Loading...
PC MINS 19921105MINUTES �'L PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Acting Chairman Byrd 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 (arrived at 7:45 P.M.). ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, and Associate Planner Terry Silverman. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS - Vice Chairman Byrd advised that the meeting was being video taped by the Palos Verdes Land Holding Company and would not be on Channel 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of October 13, 1992. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to approve the minutes of October 13, 1992. Motion passed 6-0, with Chairman Katherman not voting as he had not yet arrived. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REVISIONS TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50666 AND 50667 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS NO. 162 AND 163 COASTAL PERMIT NO 103 GRADING PERMIT NO. 1541, AND AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 36; Palos Verdes Land Holding Company and Zuckerman, Subregion 7 and 8. Requested Action: Approve an 83 lot single family residential development with an 18 -hole public golf course, clubhouse, and passive open space on approximately 260 acres now known as "Ocean Trails". Director Onderdonk advised that the primary issues the Commission had to address were: Whether the revised project conforms to all applica- ble City regulations, including the General Plan, the local coastal plans, the Development Code and whether the EIR as supplemented by the addendum complies with the CEQA by adequately describing the revised project and by adequately analyzing all of the environmental impacts of the project. Planning Administrator Petru presented the staff report stating that the Applicant had met with the Coastal Commission staff to discuss modifications of the project. They also met with the State Department PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5. 1992 of Fish and Game and the U. S Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss issues related to preservation and restoration of sensitive habitat on the site. The Ocean Trails plan (formerly known as Subregions 7 & 8) was developed to address the concerns about public access, public recreation and habitat preservation raised at the August 12, 1992 Coastal Commission Staff Report denying the original plan. The revised Ocean Trails plan reduced the size of the proposed golf course and residential common open space lots in order to create public open space which is being offered for dedication to the City. These public open space lots provide public access to the coastline, passive public recreational opportunities, habitat preservation and enhancement areas. Preservation of public access and biological resources is further supplemented by including additional trails and habitat areas within some of the common open space lots. Therefore, staff felt that the modified project fully complied with the provi- sions of the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan and Develop- ment Code. Also, the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review the final Public Amenities Plan, Biological Resource Preserva- tion Plan, Golf Course Plan and Runoff Management and Water Quality Control Plan before construction can begin on the project. Ms. Petru informed the Commission that geological investigations are ongoing on the site. Therefore, if it is found that lots 34 through 38 in Tract 50667 cannot be developed for geological reasons, staff asked that flexibility be built into the approval to allow the applicants to move the golf -and habitat restoration into that portion of the site without having to come back for a major Conditional Use Permit revision. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Addendum to the EIR and the revisions to the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and re -approval of the Parcel Maps to the City Council and approve the revisions to the Coastal Permit, Conditional Use Permits, and Grading Permit. Commissioner Clark reported that the Planning Commission subcommittee had met with City staff and the developer and found that there were significant improvements and alterations to the project and that he felt the project was now responsive to the concerns that were ex- pressed by the Coastal Commission. MOTION: commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Hayes, that speakers be allowed three minutes instead of five minutes per person. motion passed 5-2 by a raise of hands. Mike Mohler (ARRlicant), Palos Verdes Land Holding Company, 25200 La Paz, Laguna Hills, stated that they had reduced the residential areas from 95.2 acres to 87.9 acres and reduced the golf course area from 121.2 acres to 101.4 acres, added a trail, moved hole ten of the golf course, left remaining the original access to the tidepools, and brought another entrance to the passive park and Shoreline Park between Lots 4 and 5. He said that the active park on Half Way Point 2 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 0 had been increased by 1.7 acres and the invasive vegetation proposed (manicured lawns) had been pulled back from the bluff face to protect the coastal bluff scrub. The Coastal Commission had a concern about the trails in the east/west bluff top corridor area because they were a minimum of four feet wide. Also, the description did not include the buffers or the