarding Location No. 3 (which was the original location in the 116 ft. residential lot design), Mr. Mohler cited Comm. Hayes' disfavor and stated that the applicant has communicated in writing their disfavor. The concerns are that this is a remote site, too detached from the golf course, requiring a very circuitous golf cart route through or adjacent to biologically sensitive habitat areas. The positive factors are that this location addresses the concerns from the Forrestal area and a section of Seacliff Hills. Mr. Mohler summarized by saying that they do not like Location No. 3, and have previously stated their reasons for preferring Location No. 1. However, given all the public input, the applicant's order of preference is: Site No. 2, Site No. 1, and Site No. 3. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 8 Comm. Mowlds requested comments by the applicant on the site on both the east and west side of La Rotunda, with the clubhouse situated immediately west of La Rotunda. Mr. Mohler replied that locating the clubhouse on the west side of La Rotunda would require crossing La Rotunda to the links, resulting in traffic problems. It would also require double the grading. He stated that these sites are one and the same --they are not two separate sites, and the topography is very steep on both sides. With reference to the Public Amenities section of the Staff Report, Mr. Mohler advised that Seacliff Hills has a concern about the turnout west of Lot 37. Regarding a nature center/naturalist, the applicant is recommending that the Greenskeeper be trained as a naturalist, with input on training from local naturalists and environmental officials. The applicant is opposed to hiring a city or private consultant as a naturalist. Mr. Mohler advised that they are resubmitting a Standards & Design Guidelines package which was originally submitted in July, 1991, with updates. The new design guidelines are a statement of intent for Italian -Mediterranean architecture on the site. Three other architectural styles that are compatible: Spanish - Mediterranean; French Country; and Moorish architecture, which has influenced both Italian and Spanish -Mediterranean architecture. The Applicant proposed that these three architectural styles be included for approval and included as a part of the C.U.P., so that a major modification of the C.U.P. would be required by any resident wishing to use any other style of architecture. Mr. Mohler further recommended that, regarding private residences portion of the C.U.P., that a building permit would not be issued for a lot until a letter of approval from the community association architectural board is received, to ensure compliance with style requirements. Mr. Mohler requested the following change in Draft Conditions of Approval, I.A.15 (referencing restriction of open spaces): That the word "restricting" be substituted for the word "dedicating". AGREED to by the Commission. Mr. Mohler reported that an updated biology report has been completed and that the applicant met with the Coastal Conservation Coalition to discuss the Biological Survey and the Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 9 gnatcatcher survey. The applicant's biologist found several nesting pairs of cactus wrens and gnatcatchers on the site, and has updated the Biological Resources Assessment with respect to plants, birds, and sensitive habitat maps. They are convinced that the draft E.I.R. adequately covers the biological resources on the site and the significance of impacts, allowing this project to move through according to the recommendation of Ms. Petru. Mr. Mohler read the following from the conclusion to the biology report for the record: "With the implementation of the mitigation measures in the draft E.I.R. and the above additional mitigation measures which they suggest, the significant project effects will likely be reduced to below a level of significance." ". . . In summary, this assessment does not identify any significant effects after mitigation that were not identified in draft E.I.R. No. 36." ` Mr. Mohler urged the Commission to move the project forward. Public Testimony Chairman Katherman determined by a show of hands that a majority of the public present was there to discuss the location of the clubhouse, rather than biological impact, and the Commission directed that the issue of the clubhouse be discussed first. Robert Aoli, 3200 La Rotunda Dr., President of Ocean Terrace Homeowners Association, read from a letter submitted to the 1 Commission, and stated that the residents of Ocean Terrace favor the project. However, in view of the change in recommended clubhouse location, he will have to discuss the alternative Location 2 with the other residents. Bob Grahamer, 32427 Seaview Dr., read from a prepared statement (distributed to the Commission). Mr. Grahamer requested the Commission to: 1) Reiterate its opposition to the developer's proposed Site No. 1 and deny the applicant's request for that location, and 2) Approve Site No. 2 near the school property as its first choice for the clubhouse, with either the east side or west side of La Rotunda and Palos Verdes Dr. South as the alternative if Site No. 2 proves to be geologically unsuitable. Mr. Grahamer disagreed with Mr. Mohler's statements regarding the La Rotunda location, grading and problems in locating a clubhouse there. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 10 Robert Orr, 3814 Pirate Dr., is in favor of Site No. 1 and feels there would be no traffic problems. Elaine Motz, 32413 Searaven Drive, read from a letter submitted by her and her husband to the Commission, referring to Mr. Mohler's letter to the Chairman of March 11, 1992. Mr. and Mrs. Motz also attached a letter from Kenneth Zuckerman, dated February 12, 1990, wherein Mr. Zuckerman raised the question of two proposed hotels for the area, and cited the importance of preserving the residential character of the City and the General Plan, etc. Mrs. Motz stated that the clubhouse is gust as much a commercial establishment as a hotel would be, and stated that traffic, parking, and clubhouse uses all remain unresolved. / Kevin Sears, 3324 Palo Vista, President of Seacliff Homeowners Assoc., spoke in favor of the project as a great addition and benefit to the City. He stated the golf course has a potential to be one of the premier courses in California and, perhaps, the U.S.A. The Association overwhelmingly supports the project and Sites No. 1 or 2. He raised one question regarding the proposed vista point on P.V.D.S. west of Lot 37, Tentative Tract Map 50667, and requested the vista point be eliminated or moved. He further urged the Commission to act tonight in moving the project forward. f Ed Bauer, 3572 Vigilance Dr., Member of the Ladera Linda Homeowners Association, agreed with Mr. Grahamer. He feels there has been a great deal of misinformation given to the public by the developer, and does not understand why the developer now considers Site No. 3 not feasible, when it was his choice in July, 1991. AMark Gonhue, 15 Fruit Tree Road, President, Owners for Stabilization, spoke in favor of the project and in opposition to those people who continually raise the issues of biology, traffic, soil conditions, etc., which he feels are being addressed and resolved. H felt that Hon/Zuckerman has tried very hard to work with the community. George Fink, 32353 Searaven Dr., is strongly in favor of Site No. 2. He requested clarification of the traffic data submitted, as the traffic analysis presented gives an estimated number of vehicles entering and exiting the various streets at the sites which differs from his figures. Mr. Fink encouraged rapid action on the project. 6 Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 11 Betty Marler (no address coven), spoke in support of Mr. Hyatt of the Seacliff Homeowners Association, in his contention that traffic would be increased by the project and the value of Mr. Hyatt's property would be adversely affected if the clubhouse is built at the corner of Forrestal and Palos Verdes Drive South. Ms. Marler stated`that as a real estate agent for 28 years, she is qualified to make that judgement. Ken McNeill, 6636 Channelview, felt that the community should be thankful that these developers put together this project, and that the City should take action on the project. He requested consideration for preferred starting times on the golf course for city residents. Milt Roth, 7028 Willowtree, agreed with Ken McNeill. He would like to see the project move ahead, and would also like consideration given to city residents on starting times and fees. qs' red DiBernardo, 3442 Palo Vista Dr., presented a petition by residents in the Seacliff Hills Homeowners Association, with 6 additional names to those previously submitted in support of the project. Mr. DiBernardo stated that these petitions represent approximately 87% of the property owners able to be contacted, and he requested that any letters previously written to the Commission by any member of the Association, specifically the president, expressing opposition to the proposed project on behalf of the Association, be dismissed. The Association also requests that the City mandate the developer to landscape both sides of Palos Verdes Dr. South as well as the center divider, and that the lookout area on Palos Verdes Dr. South, on the east side of the street, be eliminated to avoid traffic hazards and loitering. Mr. DiBernardo stated that the Association urges the Commission to listen to the majority and vote tonight to approve the proposed development in its entirety. He supports Site No. 2, provided it does not compromise the geological makeup of the site or surrounding area. /Dave Whittlesey. 