Loading...
PC MINS 19921027T MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Katherman at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen and Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Senior Planner Joel Rojas, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, and Assistant Planners Paul Espe, Kim Klopfenstein and Donna Jerex. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Director Onderdonk advised that the City Council endorsed the Planning Commission's recommendations on both the Lunada Pointe and the service station items. A draft of the October 13, 1992 minutes was distributed to the Commission and will be placed on the agenda of the November 5, 1992 special meeting. Planning Administrator Petru informed the Commissioners that the Development Code defines outdoor advertising on billboards as signs and, as such, they are subject to sign amortization requirements which state that if there are any non -conforming signs in existence as of the incorporation of Eastview into the City, which was in 1983, the City requests that the signs be removed within a five year period once a written notice is issued to the property owner. The City did a survey of Western Avenue in 1985 and the amortization program was supposed to end in 1990. Due to staffing levels, the City has not pursued an overall amortization effort on Western Avenue and, instead, has been pursuing non -conforming signs on a case by case basis as new development comes before the City. Ms. Petru advised that she had not had the opportunity to do any specific research on the particular billboard in question to determine if the landowners have previously been noticed about the non-conformance of the sign but, that she will report to the Commission at a later date. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 Commissioner Clark reported that the Planning commission Subcommittee for the review of the Subregion 7 and 8 revisions that will be before the Commission at the November 5 special meeting, met with Staff and representatives of the developer on October 22, 1992. He said it was a very fruitful meeting and that there will be a subsequent meeting October 28, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. Commissioner Alberio advised that the meeting of the subcommittee will be open to the public. CONSENT CALENDAR A. P.C. Resolution No. 92-65; denying without prejudice Tentative Parcel Map No. 23548 at 26559 Silver Spur Road. Associate Planner Silverman presented a revised P. C. Resolution and which included a time limit of six months and the waiver of fees for the resubmittal of the parcel map. Luke Conovaloff (applicant), 26559 Silver Spur Road, said at the previous hearing a number of concerns were raised based on discussions with the City Planning Staff and his understanding of the Subdivision Map Act. He feels that these concerns should not have a direct bearing on the approval of his application. However, new issues were raised which included grading in a restricted use area in order to gain access to the lot. Also cited was a possible problem in adhering to fire code and fire department access standards. Since there has been no public discussion of these issues, he felt that denial was not necessary. Dr. Conovaloff requested that the Commission continue his application instead of approving the Resolution to deny. Commissioner Clark asked what advice was given to him by Staff that was contrary to the considerations that were discussed at the last hearing. Director Onderdonk stated that Staff received communication from the Fire Department after the meeting of October 13th. Associate Planner Silverman explained that there was some concern on the part of the Fire Department that access to Parcel I would not be adequate and that the Subdivision Map Act requires that new proposals meet current standards. Based on the width of the driveway accessing Parcel 1, Staff did not feel that it meets today's standards. The fire department also indicated that a new fire hydrant will have to be installed as part of the conditions of approval. Commission Alberio stated that the applicant is just asking for a lot split and that he will have to comply with any conditions from other agencies who have jurisdiction. vice chairman Byrd K PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 stated that the only difference between continuing this or denying it is that it would have to be noticed again if denied. The fees have been waived and the applicant will have six months to come back before the Commission. Vice Chairman Byrd said he thought the project would take some time to solve the problem and he thought the Commission should approve the resolution. Chairman Katherman stated that he pushed for a continuance but that he was now ready to vote for denial without prejudice. He said that there are a number of questions concerning design improvement under the Subdivision Map Act and to the extent the Commission can regulate under the Map Act. The issue of fire access is just one more piece of information that the Planning Commission now has when the applicant brings a newly designed parcel map back to the commission. Associate Planner Silverman stated that she believed the applicant's request for a continuance was to address the issue of fire department access. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, to adopt revised P. C. Resolution 92-65, denying without prejudice Tentative Parcel Map No. 23548, and waiving future application fees for resubmittals. Motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING A. VARIANCE NO. 327, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1612, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 109; Gene Summers, 108 Spindrift. Requested Action: Allow a 130.6 square foot bedroom addition, conversion of a 285 square foot storage area into a hobby room, conversion of a 260 square foot crawl space into a storage area and legalization of an existing 100 foot laundry facility located within the coastal zone. Allow 36 cubic yards of grading and five feet of cut to occur underneath the structure. Assistant Planner Espe presented the Staff report recommending that the variance, grading permit and coastal permit be approved, subject to conditions. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he had met with the applicant and that it appeared that the drawings and the geology analysis the Commission was asked to approve at the last meeting were based on different sets of data. That has been resolved and he is now satisfied that the City and the geologist are working with the same set of drawings and that the area is stable. 3 i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 Chairman Katherman asked the applicants if they had read and agreed with the conditions and they indicated they had read them and did agree. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to approve Variance No. 327, Grading Permit No. 1612, and Coastal Permit No. 109, subject to conditions. Motion passed 7-0. B. VARIANCE NO. 332 - REVISION "A"; Kelly Vince and Catherine Bannerman, 28127 Lobrook. Requested Action: Allow front yard setback encroachments of 5'-3" and 11'-4" for a second story bay window, and an underfloor laundry area, respectively; and a 5 -foot encroachment of the underfloor laundry area into the'S-foot sideyard setback requirement. Assistant Planner Jerex presented the staff report recommending approval of the request. Vice Chairman Byrd asked about the letters received based on the fact that addition is going right to the property line. He said he was concerned that if the applicant was allowed to go to the property line then others would have to be allowed to do the same. Assistant Planner Jerex stated that it is more aesthetically pleasing to build at the property line rather than having an empty crawl space. Commissioner Mowlds said that it appears from the drawings that the brick veneer is on the neighbor's property and Chairman Katherman stated that the Planning Commission does not have authority to grant construction approval on someone else's property. Catherine Vince (Applicant) 28127 Lobrook, stated that there has been no change in the position of the wall and the veneer is simply to make it more appealing. Since the wall is underneath their driveway and she did not understand how it could be on the neighbor's property. Vice Chairman Byrd suggested the Commission include a condition that applicant is not to encroach on the adjacent property and asked Staff if there is a document applicants are asked to sign when they are allowed to build on the property line agreeing that they will not encroach onto adjacent property. Director Onderdonk said that it can be included as part of the conditions of approval or as instructions to the building staff to verify that the improvements take place on applicant's property. Commissioner Alberio stated that the 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 building is encroaching on adjacent property, therefore, the Commission would be approving something on two different properties. He requested that the Commission get a disclaimer against any claims. Director Onderdonk suggested that a condition be added that the City building official will require verification of the property line and that all the improvements must be within the property line. The Commission agreed that would solve the problem. NOTION: commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Alberio, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. MOTION: commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to approve Variance No. 332 - Revision "All with conditions recommended by staff and as amended by the Planning Commission to include a property line verification and a condition that all improvements must be within the property line. Notion passed 7-0. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 166, VARIANCE NO. 307 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 627, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1585; Mr. and Mrs. Stanton, 28798 S. Western Avenue (formerly Ark Gardens). Requested Action: Allow a new full service car wash with a maximum proposed height of 181-011 and portions of the structure located within the required rear and side setback area on the property. In response to comments and inquiries from the public, Director Onderdonk explained that this project was continued from a previous meeting and, therefore, did not require renotice to everyone who had received the original notification. Although not required by law, the Staff did notice interested parties consisting of everyone who spoke at the previous meeting on this project and everyone who wrote to the City. Chairman Katherman stated that at the prior hearing he had made it clear that the project would not be renoticed, but that Staff would notify those who had attended the hearing or written to Staff. Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff report which stated that the project had been continued to allow the applicant the opportunity to address specific concerns regarding noise, traffic, and air quality. Staff recommended that the project be revised to eliminate the dryer and blower units and that the Commission approve the request, subject to conditions. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 Commissioner Mowlds stated that the trellis supports and additional sound walls are built on the property line with no setbacks and asked if the City had allowed that for other business on Western Avenue. Associate Planner Silverman stated she was not aware of any other business on Western which were built on the property line but that the existing facilities are built to the property line. Commissioner Mowlds said he was thinking of the new Development Code which requires that new construction meet the new Code. Planning Administrator Petru advised the Commission that in a commercial general zone, the Code typically requires a 20 foot rear yard setback when a commercial property abuts a residential property . The rear yard of this particular project abuts a private street . She stated that she is not aware of any situation where the City has approved a commercial property with a zero rear yard setback unless the projects are much larger than this one and back up to substantial slopes up or down to residential areas. Commissioner Clark stated for the record that although he was not present at the meeting when this project was originally heard, he has read the minutes of that meeting and the material provided by Staff for this meeting, and, therefore, believes he is qualified to participate in the discussion and the vote on this issue. Tab Johnson, Rich Development Co., 302 West 5th Street, San Pedro, stated that they had one meeting with the Christ Lutheran Church and representatives from the school but that he did not get back to them in time for the Christ Lutheran Church to respond. He said he also met with Cal Trans who were against any type of reworking of the median. Mr. Johnson said that Rich Development suggested to the Church that they would be willing to help the school with some additional engineering and possible restriping of the parking lot to increase the number of parking stalls and to help with the traffic flow. He stated that this is a development that does not have an extremely large impact on the surrounding neighbor -hood and that they have done extensive work reducing the noise to meet the ambient level of the minimum street noise. He said they are substantially below the average noise level that exists on Western Avenue now. Mr. Johnson also stated that they have done studies and determined the amount of cars that go in and out of the school at peak times, which indicated that the car wash peak hours are not the peak hours of the school. He did not see six U-turns an hour on a protected green light during the school's peak hours being a substantial problem. He said that the blowers are a very important item and 0 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27o 1992 • would request that Staff's recommendation be revised to approve them but that he would accept an approval of Staff's recommendation. However, he said he believed the reports have more than justified what is being done to reduce the noise levels. Mr. Johnson stated that he had contacted the condo association once again to talk about their concerns. They said that they thought he had tried hard but they did not think anything substantial had been done by Rich Development Co. that warranted another meeting. I Gordon Bricken, (Acoustical Consultant for Applicant), 1621 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, stated that the City informed them that there was no noise standard regularly used for evaluations, so, at the City's request, they produced a wide ranging evaluation of what the noise levels would be and what different ideas for reducing the levels would accomplish. Mr. Bricken said he presented the report and left it up to the City to work their way through that assessment and come up with some conclusions. Staff's recommendations were to eliminate the dryer. The applicant then came back to them and asked that they consider how the dryer might be incorporated in a fashion that would reduce the noise levels in some manner beyond that which the previous site plan had indicated. They came to the conclusion, without guidance from the City, that a suitable noise level might be the minimum noise level that occurs from traffic on Western Avenue. That would place a dryer no noisier than the quietest period on Western Avenue which only occurs about five minutes in an hour. The rest of the time the levels are higher. The dryer design is for the noise level to equal the minimum noise level of the traffic that occurs during five minutes an hour. The traffic noise would be higher than the dryer for 55 minutes in an hour. The way to reduce noise was to put a roof on the exit and the entrance so that if you looked at the facility from Western Avenue what you would see is two openings. He said that the roof would have some acoustical treatment to minimize the buildup of sound. Mr. Bricken also said that the quietest dryer currently on the market had to be used to meet the target noise levels. Commissioner Alberio asked if the noise level from the blowers affect the workers inside the car wash. Mr. Bricken responded that they are required to comply with the State's occupational safety and health laws which govern allowable noise for any piece of equipment and that, secondly, the personnel from the car wash are some feet away from the equipment. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the ambient noise level was 48dba. Mr. Bricken responded that it fluctuates from 43 to 48 and has reached as high as 72. This is street noise measured on the 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 condo property at three positions: (1) south side of the site in the parking lot adjacent to the slope, (2) on the east side behind the wall that currently exists and (3) on the Church side on the condo property. vice Chairman Byrd asked if these noise levels were additive. Mr. Bricken answered that during the five minute period where you have the minimum level, the combined level will increase to a minimum of 51, and the rest of the time the Western Avenue noise levels will be so great that when you add 70 from the street and 48 from the dryer the cumulative effect is 70 because the contribution from the dryer is small compared to the street noise. Therefore, there is never more than a 3dba increase. Joe Foust, (Traffic Engineering Consultant to Applicant), Austin - Foust Associates, 1621 East 17th Street #R, Santa Ana, stated that he determined the amount of traffic the project would generate by looking at industry standards (Institute of Transportation Engineers) and by doing an actual count of an operating car wash in San Pedro which generates about 350 trips a day. Since that is a very successful car wash with gas sales, he thought they were using a very fair comparison, probably a much worse case. The first issue he looked at was the effect of the left turn on the u -turns into the project. Their forecast indicates a total of 40 to 45 entering vehicles during peak hours of project which are 4:45 to 5:45 p.m., depending on the time of year. The car wash would create about 11 u -turns. He stated that u -turns are illegal there now, but that they were making the assumption that the no -u -turn sign will be removed. The school is discharging right at 3:15 p.m. at which time the car wash will not generate quite as much traffic as it does during its peak hours. Instead of 11 u -turns, there will be 9 u -turns. He stated that the car wash has relatively little impact on the school driveway because of the protected left turn. The other issue he looked at was is.there enough queuing area when the school traffic is turning right in and out of the school and traffic from Western is turning right into the car wash. He said they predicted approximately 36 cars at the time when the school is discharging which is one car every two minutes. There is storage capacity on site for 14 vehicles. The car wash has the capacity of discharging one vehicle per minute on average. Therefore, if the car wash is discharging one vehicle every two minutes and it has an arrival rate of one car every two minutes and its capacity is one car every minute, the 14 car storage will be ample storage particularly because this site does,not have gas sales on the site. Mr. Foust stated that the only problem might be the right turn on red out of the school. 8 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 • Commissioner Alberio stated that he was very familiar with the San Pedro car wash and thought it was not fair to compare it with this location. Mr. Foust responded that the San Pedro site was only used to count the arrival rate and the discharge rate of what the car wash would do and how many total vehicles arrive in any one hour. They did not take the circulation pattern of San Pedro and try to superimpose it on the Western Avenue site. He stated that they counted the cars at the Gaffey site all day on a week -day. Vice Chairman Byrd expressed his concern that cars slowing down to make that hard right turn are going to be rear- ended there by cars accelerating through that light. Mr. Foust responded that they took a look at that and Western is a full arterial with a very wide curbing. Vice Chairman Byrd responded that the curb lane is not wide enough to put a truck in. Commissioner Mowlds asked when you have 14 cars queuing to go to the car wash, how many cars were they storing for lube change or smog check area. Mr. Foust responded that they did not assign them any particular site. Commissioner Mowlds asked how many cars would be queuing for the car wash, how many queuing for smog check, how many for a lube change, etc. Mr. Foust answered that the 14 spaces were to get to the car wash and they did not use the smog check or lube change cars in their calculations. He said that Commissioner Mowlds was correct in that the 14 spaces could be used for anything they wanted. Commissioner Lorenzen asked if some of the 14 spaces would be used for detailing, polishing and so forth which would be cars that would be there for an extended length of time. Mr. Johnson answered that there were parking spaces over and above the 14 spaces for that. Commissioner Mowlds asked what size car they used in their calculations and asked them to sketch on the plans at break time the 14 cars because he wanted to know how much space would be left for smog check, employee parking, etc. Vice Chairman Byrd asked what they planned to do if the No U -Turn sign was not removed. Mr. Foust replied that there are two options, one of which is to make a turn into the church parking lot which is a bad option and the other option is to go down the street and make a u -turn. He said that if u -turns are not allowed, there is no way to enforce that people won't go into the church's parking lot. Associate Planner Silverman advised that the City has petitioned Cal Trans and Cal Trans has agreed to have the no -u -turn sign removed. Chairman Katherman stated that the situation is not necessarily one of quantity of access but quality of access. He said that it 01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 appears to be a very difficult u -turn and asked if it met the standards for normal turn radius. He also asked if there was an alternative design of the median such as pulling the median back and rather than a u -turn, making it a left turn into the car wash driveway and the church so you can do either one. Mr. Johnson replied that he did have a meeting on the site with Cal Trans about pulling the median back to allow the turns to occur directly into the proposed car wash and Cal Trans did not support the idea because they had fought very hard to get a left-hand protected arrow turn there. Mr. Johnson also stated that the left turn does meet the minimum requirements of a turn radius. C. J. Bryan, Christ Lutheran Church and School, 28850 S. Western Avenue, stated that he didn't know how bad the problem was until he got involved in all this. He said the left turn lane pocket is very small and accommodates only two to three cars at a time. At about 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. cars are already backed up out of the left turn pocket and all the way down to Toscanini which is also posted no U-turn as is Caddington. With respect to queuing, 350 cars at Gaffey is not relevant since it is a totally different configuration at Western. Gaffey has three lines to accommodate cars and each line can hold more than 14 cars. At times, all three lines are backed up at Gaffey Street. There is no entrance from Gaffey so there is no problem with back up onto a major thoroughfare. He stated that there is a major thoroughfare at the entrance to proposed car wash; that there is a tight right- hand lane where there is not room to comfortably get by a car that is qued up out into the street and that one car qued out into the street will block their exit for right- hand turns. Mr. Bryan stated that he did have a conversation with Mr. Johnson and suggested that they could mitigate a portion of their concerns if Cal Trans would allow another left -turn lane pocket using their northerly end entrance but Cal Trans did not agree. Mr. Johnson made some suggestions that they may be of some assistance to the school by realigning their exit and Mr. Bryan said he appreciated his concern but did not get enough information early enough to determine if it would be of any significant help to them. Mr. Bryan informed the Commission that they may split the school dismissal times next year, so there will not just be a 3:15 peak hour. He said that he feels that the traffic situation has not been resolved and they are still concerned about the safety of the children, parents and teachers and those people trying to get in and out of an already difficult situation. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if Mr. Bryan needed more time to talk to the applicant. Mr. Bryan said he had talked to them and they were trying to help, but he didn't think they had a lot of space �U# PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 to work with since the site was a difficult configuration. Mr. Bryan said he thought the potential for damage is great. Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Bryan if he had enough time to assess applicant's proposals or suggestions with respect to the church/school parking lot. Mr. Bryan responded that the applicant had not really submitted anything in writing as to what they would be willing to do. He appreciated that the applicant had Cal Trans come out to the site, but those mitigating adjust- ments that would have been important to the school apparently are not feasible. Anything else would be more cosmetic than helpful. Commissioner Clark asked what Mr. Bryan saw as a solution that would be acceptable to the school. Mr. Bryan replied that the use of their northerly drive instead of the southerly drive would help. Commissioner Alberio said that he is concerned about the safety of the children and that he had met with principal of the school. He stated that the shopping center has brought a lot of traffic to Western Avenue and that the speed limit had been increased. Commissioner Alberio said he had not realized how many people violate the no U -Turn and go continuously into the school parking lot. He said they needed to solve that problem and also to protect the safety of the children in that parking lot. In answer to the question about arrows and left-hand pockets, there are two ways of solving the traffic problems, one is to lengthen the turning pocket and another one, which Cal Trans has used, is a left turn arrow. The idea is that you empty the pocket in a short time as opposed to lengthening it. This is what Cal Trans has decided to do but he could not understand how they can eliminate the no -u -turn sign. Making a left turn into the car wash will complicate things because of north bound traffic since you will have people coming from both sides there. Also, people coming from Caddington. He didn't think the solution would be to lengthen the left -turn pocket, however, he did agree a solution would be to create a left -turn pocket into the north driveway. Mr. Bryan said that he just thought that the current left -turn pocket is too short for the number of cars wishing to use it and at peak hours there are cars lined up outside of the u -turn pocket all the way down to Toscanini creating a traffic jam because the fast lane is blocked by cars trying to get into left lane pocket. Commissioner Alberio asked how many cars are coming out of church/school parking lot at peak hours. Mr. Bryan replied between 150 and 200 and that there have been a number of accidents with Staff and parents of children. He is concerned that a child or parent on foot will get hit. 11 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 Chairman Katherman stated that the school itself has created a problem which will be exacerbated by any other commercial facility that is there. He asked if there was a CUP limitation on the school and asked if they were planning to expand. He felt the Planning Commission could review the traffic plan to see how they can help the school to eliminate the horrendous problem of trying to get out onto Western Avenue at 3:00 p.m. Planning Administrator Petru advised that the school did a CUP in 1989 when they expanded their classrooms and built a multi-purpose room. The Planning Commission did not put a cap on enrollment at that time. However, if the school wants to expand in the future, it would require a revision to that CUP, the Planning commission could consider that issue at that time. Van H. Ho, 1621 Caddington Drive, expressed his opposition to the car wash and stated that the traffic engineer talked about traffic problem but he failed to identify the horrendous traffic problem on Western Avenue. Mr. Ho said that traffic is piling up to Toscanini Drive all day long. He said that the no -u -turn sign was installed because the street was narrow and one could not make a safe u -turn. Chairman Katherman stated that Cal Trans did not put the no -u -turn sign in because of the street width, but rather because there was no protected left -turn arrow. Mr. Ho stated that he was concerned cars making a u -turn may have to back up into traffic to complete the u -turn and he was concerned about safety and quality of life, noise and about sound level, air pollution, and the smog. He said he didn't see any need for a car wash at this location since there is a car wash in San Pedro and another car wash opening on Palos Verdes Drive North. He said it was the Planning Commission's civic duty to protect the residents safety and quality of life by denying the applicant's request for a car wash on this site. Dale Milligan, 1729 Hallifield, stated that he has lived in the City since before it was formed and that the City was formed for the purpose of continuing the residential community. His appeal is to continue that. He now lives in the Strathmore Condominium Townhomes adjacent to the car wash and is only 80 feet from the property line. His two second story bedrooms look down on this site and he is very concerned about noise and what he will see out his bedroom windows. His said his son works at the airport and comes home about 1:00 p.m to 2:00 p.m so he is asleep from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mr. Milligan appealed to the Planning Commission to limit the hours of the car wash so it doesn't interfere with his son's sleep. He stated that he is an engineer and is fully aware that sound does not travel in a straight line. He requested that the Planning Commission deny the application, 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 but if they approve it, he would requeste that there be no blowers, that the hours of operation be restricted to 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., six days a week (no Sundays), and that no building be closer to the property line on his side toward Strathmore than the building that now exists. He also said that the parking that abuts the property line is behind his unit. Since he looks down on that site, any kind of sound wall would have to be very high to block any sound to his second story windows. He requested that some kind of wall be constructed to block out any view of the car wash from his place and that there be at least a five- foot setback. Mr. Milligan requested that the car wash not be permitted to have hazardous materials such as gas or oil on the site. Bill Marks, 1724 Oldstone Ct., stated that traffic on that spot is horrendous and cannot stand a car wash situation. A left turn signal was put in for a private property entrance to insure the safety of these people. He said that he has lived at Strathmore for 16 years and it has been a nice, quiet, pleasant place to live. Tremendous growth in the area has created an immense amount of traffic and the car wash will increase traffic, noise and danger. Mr. Marks said a car wash is not needed at this site since there is one five minutes away. Wes Rwiechien, 1638 West Caddington Drive, stated that he lives adjacent to Strathmore and he is the captain leader for the neighbor watch program. He is concerned about living in this environment and what is it doing to our kids. He requested the Planning Commission deny the application. Ramiro Garcia, 1835 Caddington Drive, stated that he lives in LaPointe Townhomes at the intersection of Western and Caddington. The area has been nice and quiet. He has lived both at Strathmore and now at LaPointe for a period of 17 years. He has noticed a tremendous increase in the number of people living in that area and an increase in traffic. It occurred to him that this car wash would require very high level of advertising because hardly anyone would know that it is there. There are 73 households at La Pointe Townhomes and he has spoken to many neighbors who would be here if they could, to convey to planning their worry and anxiety about the carwash. He requested that, given all of the rationale, the Planning Commission deny the application. Andrew Jaffarbhoy, 2519 Robald Avenue, San Pedro, stated that he has been using Western Avenue for 14 years and in the past six years a number of shopping centers have been built and traffic is getting worse. He said there is no comparison between the 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 proposed car wash and the existing car wash in San Pedro since there are no traffic concerns at the Gaffey car wash. He stated there is no need for another car wash in the area. Robert Doornbus, 28612 Friarstone Court, stated that the project is growing like topsy and that at the last Planning Commission meeting the applicant stated that he anticipated about 80 cars, the Staff said actually about 118, and now tonight he is hearing figures of 200 to 250. This will need a EIR statement. He said there was the possibility of old gas storage tanks which have not been clarified. Also, since the site was once a nursery, it may have fertilizers and pesticides left in the ground. Mr. Doornbus wanted to know how is the wall at the very edge of the property would be made to look acceptable. He stated that the u -shaped wall will focus noise across the street. Ted Jenkyn, 28662 Vista Madera, stated that he lives in a unit between Toscanini and Caddington and his concerns were: (1) traffic, (2) site not conducive to car wash, (3) there should