minimum easement sizes to the satisfaction of the Coastal Commission. Mr. Mohler stated he agreed to criteria of 8.4 acres in addition to the other parks, minimum buffer width of 25 feet to 100 feet averaging 75 feet along the bluff edge. The Coastal Commission staff also indicated that there were ambiguities in the dedication of parks since they were not delineated on the map. The applicant has illustrated exactly what is proposed to be dedicated with a west bluff passive park. The former golf hole ten preserve lots will also be dedicated. The conditions further say that improve- ments as per the final access plan and public approval plans will be completed prior to the first certificate of occupancy for either residential or the golf course uses. Mr. Mohler stated that when they met with the Coastal Commission staff after denial, three major items came up: (1) not enough public space/access, (2) they the applicant to work with Fish and Game and the Wild Life Service on the habitat plan, and (3) holes eight and ten should be relocated. He said that the project had been changed to reduce residential acreage by 7.3 acres, and to reduce the golf course by 19.8 acres. The corresponding 27.1 acres has been created for public access. He stated they had no objection to staff's request for 75 public parking spaces on the relocated Paseo del Mar, however, he would like the 50 parking spaces to remain on the eastern dedicated parking area for a total of 125 dedicated parking spots. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved to reconsider his motion, seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Motion passed 7-0. MOTION: Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, that both sides be given one hour each to be allocated as they so desire. Motion passed 7-0. Mr. Mohler said that he did not agree with staff's request that there be a trail at the third cul-de-sac between the residential lots since anybody in that area would only have to walk by four houses to the north to get on the main trail to Half Way Point. Also, staff is requesting a trail between Lots 6 and 7 at the end of the cul-de-sac. Since there is a much steeper grade in that area and the habitat is much more sensitive and lush, he would rather omit that trail and instead keep the additional trail requested in the original plan. Mr. Mohler responded to staff's concern that the tee boxes immediately west of Half Way Point park could be in conflict with the landing and take off patterns of remote controlled airplanes. He explained that they are trying to have a buffer in that area to provide bluff protec- tion. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 He advised that the Coastal Commission staff requested 20 or 30 acres of usable, open public space and that they have responded with 34.2 acres of public open space. The Coastal Commission also requested that golf holes eight and ten be relocated elsewhere in the park which they have done. He stated that he believed that Fish and Game indicated that they are satisfied with the conceptual habitat protec- tion plan. Since it was important to replace the three trails going to Halfway Point, they put trails on both sides of Forrestal Draw in addition to the relocated Paseo del Mar trail. With respect to dedication of public land between the bluff road and the ocean, all land seaward of the residential is either open space lots, parks, roadways, or golf course which would either be dedicated or deed restricted for public use. Mr. Mohler said he felt that they had addressed the issues the Coastal Commission had outlined. In response to the Commissioners' inquiries, Planning Administrator Petru stated that the City Council had responded to the issue of the applicant paying for maintenance of the public land by adding a condition requiring the establishment of a maintenance district. City Council is considering creating a citywide golf greens tax, although that money is not earmarked specifically for park maintenance. She also advised that staff had recommended removal of the trail on the east side of Forrestal Draw because staff felt that similar access to Halfway Point was already available down Paseo del Mar and a second trail in that canyon was not necessary. Ms. Petru suggested that the Commission condition the project to require an off-road dedication in common open space Lot C to reserve for the future the opportunity to put in a public trail. She did not recommend that the City take an easement at this time but rather an offer to dedicate. Ms. Petru explained that staff had not accepted applicant's offer of an additional 15 parking spaces along La Rotunda Drive since the 50 dedicated spaces already there are adequate. Also, there will be a large parking lot at that location for the clubhouse and staff did not want too much paved area. Juan Forteza and Loretta Forteza, 4021 Via Larga Vista, Palos Verdes Estates, testified for the project. Mr. Forteza said he thought it was a world class golf course and that he believed the project was a place where man and nature will be at their best. He said he has never seen developers dedicate themselves to the environment as they have on this project. Ms. Forteza stated that there was no loss of public access to the bluffs. She said that it would be nice to have the grounds green and well maintained all the time. Ms. Forteza suggested that those opposed to the project give a positive alterna- tive and not just say don't do anything. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 Frank Angel, 2029 Century Park East, legal counsel for the Sierra Club, California Native Plant Society, Coastal Conservation coalition, Save our Coastline 2000, and Mr. Andrew Sargent. Mr. Angel stated that he is counsel to these various parties in the litigation that has been initiated challenging the City's first approval of this project. In response to the statement that the opposition should suggest something positive, he stated that it is public record that they made an offer to settle this matter on the basis of the residential compo- nents on the two Tract Maps and that they have not yet,received a response. He stated that it is not the position of anyone he repre- sents to not put anything on this site. (At this time, Chairman Katherman cautioned Mr. Angel against discussing any pending litiga- tion.) Mr. Angel asked what happened to the access road to the clubhouse as the tentative tract maps show Paseo del Mar ending in a cul-de-sac several hundred feet east of the clubhouse and there is no road that extends beyond the agricultural parcel to the clubhouse. The maps also show the golf course now occupying the alternative clubhouse location (south of the agricultural parcel between gnat - catcher area 5 and gnatcatcher area 6) approved by the City Council as a condition of the CUP. The revised plan now shows a fairway occupy- ing that space, thus precluding an alternative location. Also, geologic investigations would have to be made for the final location of the clubhouse and as of today the addendum EIR still doesn't say where it is. He said location of the clubhouse and the alternative location are important points because of the proximity to the two gnatcatcher areas. Mr. Angel said that in the documents dated April 1992 submitted to the Coastal Commission, the applicant stated that there will be a heliport landing area adjacent to the clubhouse which was not indicated on any of the applications. He felt that no matter where it would be located, a heliport would be disturbing to the wild life species and to the people who live in subregion 7 and requested that it not be allowed and that the applicant indicate their agreement to eliminate the heliport. He also asked what happened to the 100 plus acre mitigation measure in the event the enhancement habitat plan is unsuccessful and explained that this is a contingency that had been contemplated very clearly by Mr. Atwood. Mr. Atwood's letter stated: "in the event that the proposed mitigation measures fail, I recommend compensation to permit the Service to acquire or restore at least 100 acres of high quality gnatcatcher habitat on the Peninsula. This acreage estimate should arguably be substantially higher given that in the absence of successful mitigation measures, the Hon -Zuckerman project would seriously impact the long term viability of gnat - catcher populations throughout all of Subregion 7.11 The Department of Fish and Game, without mentioning those 100 plus acres, specifically referred to the need of some document from the City that provides for long-term funding for future habitat acquisition which would be beyond the proposed habitat conservation easements in the switchback area and Shoreline Park. These properties cannot be part of the conditions since the City does not have jurisdiction. Mr. Angel said this was important since if this plan is unsuccessful once it is implemented, 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 there would be no off-site mitigation if those 100 plus acres are not required. Also, he understood that the housing element of the City is currently out of compliance with the State Planning and Zoning Laws and he submitted for that reason the project, which has an important residential component, can't be found consistent with the City's General Plan. He stated that most of the inconsistencies with the Coastal Specific Plan remain. For example, the Coastal Specific Plan requires that "alterations of land included in this district and shall provide that these actions not use herbicides to control or kill vegetation." He stated that no other use requires more herbicides, fertilizers and insecticides than a golf course. Commissioner Alberio stated that the Planning Commission subcommittee determined that the developer had addressed every point brought up by the Coastal Commission. Mr. Angel responded that in the conditions of approval for golf course development, CUP No. 163, page 3, golf club house location No. 1 states: that the golf clubhouse shall be located in the area generally described as seaward of the existing Paseo del Mar right-of-way immediately West and/or South of the school district property. The final location of the clubhouse shall be determined and approved by the City Council before recordation of any final map. Mr. Angel felt that the City Council very clearly opened an alternative location for the club house south of the agricultural parcel and just north of the bluff top. Chairman Katherman stated that was not his interpretation of that condition and Planning Administrator Petru advised that the City Council wanted to bring in flexibility to allow them to move the clubhouse around and it would come back as part of the final golf course plan approval which is required by CUP No. 163. Others testifying against the project were: Andrew Sargent, Coastal Conservation Coalition, One Peppertree Drive; Gar Goodson, Chairman, Save