32524 Seacliff Drive, feels the developer has ✓ done a beautiful fob with the development, and Site No. 2 is an acceptable location for the golf course clubhouse. RECESS & RECONVENE The meeting recessed for a break at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 12 Herbert Hyatt, 32424 Aqua Vista Dr., President of Seacliff Hills Homeowners Association, had submitted two statements and he read excerpts from each of them indicating the Homeowners Association is in favor of the project and golf course. The only problem is the location of the clubhouse, which he believes would be resolved with the selection of Site No. 2. John P. Sharkey, 303320 Avenida de Calma, stated he wrote a letter in response to local newspaper coverage of the project, and his objections to the newspaper's'characterization of proceeding "unconscionable". He expressed concern about the possible selection of Site No. 2 because it opens the door for people to propose buildings on land with less than the 1.5 safety factor. He stated that Site No. 2 is totally unacceptable because it is not identified in the Coastal Specific Plan; that the City has no authority to approve a golf course, and that the residents should initiate an effort to stop anyone from changing the residential zoning of this area. Chairman Katherman requested Mr. Sharkey to confine his remarks to the location of the clubhouse. J. J. D. McLaren 3923 Palos Verdes Dr. South, requested to speak twice, on the clubhouse location and on Bluff Road. Chairman Katherman stated he would be confined to 5 minutes total. Mr. McLaren believes that Site No. 2 will not be accepted by the city geologist, and he recommends the north side of Paseo Del Mar as the location for the clubhouse. MOVED by Comm. Mowlds -- That the testimony on the issue of the clubhouse location be closed. Seconded by Comm. Hayes. There being no opposition, the testimony on the clubhouse location was closed. MOVED by Comm. Mowlds -- That the clubhouse be located at Alternative Site No. 2, with the understanding that the geology will adhere to a 1.5 safety factor, and that there be no alternative location for the clubhouse without a major revision to the Conditional Use Permit. Seconded by Comm. Hayes. Following discussion the Motion was amended as follows: Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 13 THAT the clubhouse be located at Alternative Site No. 2, with the understanding that the geology will go to 1.50 by mechanical means if necessary, and that if the 1.5 safety factor cannot be achieved, a major revision to the Conditional Use Permit would be required. Chairman Katherman stated he had been concerned about the potential impact of Site No. 3 on the Ocean Terrace Condominiums. He feels this new site will have less impact on Ocean Terrace condominiums. He would also like to discuss various means of requiring additional security through security patrols, closing facilities at prescribed hours, and would like suggestions from the staff at a follow-up meeting on security issues and protection for the area. Further, the Chairman requested that, if it is recommended that Paseo Del Mar be a cul de sac, that area be closed off to public access after the clubhouse has closed, and a noise analysis be provided to mitigate any traffic noise that might affect the Ocean Terrace condominiums. With these conditions for approval, the Chairman felt that Site 2 was the best alternative available from a practical standpoint. However, the potential of closure of Paseo Del Mar needed to be discussed further with respect to traffic lights and intersection design. Comm. Alberio recalled that a signal to control traffic at the intersection at La Rotunda had previously been discussed. Ms. Petru stated that she would have to consult the traffic study, but believes it was indicated that a traffic signal may be warranted at La Rotunda, where it wouldn't be at Forrestal Drive. By roll call vote the location of the clubhouse at Site No. 2 was unanimously APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING ON BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS Andrew Sargent. One Peppertree, spoke on behalf of the Coastal Conservation Coalition and summarized his report contained in a letter to the Commission dated March 19, 1992 (distributed). Mr. Sargent stated the differences between the developer's updated report and the original report (regarding the gnatcatchers and cactus wrens) are so dramatic that it casts serious questions on credibility on the E.I.R. Mr. Sargent indicated on a display map the location of the Gnatcatchers nests, which should remain and stated that the developer is not preserving the biological Planning Comffosion Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 14 resources present on the site. Mr. Sargent maintains that Paseo Del Mar is a coastal bluff road and should remain open. Mr. Sargent urged the Commission not to close public hearings until responses on the E.I.R. have