Loading...
PC MINS 19921110i MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Chairman Katherman at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen and Chairman Katherman. ABSENT: Commissioner Mowlds (excused) and Vice Chairman Byrd (ill). Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Senior Planner Joel Rojas, Assistant Planner Donna Jerex and Assistant Planner Paul Espe. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Director Onderdonk discussed the reorganization of the Environmental Services Department. Director Onderdonk updated the Commission on the NCCP Program dealing with the preservation of the habitat of potentially endangered species. He stated that two City volunteers are working with the California Native Plant Society on a mapping and research program to identify native species on City owned land. Director Onderdonk advised that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to waive the resubmittal fees when they denied Tentative Parcel Map No. 23548. Therefore, the City Council would be considering the fee waiver issue at their next meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to approve the minutes of October 27, 1992 with minor corrections. Motion passed 5-0. MOTION: Commissioner Haves moved, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to approve P. C. Resolution 92-70, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 166, et. al. at 28798 Western Avenue. Motion passed 5-0. A. VARIANCE NO. 345• Hao-sheng Yu, 6626 Channelview Court. Planning commission meeting November 10, 1992 NOTION: Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to accept the applicant's withdrawal of Variance No 345. Motion passed 5-0. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. VARIANCE NO. 323, HEIGHT VARIATION 743 - APPEAL, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1617• Helen and David Engel, 6 Headland Drive. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, Lorenzen, to continue Variance No. Appeal, Grading Permit No. 1617 to Planning Commission and applicant's frame location. Motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) seconded by Commissioner 323, Height Variation 743 - November 24, 1992 to allow the neighbor time to review the B. VARIANCE NO. 339, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1647• Mr. and Mrs. James Hsu, 7004 Clovercliff. Paul Espe presented the staff report on this request to allow the construction of 936 square feet of additional first and second story living space to be located on a slope in excess of 35%. He stated that the findings provided in the Development Code can be made for this variance and recommended approval with conditions. MOTION: commissioner Hayes moved,,seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to approve Variance No. 339 and Grading Permit No. 1647, subject to Conditions of Approval on Exhibit "A". Motion passed 5-0. James Hsu (applicant), 70004 Clovercliff Drive, testified that he had read the staff report and the recommended Conditions of Approval and that he had no questions or objections. C. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 1390, FSEIR ADDENDUM TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37885; (Forrestal). Senior Planner Rojas presented the staff report and advised that the City Council had requested that the Planning Commission consider modifications to the previously denied Grading Application No. 1390, and receive oral comments from the public on the re -circulated Addendum to the Final Supplemental EIR. Commissioners Clark, Alberio, Lorenzen and Hayes requested that the hearing on this project be postponed for the following reasons: two commissioners were absent; Chairman Katherman was the only Commissioner who been on the Planning commission when Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1992 this project was heard in the past and the Planning Commission needed more time to prepare because of the project's complexity and magnitude; to provide adequate time and notice for the public to be aware of the opportunity to testify; and because the project is in litigation. Staff advised that those who had spoken at previous hearings or submitted comments in writing were notified of this hearing and, also, a notice was published in the Peninsula News. Chairman Katherman stated for the record that he had reviewed the case and was prepared to vote on it. He also said that the Planning Commission had received a confidential memo from the City Attorney giving legal advice on the project. He suggested the Commission hear the testimony and then continue the project to a date certain since people were there to speak and should have the option to be heard. Also, the Commisssion would have a better understanding of the project if the applicant and his experts gave an overview. The Commissioners who were not present would have the opportunity to review the tape of the meeting. Senior Planner Rojas advised that all parties have agreed to recirculate the addendum EIR to the agencies that have commented on it before, as well as to interested parties. Mr. Rojas also advised that the 30 -day review period to hear public comment on the addendum would end November 23, 1992 and the next meeting would be after the comment period. Therefore, he suggested that testimony be taken on the addendum EIR and at the next meeting of November 24, and modifications can be discussed by the Commission and the public. However, by that time the comment period will have closed and staff will be working on the responses to the comments for the City Council. Therefore, if the project were continued to November 24, the final recommendation to City Council would have to be made then that night. Senior Planner Rojas stated that staff believes the plan addresses most of the major concerns previously identified by the City Council, particularly the concerns involving fill in the quarry bowl and off-site material exportation. However, under the modified plan, the reviewing geologists recommended that the quarry bowl be restricted from public access due to remaining rockfall potential and the Council had previously expressed that, if possible, the quarry bowl should be accessible to the public. Also, the Council's concerns involving the grading for the tract development, as expressed by the Seaview Homeowners Association, are not affected by the revised grading plan. The FSEIR Addendum documents how the Seaview HOA comments have been responded to by the recommendations and conclusions of the current grading plan. Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1992 Chairman Katherman asked how public access could be denied not only at the bottom of the quarry bowl but also at the top of the quarry bowl within a 50 foot area. Senior Planner Rojas said that the trail and fence along the top are very close to the edge of the quarry bowl and the consulting geologists have stated that it is a hazard standing underneath the quarry bowl side, and the top edge also presents a hazard. Therefore, staff recommended access be closed inside the bowl and that there be fencing or some other means to limit access to the top edge of the bowl. Commissioner Alberio stated that nothing was mentioned about stopping the erosion on the quarry slope by grading or planting. Also, the plan did not address the problem of water seeping out and going into Klondike Canyon. Senior Planner Rojas responded that the City Council acknowledged that the steeper slopes create a higher potential for erosion and a higher maintenance need. Mr. Rojas explained that are two problems with quarry bowl drainage: 1) a dam was built to prevent water going into the bowl and about 100 feet up the quarry wall water is collecting from the canyon behind this earthen dam which is a source of ponding and percolation; and 2) at the very base of bowl itself is a local drainage problem. The intent with adding 10,000 cubic yards of fill to the bowl is to have a very gradual slope so that whatever water gets in the bowl there flows out. Commissioner Hayes asked about the fossils that students have been studying in that area and Senior Planner Rojas responded that the geologists' finding was that there were not significant fossils in the area and, therefore, no significant impact. Chairman Katherman asked why the applicant couldn't create a rock catchment area and leave the quarry slope alone. Mr. Rojas responded that the City geologist was concerned about the rockfall potential in the event of an earthquake and how to design a catchment to contain falling rocks. Therefore, they went to stepped slopes. Chairman Katherman and Commissioner Clark asked why not just lop off the top and leave the rest alone. Bob Trapp, J. M. Peters Co. (Applicant)„ Inc., stated that the city Council had expressed three issues of concern: 1) How to minimize the grading on the quarry slope and still provide adequate safety, 2) to preserve as much open space in the quarry bowl as possible, and 3) to balance the site so there is no trucking of excess material off the site. He said their plan had solved these problems as follows: 1. Minimize grading - there was originally 542,000 cubic yards of cut which has been reduced to 165,000 cubic yards. Page 4 • Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1992 2. Preserve Open Space - the yards of fill going into plan now has only 10,000 bowl. :7 original plan had 600,000 cubic the quarry bowl area and the revised cubic yards going into the quarry 3. Eliminate offsite trucking - the revised plan balances cuts and fills on site and there is no trucking going off the site. He felt that the additional issues of drainage, biology, noise and dust had been addressed and mitigation had been proposed which was satisfactory to the independent geologist and soils engineer hired by the City and to the satisfaction of the EIR consultant hired by the City. Mr. Trapp advised the Commission that there is a condition requiring that an archeologist be on site during grading in case any significant fossils are uncovered. Commissioner Alberio was concerned about the amount of material to be placed on the eastern portion of the slopes for the sake of balancing the cut and fill and said that it would have to be compacted to at least 95% for stability. He thought that all the material placed by mechanical methods would slide down during an earthquake unless 100% adhesion to natural ground could be accomplished and he suggested that it be left as is. Mr. Trapp responded that many of the areas on site are uncertified fill which do not meet grading requirements, so anything that they do would be an improvement. Commissioner Alberio also thought that putting 10,000 cubic yards of fill in the quarry bowl would not solve the drainage problem and that there were other options such as pumps and drainage pipes. Mr. Trapp responded that the best way is to provide positive drainage with nothing mechanical that can break down or become clogged. He said it was an option, however, to put in a concrete channel which would eliminate any seepage. RECESS AND RECONVENE - meeting recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, testified against the project and stated that homes in the Seaview area are cracking on Dauntless Drive because of serious displacement and that the homeowners in Seaview are very concerned about what will be done at the project site. She also said that the project is in violation of the City's General Plan because the topography will be changed. Mg. Larue advised that there is a landslide in the Klondike Canyon area of the project and according to geologists, landslides grow - they do not shrink. She reminded the Commission that the City approved Villa Capri which has serious displacement Page 5 0 1 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1992 problems. Ms. Larue said there was good reason that this project has been around since 1982 