our Coastline 2000, 1709 Via Zurata, Palos Verdes Estates; Angelina Brinkman-Busi, President, California Native Plant Society, 1354 Stonewood Court, San Pedro; Al Satler, Program Chair for the Palos Verdes/South Bay Region of the Sierra Club, 3325 West 25th Street, San Pedro; Linda Miller, President, Palos Verdes Peninsula Horseman's Association, 2283 Carriage Drive, Rolling Hills Estates; John Sharkey, 30320 Ave de Palma; Carl G. Allen, 360 Palos Verdes Drive West, Palos Verdes Estates; Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine; Christopher Stavros, 28612 Stoklowski; J. J. D. McLaren, 3923 Palos Verdes Drive South; and Ray Bara, No. 1 Peppertree. Their main concerns were: 1. The project, as previously approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, was totally denied by the Coastal Commis- sion and the project has not been changed significantly. 2. The project is not in compliance with the Coastal Specific Plan or the Coastal Act since access to the sea is limited by forcing the public to pass through and park in the residential neighbor - E. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 hood of Paseo del Mar and the golf course limits maximum access to the bluffs and interferes with the public access to the sea. 3. The whole map/plan is conceptual and they cannot determine what is going to be impacted. The Planning Commission is being asked to approve a 32,000 sq. ft. clubhouse, plus a parking lot, restaurant and maintenance facility for which there are no building plans and no planned access or parking at this time. Building plans are needed for Planning Commission review and for public discussion on the issues of safety, noise, traffic, crime, location of clubhouse, etc. 4. They do not know where the clubhouse will be located or what happened to the alternative location for the clubhouse. This will be one of the largest buildings in Rancho Palos Verdes, and there is no information on the geological conditions. There is a stability factor of less than 1.5. 5. There is no provision for a bluff top road which is required by the CUP and by a written direction from the Coastal Commission. 6. The applicant is still trying to put private uses seaward of the coastal bluff road which is not allowed. 7. The setback area will range from 25 to 75 feet which is an inadequate buffer zone to protect the bluffs when you also have a trail there. Fish and Game were very clear in their map of the setback area that the applicant has to move away from Forrestal Draw. No one has addressed this map. The Coastal Commission said they would accept a 200 foot wide "soft footed" corridor as the equivalent of a paved, bluff top road, seaward of the golf course. In Ocean Trails, the average coastal corridor is only about 50 feet. 8. The proposed golf course would eliminate 75% of the existing pedestrian trails and 100% of the equestrian trails which are presently being used for low intensity and low cost passive/ active recreational uses. This is significant because the site is located close to San Pedro, a heavily urbanized, ethnically diverse community. The access provisions of the Coastal Act require that this recreational resource be protected for future generations. Within this area of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Coastal Specific Plan contemplated a bluff top road parallel to the shore line, a substantial of public open space area of approximately 50 acres was to be located between the bluff road and the edge of the bluff, the golf course would preclude this use and would instead include a small two acre public bluff park at the terminus of the road adjacent to a portion of the residen- tial development and would provide viewing vista areas and trails located around the perimeter of the golf course and along the 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 edge of the bluff. This is less than envisioned in the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and less than what is presently occurring at the site. The project as designed attempts to accommodate too much development leaving little room for the public access and recreational opportunities expressly required by the City's certified LCP. This area was used for equestrian purposes for many years which was also brought up by the Coastal Commission. People and horses safely use other trails throughout the Peninsula. They urged the Planning Commission to designate all trails on the site as multi- purpose, pedestrian and equestrian trials. The western end of the trails coming down from Half Way Point goes down to a relatively steep area and significant regrading will be necessary to reconstruct it and to put in additional stairs and handrails. There is no mention in the addendum EIR about further significant in cuts in the properties. The trail that is leading down on the east side does not follow the easiest way, but instead encircles a preserve, disturbs the gnatcatcher from both sides and goes down a very steep, very narrow trail to the beach. There is no trail between Half Way Point and the west end of the property. Pedestrian Trail "All should access the Beach at point "I", thereby giving access to the State-owned beach in Subregion 7 and Subregion 6. The trail along the top of the hill is not a usable area unless the cactus is removed, and it was suggested that the Planning Commission take a look at the area before voting on it. 9. There is too much development for the site and the project