been received, and also requested an independent evaluation of the information furnished by the developer. Ms. Petru verified that the information in the addendum has been combined into the supplement to the original E.I.R. report, and there have been additions and changes to the addendum, i.e., the new biological survey, noise assessment, more quantification of impacts, discussion of alternatives to clubhouse locations. Mr. Sargent stated that they will respond in writing after receiving the latest information. Gar Goodson, 1709 Via Zurita, agreed with Mr. Sargent's presentation and the request to delay action until responses to the E.I.R. are received. He distributed copies of a New York Times article on golf courses. Chairman Katherman asked how the current information differs from information presented at the last Public Hearing. Mr. Sargent responded that the original addendum did not quantify the biological resources present on the site. The new biological survey has corrected that deficiency. Fish & Game can now comment on the project based upon adequate information. Sunshine 6 Limetree Lane, addressed specifics in the draft Conditions: 1) Exhibit A, Tentative Tract Map, Page 5 -- she questions the width of the remainder of Paseo Del Mar; 2) Trails (Page 6) -- need handicapped access on sidewalks; 3) Page 8, Trails -- There are City standards on trail treads, prisms, width of trail easements. She proposes clarification on all 3 widths; and the grades of the trails are not specified. Chairman Katherman requested the Staff and the developer to respond to these questions. Sunshine suggested an irrevocable offer for equestrian trails (with additional public hearings in the future if equestrian use i.s appropriate). She suggested that in Item 10, Page 9, assigning a letter to the intersection would add clarity. In the draft C.U.P. Conditions, Page 7, the Trails Committee is still Planning Commoion Minutes • March 19, 1992 Page 15 referenced. There is no longer a Trails Committee, so that language needs to be changed. On Page 7, No. 2, she suggests that trail construction be reviewed and approved "prior to" street improvements instead of "upon", as it now reads, so trail construction is done as a part of the rough grading. In response to a question by Comm. Mowlds, Sunshine affirmed that the location of the trails are correct, but raised a concern on the map displayed, since the park at Halfway Point has been moved. This map does not show the coastal access as previously discussed, down the west side of Halfway Point. On Site No. 2, the map shows the trail ending at the street; it does not show how the trail would continue in front of the clubhouse. Associate Planner Terry Silverman stated that the dimensions used for the trails were provided by the Director of Recreation & Parks, and she understands those figures came directly from the Conceptual Trails Plan. Lois Knight Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Abalone Cove, maintains that the golf course and clubhouse are illegal, since a golf course in Subsection 7 is not expressly permitted under the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan. REBUTTAL BY APPLICANT: Mr. Mohler stated that since no biologist is present (from LSA Associates), he would respond. Mr. Mohler advised that with respect to Sunshine's comments on the trails, the Committee voted against equestrian use on the trails south of the Palos Verdes Drive South. In response to a question from Chairman Katherman, Mr. Mohler said that as a practical matter, horses could probably not be kept off the trail along Palos Verdes Drive South. With respect to trail concerns (widths, etc.), Mr. Mohler believes this was anticipated in the staff report in I.D.3, C.U.P. 163, requiring those specifications to be submitted for review and approval by the City. Regarding biological resources, Mr. Mohler cited Page 93 of the Draft E.I.R. He believes this section, "Level of Significance After Mitigation", contains the information which Mr. Sargent claims was not stated. Mr. Mohler feels that LSA's information in the updated biological report reinforces the adequacy of the E.I.R. He stated that the developer is maintaining a better than one to one replacement of coastal sage scrub sensitive habitat areas. Mr. Mohler summarized as follows: Out of 16.65 acres of Planning Comion Minutes March 19, 199* Page 16 viable habitat, 5.5 acres will be impacted and 6.7 acres will be replaced. Breakdown of impacted areas: Road - 1.3 acres; Residential - 3.4 acres; Golf Course - .8 acres, totaling 5.5 acres. In response to a question from Chairman Katherman, Mr. Mohler confirmed that approximately $4 million in road improvements will be constructed by the developer. Chairman Katherman and Commissioner Alberio asked if relocating the gnatcatchers is an option. Both Mr. Sargent and Mr. Goodson responded that, due to the habits of