be some study of statistics before approving the car wash, and (4) there are ample car washes in the area and no necessity for another car wash. Steve Lenker, 28625 Friarstone Court, stated that he lives in Strathmore and his closest bedroom is 55 feet away from the current wall and there are 15 bedrooms within 50 yards of property line. RECESS AND RECONVENE - The meeting recessed at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m. Hilda Jackson, 1813 Caddington Drive, stated that she and her daughter live in a townhouse in LaPointe directly across the street from the proposed car wash. She said she was deeply concerned about a noisy and polluting car wash directly across the street. Ms. Jackson informed the Planning commission that her daughter was paralyzed and cannot survive in stressful conditions. Due to her daughter's disabilities, they are home 24 hours a day except for doctors and short rides. Her daughter's greatest pleasure is television and even this would be jeopardized with a noisy car wash and smog check station. They have been subjected to many noises from this site since the Ark Gardens closed. She has called the Sheriff's office due to radios blaring 24 -hours a day and at other times with guard dogs barking. She was astounded to hear the applicant say the church and school need not worry about noise and air pollution. She said that if he had looked across the street at her townhouse, he 14 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 would have seen all the windows and the door open. Since their door and windows face Western Avenue, the contamination and pollution from the proposed car wash would go into her house. Ms Jackson said that she and her daughter cannot go out daily during car wash hours and, therefore, would be subjected to the noise and contamination which is not conducive to maintaining her own or her daughter's health. Joanne Mellin, 2110 Mendon Drive, stated that the increased noise and air pollution would stress her 80 -year old mother who lives with her. She stated that the left turn from Caddington onto Western Avenue is dangerous just to turn left. Where does that leave a car wash and parking? She also stated that there are four elementary schools in that area. She said there are two smog stations and two car washes with another going in the area and requested that the Planning Commission not allow the car wash. - She stated that there were other business compatible with the neighborhood. Tab Johnson, (Applicant), spoke in rebuttal to the opposing statements and stated that they had tried to mitigate those concerns. He stated that the site is a commercially zoned property which allows for specialty stores, convenience outlets, etc. and that a restaurant on the site that would create significantly more traffic than a car wash. He thought a car wash would be one of the least intensive uses that can be put there. They close when it gets dark and open at 8:00 a.m. in the morning. Mr. Johnson believes that the owner has the right to put commercial uses on his property. Mr. C. J. Bryan of the Christ Lutheran School responded that it was true other uses with higher density were allowed by the zoning on the site, but that there were uses allowed that would be less dense with less traffic. He thought the site was more suited to professional building, accountants office, etc. With regard to the no -u -turn sign, he stated that he knew that a suburban truck cannot make it without backing up and trying again or using the church parking lot. He asked what about delivery people going into the car wash - they will have to use the church parking lot or cut back and try again for a u -turn. He stated that there will be a significant impact of additional traffic on Western Avenue and suggested that a full EIR might be called for on this project. 70 dba noise levels are significant and require an EIR. The type of commercial use on Western Avenue in that area is not that of a car wash, which is a heavy, dirty, commercial use. Instead, they have a lot of retail stores and service businesses that are compatible with a residential 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 neighborhood. He does not believe that a car wash is compatible with the neighborhood and that it does not fit the current use. MOTION: Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the applicant's rebuttal said all the uses that can be permitted and he agreed; but that the applicant had neglected to state that by the time they put in the setbacks the project would have to come back to the Commission for a CUP or some variance. He stated that he could think of uses less intensive than a car wash and some that are more. Commissioner Mowlds thought that the homeowners were missing the fact that this is not a piece of property that is governed by residential standards and the fact that it is next to residential would not affect his vote. The owner is allowed to use a piece of property based on the zone it is in. However, he can't find why this property owner should be able to build to the property line. Why are they allowed to put an eleven foot wall on the property line when the Planning Commission addressed the same issue with the water company project and made them put their walls five feet off the property line. Commissioner Hayes said that she had a problem with wall because it was very unsightly and she thought they would have to be set back. She said she went to the site at about 2:45 p.m. and parked in the church lot which she used to do when she went to the Ark Gardens. She also expressed concern about controlling the honking of horns at the car wash. Vice Chairman Byrd stated the applicant has put a large wall on the property line with no setbacks in order to accommodate a car wash on a site which is too small. He said they may be able to mitigate the noise but that he has never seen a quiet car wash. He stated that he didn't think the additional traffic and the school mixed very well and that public safety was a concern of his and the Planning Commission. He did not think they could do anything that would put kids in more jeopardy than they are already in. Vice Chairman Byrd said that he had Voted to deny this project at the last hearing and he hadn't seen anything tonight that was new. Commissioner Clark stated that he would like to expand on Commissioner Mowlds comment with respect to rights of property owners in commercial zones to put commercial entities on their property. He said that is true in its own right, but it is only PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 true to the extent that the City looks at the impact on the surrounding community, and in this case, we are a residential community. It is clear to him that there is an extreme impact upon the neighbors with this commercial use in this particular area. He agreed with Vice Chairman Byrd that the property in its layout and the that configuration just does not accommmodate the car wash without risk to safety in the area. Commissioner Lorenzen said he was greatly concerned about Western being a heavily traveled street and he can see safety and traffic problems with the number of kids in the area. He stated that even though it is a commercial zoned area, they still have to consider the residents being so close to this type of development. In looking at layout and considering all the activities taking place, Commissioner Lorenzen felt it was too crammed and had too much going on in a small site. Commissioner Alberio said that the owner and applicant felt that there was no difference between a car wash and when the site used to be a gas station and later on a tire store. He stated that the gas station was put in under county regulations and we now have a change of circumstances. There is a tremendous amount of impact to traffic and air pollution that must be addressed in accordance with today's standards which have environmental requirements that have to be addressed. He agreed that the Planning commission cannot deny the use of property under zoning, however, there are other uses that can be approved and this is one of the worst uses for that property. Also, there hasn't been any widening of Western Avenue. The gas tanks are still there which is something that has to be addressed. Chairman Katherman said he was one of the Commissioners at the last meeting who moved to grant a continuance to allow the applicant to work with the community, which they have done. However, he told the applicant when the continuance was granted that he felt the application was too large and too intense for the site. Chairman Katherman said that he agrees that it is commercially zoned and agrees