is not consistent with provisions of the Coastal Specific Plan regarding habitat protection. Therefore, the applicant has transferred the burden of the habitat enhancement and the on-going cost of that, to the City by requesting an easement on a City -owned area which is open hazard and cannot be developed anyway. The applicant has also requested an easement on a County owned park. These mitigation measures are inadequate and inappropriate since they are on land the City and County already own. The Department of Fish and Game policy is three acres for every one acre of criti- cal habitat that is destroyed by development. They did not expect the applicant to give up three acres for one acre but to provide, as mitigation, funds to acquire lands elsewhere to compensate the community. Also, the extensive grading, land alteration and location of the golf course will have adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive habitat and wild life resources. There are alternative uses that would significantly reduce the impacts on coastal resources consistent with both the City's certified LCP and Chapter 3 Access and Recreation policies. Some of the fairways are going through where some gnatcatchers are breeding. Also, there is a trail next to a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 breeding pair of gnatcatchers whose habitat spills out into a housing area. The trails around Forrestal Drive on the east side would be new and would be running through gnatcatcher habitat creating serious problems. A lot of open space has been lost on the Peninsula and they hoped that the Planning Commission's decision on this project would not further exacerbate the prob- lem. 10. If mitigation measures do not work and if the Gnatcatcher is destroyed in Subregion 7 and 8, Dr. Atwood has recommended that Hon -Zuckerman provide 100 plus acres of prime habitat, not moratorium property, as a guarantee. This has not been done. 11. If biologic easements are granted by the County for Shoreline Park and by the City for the switchback, what is the City and County getting in return from the Developer and who will pay for the re -vegetation and maintenance of these properties as biotic preserves? 12. Handicapped people should not be asked to go the length of four football fields to get to a dirt path along the bluffs. 13. The LCP requires more than 250 public, on -street parking spaces and the parking on Paseo del Mar is just 75 spaces. 14. Crime at golf courses is prevalent and Mr. Sharkey predicted that the residents of Paseo del Mar will be insisting on the closure of the road to the general public as a result of crime and, therefore, parking should be taken out of the residential neigh- borhood and placed near the bluffs. Increased traffic, crime, and accidents will result in increased costs to the City for in- creased police protection and liability coverage. Also, golf must be physically separate from passive activities to assure safety. 15. There is no need for another golf course in the area since there are several 18 hole golf courses located within a 20 minute drive of the project, one of which is in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 16. There are clearly alternative uses that would significantly reduce the impacts on coastal resources consistent with both the City's Local Coastal Plan and Chapter 3 access and recreation policies. This is what the Coastal Commission is looking for. 17. Golf courses are toxic waste sites with fungicides, herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers all flowing into the ocean from this site. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 The opponents asked the Planning Commission to review the analysis given by the Coastal Commission meeting in August, to deny the project as submitted and to direct the applicant to design a project that is in compliance with the Coastal Commission comments and guidelines. Al Satler, representing the Palos Verdes/South Bay Region of the Sierra Club, also stated that the Sierra Club support a few years ago for the concept of replanting Shoreline Park should not be construed as support of this as a mitigation measure for this project. The Sierra Club does continue to support Shoreline Park as a passive, open space park. Mike Mohler, Palos Verdes Land Company (Applicant), stated that the Planning Commission will have specific review of the final design and if they don't meet all the requirements, they will not get through that public review. He said that the Coastal access trails at Half Way Point are there now and they are just trying to preserve what exists. Mr. Mohler explained that the off-site requirements were part of a program where Fish and Game asked them to look beyond their site and start a Phase I program for habitat creation on the Peninsula through a comprehensive program for habitat that will support not just the gnatcatcher but the cactus wren and other sensitive species. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if it was applicant's intent to reseed and revegetate off-site areas. Mr. Mohler replied that they solicited the County to create an easement to allow this connectivity issue from the passive park to the County and then to the switchback area. In soliciting that easement, which was backed by the Conservancy, the intent was to go in on ten of the twenty acres and revegetate which involves several hundred thousand dollars. The applicant further asked for a conservation easement on 100 acres of City property. Approximately only 15 acres of that is currently vegetated with quality California Scrub Sage. Mr. Mohler said that they would expect to be intimately involved with revegetation of the 100 acres should his pro3ect fail with their mitigation measures. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if they were prepared to move forward with the revegetation based on approval of this project anyway. Mr. Mohler responded that they were not proposing to go into the switchback and revegetate at this point. Barry Jones, President, Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, testified on behalf of the applicant and stated that he has been conducting research on the gnatcatcher since 1983. He agreed with Dr. Atwood's first letter that the original project did not meet the standards that were appropriate for the Coastal Sage Scrub gnatcatcher species on the Peninsula. Mr. Jones said this is a very significant issue on the Peninsula with a relatively small number of birds remaining and a potential problem with genetics if they were to allow additional birds to be lost to the population. They have developed a program which �U# PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 provides safeguards by attempting to not only maintain what exists today but to exceed it by proposing to replace any impacted lower quality sage scrub with high quality sage scrub. They are trying to accomplish a net gain in quality and quantity of habitat. In the current habitat on the site that will be impacted in Phase I of the grading program, there is a pair of gnatcatchers currently using sweetfoam which is a weed from Europe. They tried to mitigate the impact on this pair by revegetating in advance so that the gnat - catchers have an alternative place to nest before the grading occurs. No additional grading can occur west of Forrestal Creek until certain conditions required by the Wild Life Service and the Department of Fish and Game are met. The criteria will be established by the Service and Fish and Game to provide the necessary buffer and protection for this very sensitive species. The first safeguard is the phasing of the project. Hon -Zuckerman has a financial incentive to make sure that the mitigation measurers work because they can't build the homes unless they do. If the safeguards do not work, they still have the 100 acre off-site opportunity in the switchback area in addition to the ten acres of revegetation in the County park area. He stated these safeguards go well beyond what is typically expected of this kind of project because of the sensitivity of the Peninsula. Chairman Katherman qualified for the record that under prior approval, the Planning Commission and the City Council had approved the Biological Resources Protection Plan which had incorporated the requirement to have the resource agencies' approval before any final plan would be approved and before any grading would occur. Commissioner Mowlds stated that it was his understanding that the Planning Commission and the public will get to review and make comments again on the biological resource preservation plan, the habitat preservation plan, the clubhouse, and the golf course design. For the record, both the Hon and the Zuckerman teams indicated their agreement. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the project still included the applicant having a biologist on their payroll throughout the program, even after the project was completed, who would take care of the habitat around the golf course. He also asked if the trails and the park areas would be maintained by the personnel who maintain the golf course as indicated in the original plan. Mr. Mohler replied that what was dedicated by the City would be taken care of by a special maintenance tax assessment district or a special greens fee tax. Mr. Mohler indicated that there was nothing that would preclude them from main- taining the trails and parks and Commissioner Clark asked if Mr. Mohler was offering to do the maintenance. Mr. Mohler answered that he was offering to work with the Planning Commission on the final design to decide from a practical standpoint what to obligate or to volunteer to maintain. vice Chairman Byrd said this was something that ought to be done most efficiently for the City and preferable at 11 111 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 applicant's expense rather than the City's. Mr. Mohler responded they would probably have some of that in this plan. Commissioner Alberio stated that the City had to distinguish between a dedication and an easement as they are two distinct legal issues as far as legal responsibility and liability. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if it was still correct that should the golf course not be a profitable commercial venture, the property for the golf course would be deeded to the City as open space land. Mr. Mohler answered that it had been discussed that it would revert to open space but they had not discussed the ownership of the land; only that it would be publicly accessible. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he could not find anything in the project report that described that subject and he thought this should be in writing. Commissioner Clark asked for a confirmation from Mr. Mohler that the off-site mitigation is not actually mitigation but is part of an attempt to provide the start of a Peninsula wide program of revegeta- tion which goes beyond what they feel is necessary for habitation on this site. Mr. Mohler responded that was correct. Commissioner Lorenzen asked if the trail would be adequate for the handicapped to get to the bluff. Mr. Mohler answered that the trail is required to be handicapped accessible and that by the addition of the easterly loop that is now where hole ten used to be can be made handicapped accessible all way to the tide pools. He said he could not reverse the geology and be able to say that once you go downhill that you are not going to have to go uphill to return to your car, but it will be handicapped regulated and handicapped accessible. He advised that the distance from the street to the bluff at that point was 300 feet. Commissioner Alberio stated that much was said about the pesticides, herbicides, and chemicals necessary to maintain the golf course being detrimental to the habitat and groundwater and Mr. Mohler advised that they had a run off management plan for diluting and separating out fertilizer from the run off. Ira Arts, Robert Browne and Frost, Engineering Consultants to Palos Verdes Land Holding Company, stated that their runoff management plan collects the water that runs off the slopes and then conveys it safely to a point of disposal down the slopes. He said that the plan is in compliance with the new NPDS program to assure water quality. Catch basins that separate some of the toxics and ponding areas are proposed to allow some of the fertilizers and other toxics to settle out and be biodegraded by plant material. However, one of the important things about the NPDS program is that it doesn't set a any requirements for exact levels of toxicity prior to discharge into the ocean. There- fore, there really are no standards to meet as part of a Water Quality 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 Plan. What the NPDS program recommends is the use of best management practices which are incorporated into the plan. He confirmed that they would have continued testing of the waters to be sure they comply. In response to the Chairman Katherman's questions, Mr. Mohler stated that Mr. Jones and Mr. Dye have indicated that this project will be using less fertilizers than any of the golf courses in the area. He also said that there is no heliport proposed within the plan but that they have petitioned the F.A.A. to do flight clearance studies on the site and have received preliminary information but he understands that if they want a heliport they will have to come back to the Planning Commission with an application. Chairman Katherman stated that because of the lack of land available, the applicant is at the edge of feasibility with respect to the size of the property available for golf. Mr. Mohler responded that Pebble Beach has 89 acres of irrigated, in -play golf course. He said he spent three days with Pete Dye with this plan and made him prove that the golf course could fit in the reduced acreage. He suggested that a condition be imposed that if there is any change in this plan that it comes out of residential and not out of open space. Chairman Katherman questioned compatibility with golf and the coastal bluff trail and Mr. Mohler stated that the safety of that trail has been greatly enhanced by the efforts of the agencies, the Coastal Commission and the citizens. He confirmed that golf uses adjacent to and within the trails there will be greens and tees, no active fair- ways. Commissioner Lorenzen asked for a recap of the survey on the amount of trails on the site now and what will be there after the project and Mr. Mohler responded that he did not have the survey data, but that there is 25,000 lineal feet of trails in their plan versus the 22,000 lineal feet there now. He said that access has been reduced to focus corridors consistent with what is necessary to support the plan. MOTION: commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, to close the public hearing. motion passed without objection. Chairman Katherman asked for an explanation of what was going on with the trail in the east bluff passive park area. Ms. Petru answered that it is intended as an existing trail. Commissioner Hayes asked if the east side trail along Forrestal Draw was a much more sensitive area and would it make sense to drop that trail and just keep the one on the west. Planning Administrator Petru responded that was staff's recommendation. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 Commissioner Clark asked for staff's assessment of the adequacy of public parking and Ms. Petru responded that she heard a number of 250 parking spaces and she understood that number was split between Subregion 1 and this project, Subregion 7. The project is currently providing 145 public parking spaces, twenty of those would be provided in the public turnouts on Palos Verdes Drive South and 100 spaces would be located on the interior of the project site. The applicant is proposing 75 at the end of Paseo del Mar at Half Way Point and 50 at La Rotunda Drive by the clubhouse. In addition, the residential streets within the project will be public and there will be on -street parking of up to 250 spaces. There is about 175 spaces provided for the clubhouse and she did not expect that to be totally used at any time. Therefore, Ms. Petru believes there is more than adequate parking on the site. Chairman Katherman asked staff to respond to the issue raised about the Housing Element and Planning Administrator