the gnatcatcher, relocation is probably not feasible, but a biologist should be consulted on that question. REBUTTAL BY MR. SARGENT:, Mr. Sargent stated that the Coastal Conservation Coalition is concerned not dust with preserving the gnatcatcher, but also in preserving the coastal sage scrub habitat, and some holes of the golf course are interfering with the habitat area. Mr. Goodson stated that while the Gnatcatcher is not yet on the endangered species, it has been proposed for that category and will be declared so fairly soon. J. J. D. McLaren, 3923 Palos Verdes Dr.. South, agrees with Mrs. Larue on the Bluff Road, and opposes closing the middle portion of Paseo del Mar. MOVED by Comm. Hayes -- That the Public Hearing be closed. Seconded by Comm. Lorenzen. Comm. Alberio expressed his concern about comments on the Supplemental E.I.R. having an impact on these hearings. Comm. Mowlds responded that the Commission does not certify the E.I.R. The Commission can recommend certification of the document to City Council, and if the E.I.R. is inadequate, then it can be discussed at the City Council. Mowlds objected to taking another 40 to 45 days before sending the project on to the Council. Chairman Katherman concurred and explained that the Commission's role is to make only a recommendation to City Council that the E.I.R. be certified. The actions of the Commission would be final on certain other applications--G.U.P., Coastal Development Permit, Grading Permit and Parcel Maps. These applications are tied with the Tract Map application and would normally have to be appealed before going to City Council. It is being proposed in Planning Comion Minutes March 19, 191* Page 17 the Development Code Modifications that all of these ancillary applications go to the City Council with the main Tract Map so that all conditions of approval will be heard at the same time. Chairman Katherman suggested that any further discussion on this be made in writing to the Commission, and he favors closing the Public Hearing. Motion to close the Public Hearing passed unanimously by roll call vote. Comm. Lorenzen expressed concern regarding the location of Hole 4 with regard to the Silent Flyers (radio controlled airplanes) use and removal of the concrete pads (World War II gun emplacements), particularly one pad on the bluff near Halfway Point. Comm. Mowlds pointed out that the people using the site for flying their remote controlled planes are, in fact, trespassing. Chairman Katherman stated he has no objection to preserving the remains of one of the military installations for historical reasons. Chairman Katherman stated the larger issue is the biological resources and the circulation of the Supplemental E.I.R. He polled the other members of the Commission on the question and it was agreed that the E.I.R. reports should be sent to City Council without waiting for responses to the circulated reports. Chairman Katherman suggested that, in order to give City Council as much information as possible and to mitigate the project to the greatest extent possible, an ad hoc committee be appointed, comprised of representatives from the Sierra Club, Audobon Society, Native Plant Society, Coastal Conservation Coalition, County Forester, and other appropriate representatives, to review the final plans for the golf course, housing development, road construction and grading to make recommendations to mitigate the impacts to the native habitat and to provide enhancement in this area. He recommended that before allowing grading to occur, the enhancement plan should be prepared and reviewed by the ad hoc committee. Following discussion, the consensus was to move ahead with the Conditions of Approval. 0 .9 Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 18 MOVED by Chairman Katherman -- That, with respect to biological resources, the City establish an ad hoc committee that will review these biological plans and make recommendations to the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing regarding the design layout of the golf course and appropriate mitigation measures, prior to issuance of grading plans. Seconded by Comm. Lorenzen. By roll call vote, the motion failed with 3 opposed and 2 in favor (Katherman and Lorenzen). MOVED by Comm. Mowlds -- That the staff forward the E.I.R. to the City Council without the Planning Commission making a recommendation on the Supplemental E.I.R., and that before the Item is brought back to the Commission, the staff will confer with the City Attorney to develop language to include in the Commission's resolutions on the E.I.R., Vesting Tenatative Tract May, G.U.P., Coastal Development Permit and Grading Permit stating that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to City Council on these items. Seconded by Comm. Hayes. By roll call vote the motion passed, with Chairman Katherman noting that his was a reluctant affirmative. RECESS L RECONVENE A ten minute break was taken at 12:10 a.m. Due to the late hour, the review of the Resolutions and Final Conditions of Approval was postponed to a special meeting of the Commission, scheduled for Tuesday, March 31, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. at Hesse Community Park. Ms. Petru will confirm that the meeting room is available on that date. DIRECTIONS TO STAFF 1. The Commission directs the Staff to prepare resolutions and final conditions of approval for the special meeting. 