since there are major problems with it. She stated that Mr. Ehlig did not know where the water would go and she could not believe that the water would flow over into Klondike Canyon. She did not think that the geological or drainage problems had been adequately addressed. Sunshine, 6 Limetree, stated that the grading application and EIR did not address the location, grading and environmental impacts of creating trails 7 and 16 and she wanted to go on record saying this should not be used as an excuse to not build the trail because the environmental impacts are too great. Sunshine also requested that the trail be located so it connects with the City Hall segment and Seahill segment of the City's conceptual Trails Plan and that it be parallel to Palos Verdes Drive South and as far from the road as possible. Tom Schnerk, 3444 Hightide, testified against the project and stated that if the present catch basin and the natural rise of the quarry hillside is maintained, it will be stable and nothing will break loose. He thought the project was being jeopardized for the sake of six houses and a cul-de-sac and that those houses should be eliminated in order to keep the natural catch basin and the rise of the hill. He suggested the area then be designated open hazard and left alone. He thought that Perry Ehlig did not know where the water goes or how much ponding takes place. He asked if anyone had actually seen ponding, how deep it is and long it takes to percolate out. He suggested Mr. Ehlig be questioned thoroughly on these issues. Mr. Schnerk suggested that if the City had to accept this project to avoid being sued, the compromise should be the elimination of those six houses since the amount of money the developers would save on the grading would make up for the loss of revenue from the six houses. Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive, agreed with Ms. Larue's statements and with Mr. Schnerk's suggestion to eliminate the six houses. She also commended Commissioner Clark for showing restraint on the project. Ms. Kelly stated that the City Council thought the project was bad enough to deny and she was concerned that the threat of legal action had clouded the issue and that she would not want to see the project accepted out of fear of legal action. Motion: Commission Clark moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to continue the public hearing on the consideration of modifications to previously denied Grading Application No. 1390 to November 21, 1992, 9:00 a.m., to an on-site visit to the project. The public hearing will then be continued to the November 24, 1992 Page 6 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting at Hesse Park, after 9:00 p.m. Motion passed 5-0. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92 - REVISION I'D", EIR NO. 37; The Salvation Army, 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard. Senior Planner Rojas presented the staff report recommending that the Commission certify the existing Final Program EIR as prepared, review and discuss the project issues of concern and conceptually approve the Education/Conference Center (ECC) with conditions, and review the Draft Conditions of Approval and provide staff with direction. He advised the Commission that: A. Staff had prepared a Resolution making the findings for the certification of the Final Program EIR accompanied by a Statement of Overriding Consideration per CEQA requirements. B. If the Commission certifies the EIR and signs the Resolution, the Planning Commission will have 90 days to act on the pending applications which are the Conditional Use Permit, the Variance and the Grading Application. C. The design of the ECC building had not changed but the applicant had designed an earthen berm to screen the building from Palos Verdes Drive South. D. The vehicular access road had been redesigned incorporating the Planning Commission and Traffic Committee recommendations. E. Staff had amended its recommendation on the trails to include a condition of approval of1the CUP that the Salvation Army also maintain the trail. Thomas Hause, (Architect for the Applicant), 67 East Live Oak Avenue, Arcadia, stated that they have screened the building by providing a landscaped berm to block most of the view on Palos Verdes Drive South and the worst case is that five feet can be seen at one point. The height of the building is 30 feet from the floor line to top and will not exceed 45 feet from the very lower portion of the basement which is below grade. The entrance road is now located directly across from what used to be the Marineland entrance. It will be widened with a small island and will require no retaining walls but will require building a road supported with a 1 1/2:1 slope. In response to Commissioner Clark's question, Mr. Hause responded that approximately 30 feet of the building would "be seen without the berm and that the five feet which can be seen with the berm as Page 7 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1992 designed now could be blocked by raising the berm or planting trees. Commissioner Hayes said she felt strongly that the building was too high and too massive and it could still be seen from the street even with the berm, and also from above. She said that this multi -storied building is not aesthetically appropriate for Rancho Palos Verdes. Chairman Katherman asked the height from the lowest point of finished grade to the top of the roof and the size of footprint. Mr. Hause responded that the footprint is 66,000 square feet and that the building is 45 feet at its tallest. Senior Planner Rojas clarified that if the guest facility was viewed straight on, it is 45 feet high. Commissioner Alberio mentioned that Commissioner Mowlds had expressed concern about the 45 feet and that is why he instructed the applicant to put part of the building below ground. Mr. Hause stated that it was not economicallly or functionally feasible to break the building into two units. Commissioner Hayes advised that the Planning Commission had not considered cost in the past in requesting changes to applicants' plans. Major Kenneth Gibson, Salvation Army (Applicant). 