that 6,000 to 7,000 feet of retail could be put on the site. He is concerned about the effects on the school and the school's effects on the property, as well as the effects of 37,000 vehicle trips up and down Western Avenue today. He also said that the wall being proposed reminds him of freeway walls where Cal Trans is forced to squeeze every inch of space out of the property, which is what the applicant is doing. Chairman Katherman said he did not mind allowing walls on the property line if they are reasonable but thinks what is being proposed is excessive. He thought that internal circulation 17 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 would be a problem on Saturdays, even with the church and school closed, with the peak demand of cars pulling in there and trying to just deal with the normal traffic up and down Western. He stated that he is concerned about denying commercial uses when the City is looking for business and retail tax revenues. The Planning Commission has tried to encourage business and allow corporate signs for businesses and they have done everything else to make businesses a success in the community. He wants to see a successful business in this location. Chairman Katherman said that his problem with this application, however, is that it is too large and too intensive for the site. He appreciated Staff's efforts in recommending approval with conditions and would agree with that if he felt there was some way to condition this project that would not make it infeasible, but he doesn't see that it can be done. Chairman Katherman felt that the conditional use findings and the variance findings for this case cannot be made for the wall and the intensity of use cannot be made. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 166, Variance No. 307, Environmental Assessment No. 627, Grading Permit No. 1585. Motion passed 7-0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92 - REVISION "D"; The Salvation Army, 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard. Requested Action: Allow a 15 year master plan buildout of the Salvation Army Western Territorial Headquarters. Allow a 69,000 square foot Education/Conference Center with 55 temporary building units, 2,400 square feet of conference/meeting room space and a dining facility for 150 people; a 22,500 square foot cadet housing structure continuing 114 residential units; three additional single family residences; two office buildings totaling 13,800 square feet; and a 28,700 square foot athletic facility. Senior Planner Rojas presented the staff report recommending that the Planning Commission certify the Final Program EIR, as prepared, and conceptually approve the Education/Conference Center, with conditions. At the last public hearing on this issue the item was continued to allow Staff and the applicant to respond to certain issues. These issues involve certification of the project EIR, the EIR geotechnical analysis, the design of the Education Conference Center (ECC), vehicular access to the ECC and the issue of site trails. The Planning Commission had expressed concern about certifying the entire 15 -year Master Plan 18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 271 1992 EIR and had requested that the environmental analysis of the proposed Education Conference Center be physically separated from the analysis of the 15 -year master plan. The Salvation Army responded that separation of the EIR analysis would not change the factual information relating to the ECC and that they did not think the additional cost of $9,205 to separate the document was justified. Staff had suggested an option of the Commission certifying only the EIR analysis which addresses the proposed ECC with no physical changes to the existing document. However, input from Staff's environmental consultant and legal counsel from the State indicated that the practice of certifying only a portion of a completed Final EIR is very unusual and would increase the chance of having the project approval challenged in court. The City Attorney concurred with the State Legal Counsel's position. Therefore, the Commission's options are for either: 1. Certification of the Final EIR as presently drafted, or 2) a complete rejection of the Final EIR. Also, if the Commission wishes not to certify the Final EIR as drafted, the Commission must also deny all of the pending applications. Since the Commission has expressed reservations over certifying a document which projects its analysis 15 years into the future, Staff advised that the Planning Commission state its intention to require additional environmental analysis for subsequent project phases in its statement of findings. This would allow the Commission to establish the context within which it is reviewing the EIR and limits the approval process to a very narrow project (the ECC). Another concern expressed by the Commission at the first hearing was that the geological analysis contained in the Final EIR was inadequate. No formal geology or soils report had been completed and approved by the City. In response, the Salvation Army presented a geology report which was completed two years ago for the proposed master plan build -out which will be reviewed by a geotechnical consultant to Keith Companies (the City's geotechnical consulting firm) whose conclusions and recommendations will be incorporated into the Final EIR. The Commission had also expressed concerns with the overall height and mass of the proposed ECC, and requested that it be redesigned to use earth berms to buffer or screen the ECC or to break up the ECC into two or more buildings. The Salvation Army opted to design an earthen berm to screen the proposed ECC from Palos Verdes Drive South. As designed, no more than five feet of the proposed guest facility can be seen from Palos Verdes Drive 090 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 South right-of-way. Since it will be screened, the design of the conference center remains essentially unchanged from the previous meeting. In response to the commission's concern about vehicular access to the ECC, the Salvation Army opted to provide a new two-way vehicular access road connecting the proposed ECC with Crestmont Lane which was one of the recommendations of the Traffic Committee. With the connector road, traffic will be able to enter and exit the ECC to and from eastbound Palos Verdes Drive South without a need for the u -turns on Palos Verdes Drive South that were discussed at the last hearing. Staff feels that the access road meets the design criteria of the Traffic Committee and the Planning Commission as discussed at the last public hearing. The City's Recreation and Parks Committee reviewed the project's trails issues and recommended that the Salvation Army provide an easement for a multi-purpose pedestrian and equestrian trail along the top of the proposed landscaped berm parallel to Palos Verdes Drive South. The City also recommended that the Salvation Army construct the trail. Staff recommends that the Recreation and Parks Committee's recommendation be implemented as a condition of approval and asked for direction from the Planning Commission as to whether to limit the use of the trail. With the exception of physically separating the analysis of the ECC from the master plan EIR, the Salvation Army has redesigned the proposed ECC to address the issues of concern identified by the Planning Commission at the last hearing. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he wanted to split the issues and let everybody know that he wanted the EIR separated from the ECC and asked for a vote on the EIR. He stated that the Planning Commission was very specific with the Salvation Army in requesting that the EIR be separated out and that they were only going to take the EIR for the Education Center. Since the Salvation Army said they are unwilling to do that, Commissioner Mowlds requested a vote on the 15 -year program EIR. Chairman Katherman stated that his understanding of what the Salvation Army said was not that they wouldn't separate the EIR, but that they thought the $9,000 was a waste of money. Commissioner Alberio stated that if the Planning Commission approves the EIR for the entire project and then takes individual projects and approves each one,he did not think they need an EIR for each project. 20 �7- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 Commissioner Mowlds stated that he will not vote for anything tonight for 15 years and that the Planning Commission had not done it for anyone else. Planning Administrator Petru advised that it had been done for the master plan for Green Hills which was longer than 15 years. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that what he objects to most is going out to year 2005. Building tennis courts and building a field house which may be an idea that the Salvation Army has now but he did not think the Planning Commission should lend any credibility to it. Chairman Katherman stated that he thought he should call up the City EIR consultant, Mr. Holm of The Keith Companies, to explain to the Planning commission the memo of October 12, 1992. He should explain what a tiered EIR is and whether or not in certifying the EIR the Planning Commission is granting any kind of rights beyond what Planning Commission would grant if they would grant anything in the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Katherman said that the EIR was an information document and the Planning Commission could take that information and use it to grant any part of the project or the entire project or none of the project, and that what the Planning Commission had to do initially was to evaluate whether or not that EIR adequately addresses the impacts of the project. Then, under the Conditional Use Permit, the Commission can review which part of the project is appropriate to approve, and under what conditions. Tom Holm, Keith Companies (City's EIR Consultant), stated that the State's Resources Agency legal counsel deals with EIRs on a daily basis and indicated to them that the approach that they are familiar with, and which has the strongest legal standing on a long range perspective, certifies the entire document as adequate for the project as proposed. He said that the assurances that are provided to the commission in taking this approach are the conditions that can be placed on the project or the findings which would require that a subsequent project level tiered initial environmental study would be undertaken. This study would determine if any additional environmental issues or effects that were not anticipated by the original document have occurred since the original program EIR was prepared. Subsequent EIRs could be spun off the original program EIR to address future projects and future phases. This is the approach that the State is familiar with and it is the one that they feel that the State Environmental Quality Act anticipated. It is basically the approach he used in the document. Mr. Holm stated that there was some discussion at the last meeting about taking different N" PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27t 1992 sections of the EIR for certification. The State's legal counsel feels that this would only weaken the document from a legal standpoint. Vice Chairman Byrd asked where the term tier came from and was there any reference in the EIR to a tier. Mr. Holm responded that the introduction identifies the document as a program EIR that is designed to lend itself to a tiered analysis. It is designed so that there would be subsequent environmental analysis either through an initial study or subsequent EIRs. Those subsequent EIRs are not intended to duplicate the information but are intended to provide supplemental information to augment the original EIR information. The program EIR is the bottom tier or the foundation document and the project level review is comprised of the additional tiers. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the geology report which was done some time ago would be included as part of the Final EIR and asked how the Planning Commission could approve the Final EIR tonight if none of them had read the geology report. Senior Planner Rojas stated that if the Planning Commission certified the EIR tonight, Staff would come back with a resolution at the next meeting stating that the final EIR would include the geology report that was handed out to Commissioners at this meeting. Vice Chairman Byrd said he had never read where this would be the base EIR from which we would make a decision. The program EIR covers the whole 15 year plan and then supplemental EIRs for each project must be provided. He stated that it appeared to him that this document is an EIR that says this is a 15 -year master plan that includes an EIR to the year 2005. Also, the City Attorney said that the Planning Commission can express their intentions to have each of these items come back to the Planning Commission but that his basic concern is intentions today that turn out to be forgotten tomorrow. Chairman Katherman stated that the tiered approach allows the Planning Commission, through the Conditional Use Process, to say this is what we are approving today and that anything else has to come back. Commissioner Mowlds stated he wanted the Planning Commission to determine when supplements to the EIR were needed. Commissioner Clark said the requirement for a master plan concept and a program EIR came out on a June 1991 directive from City Council, and that the applicant is following their NK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 direction. He said that the guidance from legal counsel was not direct input to the Planning Commission and he thought the Commission should have the opportunity to review that guidance directly with legal counsel. He suggested that one alternative would be to continue the matter and request a meeting with the City Attorney to discuss the implications with respect to a partial EIR for the project. Chairman Katherman stated that he would like to hear the case and make some kind of decision. If the Commission decides they do not want to do the tiered program EIR approach and do decide to divide the EIR to separate out the ECC and produce a document that only describes the Educational Conference Center, the Commission can give that direction to the Salvation Army. Then the commission could go forward and discuss the issues pertinent to the project. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the Commission should ask the Salvation Army what they are willing to do. Thomas Hause, HOC Consultants, 67 East Liveoak, Arcadia, stated that he is the architect/engineer on the project and that the Salvation Army accepts the EIR as it is written as a program tiered EIR and they had no problem with revising the EIR to make one project or two projects or whatever. The Salvation Army has no intention to circumvent the Planning Commission in their duty to the community in reviewing each and every one of the projects on the master plan. Mr. Hause's understanding was that the Salvation Army was in an institutional zone and anything in an institutional zone requires a CUP and a revision to a CUP must come before the Planning Commission. He wanted to make it absolutely clear that a complete tiered EIR was requested and submitted to the CIty. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he had asked two out of the three City Council members who were there last year and both of the ones who are now gone and all they think they asked for is a "request by the City for a Master Plan." They did not believe that they ever asked for this EIR. Major Gibson, The Salvation Army (Applicant), 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard, stated that he did not have an argument with what the Planning Commissioner was requesting. He said it was upsetting to him to be putting out a lot of money and not really knowing what he is getting back for his money. Major Gibson stated that The Salvation Army has no disagreement but he sees a disagreement between Council and the Planning Commission. Somewhere along the line we have to get straightened out and decide exactly what you would like them to do. He said he objected to paying another 23 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 $9,200 to go back into the computer to eke out some pages and pull out items relating to ECC. Major Gibson explained that they did not initiate this EIR and did not come up with a plan for secretive ways to build buildings. The City came to them and said they would have to have an EIR. The original EIR dealt with the ECC only and the City staff requested a tiered EIR that would cover the whole Master Plan. He was told if the EIR could be approved then the overall Master Plan would be approved along with it. If anything came different to the Master Plan, then he would have to come back to the Planning Commission on projects. He has no problem with that approach. He objects to paying the $9,200 for something that can be separated out on the computer. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if Major Gibson felt that if the Planning Commission were to certify the EIR, that the Master Plan would be approved. Major Gibson responded that the Planning Commission would be approving the Master Plan with the EIR, but at the same time he had been told by Staff that each project would have to come back before the Planning Commission before permits could be issued. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he wanted to be sure that the City understands and that the Salvation Army understands so they don't come back a year from now and want to do another project without going back to the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Rojas stated that the EIR is strictly an informational document which does not approve anything and does not bind the Commission to any future approvals. The Commission can certify the entire EIR and deny every project phase request that comes through. This Master Plan is separate from the CUP which approves the project. The Salvation Army will still need a CUP for each project and the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review each CUP. Commissioner Clark confirmed with staff that certifying the EIR does not create vested rights and Chairman Katherman stated that what is approved by certifying the EIR does not give the applicant any rights to anything. Chairman Katherman explained that the reason an EIR is being done is because it is required by State law. Back in 1970 State legislature decided that the environmental impacts of projects need equal consideration with the social and economic aspects of a project. Therefore, they required Environmental Impact Reports so the decision makers will have the information in front of them to determine what are the impacts of this project on the environment. This can help people make informed, intelligent decisions regarding the environmental impact. He stated that the reason have the tier is to allow 24 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 for changes in circumstances. Vice Chairman Byrd again stated that the term tier is not in the EIR document and staff and Chairman Katherman explained that it is a program EIR which is the same thing as a tiered EIR. The City Council told the Salvation Army that they had to do a master plan and had to make a guess as to what they do in 15 years on their site, that triggered in CEQA what is called a program EIR. Chairman Katherman went on to say that he did not think anything would be gained by separating out the ECC from the EIR. Commissioner Lorenzen asked what about ten years down the road. Chairman Katherman responded that is why it is tiered and Vice Chairman Byrd stated again that the EIR document does not mention tier. Commissioner Lorenzen asked if the Planning Commission was assured that each project would come before them. Senior Planner Rojas stated that by having a very explicit condition of the CUP it can be required that any future project has to go before the Planning Commission for review and approval regardless of the level of environmental analysis needed. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, not to certify the EIR. Motion failed 4-3, with Commissioner Alberio, commissioner Clark, Commissioner Lorenzen and Chairman Katherman voting against the motion and Commissioner Hayes, commissioner Mowlds and Vice Chairman Byrd voting for the motion. The following discussion took place before a vote was taken on the motion. Senior Planner Rojas informed the Commission that according to the City Attorney, if the Commission did not certify the EIR that they also have to deny all the applications. Commissioner Clark asked if Staff could explain the implications of the comments in the memo from Zeiser Geotechnical, Inc. indicating that based on their review, it is their opinion that natural slope stability and seismic considerations have not been adequately addressed. He stated that he thought this would bear on the Commission's vote on the motion since this indicates there are open geotechnical issues. Mr. Holm of the Keith Companies responded that in context of geotechnical review, primary objective was to have the geologist review this new information and determine whether the impact, conclusions and mitigation measures in the draft EIR were adequate or needed to be amended. He said what we have here is a 25 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 little bit of unusual situation in that the soils report and foundation report would typically be provided after a preliminary geological analysis which is included in the EIR. References to slope stability and seismic considerations merely underscore the mitigation recommendations in the geology report. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the Planning Commission should ask for a geology report before approval for projects in landslide areas. Commissioner Clark stated that he understood Mr. Holm's explanation to be that the slope stability issue remains open until further into the project when the studies are specifically done which could impact the design of the building at that time. Mr. Holm stated that was correct and that it could also require additional setbacks or it may just be resolved through engineering solutions such as slope buttressing, etc. Commissioner Clark asked if the rest of the City staff agreed that is an adequate mitigation measure with respect to that input from Zeisner. Senior Planner Rojas answered that yes it had been discussed at the last hearing based on a preliminary analysis of the site and he felt that it was an adequate mitigation measure. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he wanted to make absolutely sure that the Planning Commissioners next year or two years from now that it is impossible to put another building on that site without doing a supplementary EIR as well as going through the whole process with the Planning Commission and public all over again. Senior Planner Rojas stated that because of the way the approval is phased, future projects would require supplemental EIRs. Vice Chairman Byrd asked who would make that determination as he wanted to be sure the public will make that determination. If Staff determines that the EIR is good enough for 15 years, then nobody is going to raise a question. How do you guarantee getting a public hearing on this. Chairman Katherman stated that everything that gets built on an institutionally zoned piece of property has got to go through the Commission and part of that public hearing is discussing its environmental impact. Commissioner Alberio stated that the Commission should go ahead and approve the EIR as the Salvation Army will still have to take every project through the Commission one by one. M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 A roll -call vote was taken at this time on the motion to not certify the EIR which failed 4-3. Senior Planner Rojas stated that Staff is asking The Salvation Army as a condition of approval to grant an easement for a trail on their property. They are to construct, fence and maintain it. Andrew Bonacich, Chairman, Recreation and Park Committee, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he had recommended a multi- purpose dirt trail for horses, pedestrians, bicycles, etc. which the Committee felt was justified because of the magnitude of this project. He said that it is City policy to obtain a good a trail from any development in the City. Mr Bonacich said that the construction and dedication of this trail is an integral part of the Peninsula loop trails and will not cost the people of Rancho Palos Verdes anything. Mr. Bonacich stated that nothing was said in his recommendation about maintaining the trail. Planning Administrator Petru stated that the City has accepted miles of trails and all are dedicated to the City which has the responsibility for maintenance and liability. A discussion concerning the location of the trail followed and Senior Planner Rojas stated that the best location for the trail was along the southern earth berm. Commissioner Hayes commented that she could not understand how there could be horses and bicycles on the same trail. Commissioner Alberio asked why feet and Planning Administrator told by the City's trail users width. Also, the trail will be foot, open rail fence mainly to where they shouldn't be. ADJOURNMENT can't the trail be wider than six Petru answered that Staff was that is six feet is an adequate bordered by a three and one half keep people from going into areas MOTION: Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by commissioner Mowlds, to continue this public hearing to November 10, 1992, and to adjourn the meeting to the Special Meeting of November 5, 1992. Motion passed 5-2, with Commissioner Alberio and Chairman Katherman dissenting. The meeting was duly adjourned at 12:05 a.m. to Thursday, November 5, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. at Hesse Park. RWA