2. Vista Points/Turnouts (Two proposed overlooks): Comm. Mowlds delivered to Staff drawings from HMDI project which he has marked up, and recommends that we do the same thing with this project. Comm. Mowlds also recommends changing the rear yard fencing to create 90% fencing within the rear yard setback. Comm. Mowlds stated that, even though residents in the area rejected a traffic light at Forrestal, he believes in a few years they will want a light there. He recommends that all underground [utilities] be installed now so the intersection does not have to be torn up later. Parking Spaces at Overlook: Staff is recommending six spaces at each vista point. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 19 ACTION: No objections on vista points by Commission. 3. Public Parkin❑ Plan: ACTION: There will be 25 parking spaces at "J" Bluff Road and 50 spaces at the segment of Paseo Del Mar in front of the School District site. 4. Trails: Comm. Alberio inquired about the impact of change in the clubhouse location. Ms. Petru stated that the trail will come up on the east side of the clubhouse, and would connect to the road near the clubhouse parking area. She does not believe there will be a necessity to have the trail cross the driveway --it could turn east and run along the northern edge of the School District site. ACTION: Continuing a trail through the golf course (along former right of way of Paseo Del Mar) was rejected (this had been mentioned but is not on the plans). 5. Hiring a Naturalist: Comm. Mowlds stated that the developer should not have to set aside part of the clubhouse for a nature center, and he should not have to pay for a naturalist. Chairman Katherman noted that the developer has graciously volunteered to have the Greenskeeper trained by naturalists. Comm. Hayes stated she objected to the use of green fees for hiring a naturalist because she would prefer to see a percentage of the fees going to the City where it is needed. Mr. Mohler commented that on other projects all artifacts found were donated'to a museum, and that is what is intended on this project. They have always indicated that they would make space available, in the clubhouse or elsewhere, for educational material of interest to the public --but it would not be a "mixed use" building. The developer had previously agreed to a Park Department request that if the City develops literature which affects the tidepools, the developer will make available a table, etc., for displaying the literature to educate the public on preserving the tidepool resources. Ms. Petru advised that on other projects they have specified that the artifacts must first be offered to the City, and if the City does not want them, they can go elsewhere. ACTION: Commission concurred. b. Trails (continued): Regarding the connection from Point "H" to "K", along La Rotunda, Ms. Silverman raised the question of having Class 2 bike paths on both sides of the street and a pedestrian sidewalk on the south side, as opposed to the current plan of an offroad bike and pedestrian trail. This would be a change in the Conditions of Approval. .0 Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 20 ACTION: Proposed modifications Incorporated into the Conditions the special meeting. • to the trails plan should be of Approval for review at 7. Two -Acre Park at Halfway Point: ACTION: The Commission agreed that the area at Hole No. 5, down below the bluff, shall be fenced at the top of the bluff in some fashion and there will be no recreational uses in that area. 8. Developer's Standards & Guidelines: ACTION: These shall be submitted in their current form for review at the special meeting on March 31, 1992. 9. Deed Restriction for the Open Space: ACTION: The Commission confirmed that this is acceptable as proposed by staff. 10. Access to Lots 8 & 9 (Adjacent to Overlook Park at the head of Forrestal Draw): Applicants have slightly redesigned the access from a full public road crossing the ravine to a narrowed private driveway. Ms. Petru indicated she is satisfied with the proposed design. ACTION: Commission concurred. 