Petru advised that the revised Housing Element was approved by the City Council in August and has been resubmitted to the State Department of Housing and community Development. In the event that they do not certify it, City Council felt that the Housing Element was a legally defensible document. In response to Chairman Katherman's inquiry, Ms. Petru advised that City Council had requested that the location of the clubhouse come back to them for review and a condition has been included requesting that be done. Chairman Katherman wanted to have it come back to the Planning Commission also. she also suggested that the commission could require a condition that any plans for a heliport come back for Planning commission review. Chairman Katherman stated that he asked Pam Emerson and Chuck Damm of the State Coastal Commission staff if the golf course use is allowed by the Local Coastal Plan and the answer was yes. He also asked them if they thought the replacement of the vehicular bluff road with a multi-purpose path was in keeping with the plan and the answer was yes. NOTION: commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to recommend approval of the Addendum to Final EIR No. 36 to the City Council per Resolution No. 92-68. Motion passed 7-0. The Planning Commission then reviewed the Conditions of Approval for the revised Ocean Trails Plan and requested the following changes: On Exhibit "All: 1. Add a condition that the parking and public access to the bluff in this area shall be closed after dusk. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to approve Exhibit "A", Recommended Revisions to Conditions of Approval for Resolution No. 92-54, Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666, as amended, and Exhibit "B", Recommended Revisions to Condi- tions of Approval for Resolution No. 92-55, Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667. Motion passed 7-0. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to approve Exhibit "C", Revisions to Conditions of Approval for Resolu- tion No. 92-56 and Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 162. Motion passed 7-0. The Planning Commission approved the following changes in the Condi- tions of Approval in Resolution No. 92-57 for Conditional Use Permit No. 163: 1. Change Conditions D.1 and D.2 from 120 days to 180 days. 2. Condition D.3 eliminate the reference to "facilities to accommo- date radio controlled silent glider planes." 3. Condition D.5 requires that the Planning Commission approve the final clubhouse design rather than the Director of Environmental services. 4. Condition D. 6 to include "except as provided in Condition C. 1." 5. Condition U.1 change from a major revision to the CUP to a minor revision. 6. Condition U.4 be changed to read "any increase to the height of the accessory structure shall require a minor revision to the CUP and variance to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commis- sion". ommis- sion". On Exhibit "D": 1. Condition 6 to require that protective fencing be reviewed by the Planning Commission as part of the final golf course layout. 2. Add the condition that if the applicant needs more land for the golf course it would be taken out of the land allocated for the residential area and not out of land allocated for open space. With reference to Condition G.1 (No. 4 on Exhibit D.), the Planning Commission requested a review of what it would take to do the off-site vegetation. Planning Administrator Petru advised that that condition was dealing with on-site vegetation and if the Planning Commission wanted to make a recommendation for off-site vegetation that it be a separate motion. 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1992 The Planning Commission requested that flexibility be provided for the developer to bring back the design of the clubhouse for a realistic look at the total square footage and the public's use of that facility in the future. The Commission requested that the findings should state that the Planning Commission feels that the clubhouse would have the benefit of providing public facilities for the community and that there is a dearth of those kinds of facilities at this time. The Planning Commission stated for the record that the phasing and timing of grading with respect to habitat preservation is in the Biological Resource Protection Plan/Habitat Preservation Plan that would be approved by the City. (Exhibit "D", Condition 4.) They also advised that the reason for extending the cul-de-sac at Paseo del Mar by the City Council was to provide additional public parking along the street without paving additional areas for parking lots. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to recommend approval of the revised Vesting Tentative Tract Maps Nos. 50666 and 50667 to City Council, approve the revised Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal Permit No. 103, and Grading Permit No. 1541 and to re -approve the Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004 subject to the modified Conditions of Approval per P.C. Resolu- tion No. 92-69. Motion passed 7-0. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council establishment of a conservation easement over the City -owned switchback area, if economically feasible. Motion passed 7-0. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was duly adjourned at 11:45 p.m. to Tuesday, November 10, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. at Hesse Park. 16