11. Type of Fencing Along Bluff Too: ACTION: The Commission directed that the treatment used in the HMDI project be followed, with no specifications on material. Comm. Lorenzen recommended that, as previously discussed, one of the World War II gun emplacement concrete pads on the bluff at Hole No. 4, closest to the bluff top at Halfway Point, be preserved for historical purposes. Comm. Alberio commented that a historical marker will be needed. ACTION: Commission concurred. Regarding the radio controlled plane usage, Comm. Mowlds reiterated that the Commission does not have the authority to guarantee this because it is a trespass. Those wishing to fly their planes there should work it out with the property owners. Chairman Katherman raised the question of how to deal with people trying to retrieve plans which go over the fence --since access will be closed off on both sides of Halfway Point. Comm. Alberio expressed concern for the danger involved, and recommended that use of the planes be eliminated completely. The Commission took no action on the issue of radio controlled plane usage on the subject property. Planning Comm�sion Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 21 Ms. Silverman stated that there is a suggestion that a letter of approval from the Homeowners Associations be required prior to approval of any designs of any structures by the City, to ensure conformance to the CC&Rs, and requested direction from the Commission on including this in the Conditions. ACTION: Commission concurred. Comm. Mowlds stated that he wants the same procedures on this project as were used in Transamerica, where it has anything to do with private houses (he has marked up his copy of the Conditions accordingly). The final authority will be the City's architectural review committee, which is currently under consideration. Ms. Petru stated that we do not have the Guidelines for such a committee as yet. ACTION: Review and editing of appropriate conditions will be done at the March 31, 1992, meeting. Discussion of Commissioner Clark's memorandum (Concept Proposal) was postponed until Comm. Clark returns. Chairman Katherman noted that one of the developers has written a letter to the Commission, dated February 25, 1992, regarding some conditions. AGREED: Any of the developer's conditions which have not already been addressed will be discussed at the next meeting. The meeting scheduled for March 31, 1992, will be designated as an adjourned meeting. NEW BUSINESS A. SHORELINE PARK; Los Angeles County, Subregion 8. (CP) Requested Action: Recommend that the City Council urge Los Angeles County to implement the master plan for Shoreline Park and preserve the site as permanent public open space. Comm. Hayes explained that the City received a request from Palos Verdes Land Conservancy to support them in seeing that Shoreline Park remains a park. The County has talked about trying to sell the land in the past. The Palos Verdes Land Conservancy is willing to have volunteers replant Shoreline Park with native vegetation. Comm. Hayes would like to see the City Council recommend that this land remains a park as permanent public open space. Planning Comsion Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 22 MOVED by Comm. Hayes — That it be recommended to the City Council that they urge the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to remain committed to the original intent of the park site and nature trails, to preserve the shoreline property in the best interests of all the citizens of Los Angeles County. Seconded by Comm. Lorenzen. SPEAKERS• Richard Sara, One Peppertree Drive, stated that he is a member of the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy Hoard of Directors, and he commends and congratulates the Commission on the action they are about to take on this issue. Lois Knight Larue. 3136 Harkentine Road, Abalone Cove, commended and congratulated Comm. Hayes on her proposal, which is in keeping with the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan. MOTION PASSED by acclimation. Chairman Katherman inquired as to any Park Fees due the City from the Subregion 7 & B project. Ms. Petru responded that the staff will have to evaluate the number of acres that the developers will be dedicating to the City and compare that to what the Quimly fees might be --which might balance or be over. The condition is written in such a way that analysis will occur before the final map is recorded. Chairman Katherman suggested that if there are any monies coming in from this, it could be applied to purchasing Shoreline Park and requested the Staff to research this to determine if there will be any excess money for park purchases. There were no further requests from the Staff or questions from the audience. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 24, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. A special meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 31, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., both meetings to be held in Hesse Community Park. MOVED by Comm. Alberio -- That the meeting be adjourned. Seconded by Comm. Lorenzen. The meeting was duly adjourned at 1:10 a.m., March 20, 1992.