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard, confirmed that splitting the ECC into two buildings was not feasible since that would double the cost, there would be a problem locating it on site, and if they maintain 25 units in each building there would still be two buildings totalling the same mass on the same site. Also, it would be inconvenient for people to go from building to building. He advised that they will have over 200 cadets for the next session and they are pressed for rooms and, therefore, they are considering using this building for housing for cadets instead of an Education/Conference Center. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, testified that she was a neighbor of the Salvation Army and was against the project. Ms. Larue stated that the building was a monstrosity and that the Salvation Army was crowding buildings onto the site. She said that the City is residential and she preferred the idea of several smaller buildings.' Ms. Larue asked why there was an entrance from Crestmont and also from Palos Verdes Drive South. Sunshine, 6 Limetree, stated that she thought more than just a few of the 200 cadets would enjoy taking a walk or run on a trail. She discussed the location of the trail and how it should safely link up with other trails. She requested that the conditions of approval include a reference to the Conceptual Trails Plan as far as specific start and stop points and also include the actual DOME Planning commission Meeting November 10, 1992 grade of the trail. Sunshine thought that the width of trail with the planting and buffer area should be 10 feet and that it was reasonable to require the Salvation Army to dedicate it and to maintain it. Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive, testified against the project stating that her main objection was the massive size. She said the City had been downsizing residential developments for the past five years and requested that this project be downsized. She reminded the Commission that HMDI had been downsized from 96 to 79 units. Ms. Kelly also thought that the color of the buildings should be an earth tone to blend in with the hillside. MOTION: Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by commissioner Alberio to close the public hearing. Motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Hayes requested that Page 7 of the EIR be changed from 11 ... the Acting Director assured the Commission that staff would examine any proposed revisions to determine if an addendum or supplemental EIR would be necessary." to include a condition that the Planning Commission will see everything that comes forward. Commissioner Alberio said that the confidential report from the City Attorney confirms that if the Planning commission certifies the EIR, staff has the duty to refer any deviation to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Clark said that they wanted to assure that the Commission look at each increment of the project and assess the input from staff as to whether or not an EIR revision or addendum was necessary. Chairman Katherman stated that the Commission is assured of a public hearing for future projects since they will require a Conditional Use Permit which requires a public hearing. Planning Administrator Petru added that even though the Planning commission would be certifying the Program, EIR, they were only approving the ECC at this time and any other project that is beyond the ECC will have to be analyzed by staff as a conditional use permit revision or amendment. Therefore, staff will have to do an environmental review for each one and will have to check it against the program EIR and it will have to come back before Planning Commission in the form of a CUP revision. NOTION: commissioner Clark moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to certify the Program EIR. Motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner Hayes dissenting. Commissioners Hayes and Lorenzen expressed their concerns about the mass and size of the proposed ECC and how much of the building Page 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1992 could be seen from Palos Verdes Drive South, especially in the area where the tie-in road creates a break in the berm and Commissioner Lorenzen suggested that the tie-in road be eliminated. Commissioner Clark said he thought that the developer had gone a long way to downsize, to look at a subterranean solution and to reshape the buidling and that it was now a reasonable building size. He suggested that the berm be built up another foot and that planting be added so that there is no view from Palos Verdes Drive South. Mr. Hause advised that they could raise the berm but could not lower the building height. The Commissioners requested that the following changes be made to, Exhibit "A", Draft Conditions of Approval." 1. That the Salvation Army provide a "dedicated easement to the City", for trail purposes, the trail be a minimum width of 10 feet, and that the applicant construct and maintain the trail which shall be multi-purpose. The trail should begin on the western boundary of the Salvation Army parcel and extend across the southern edge of the parcel and be located adjacent and parallel to Palos Verdes Drive South, as far from the road as possible and shall be located so it connects with the City Hall Segment (A5) and Seahill Segment (A7) of the City's Conceptual Trails Plan. The'exact location shall be subject to approval by the Director of Environmental Services prior to issuance of the grading permit. 2. The roof landscaping shall be subject to review or modification by Staff. 3. The berm should be raised and continued across so there is zero visibility of the ECC structure from Palos Verdes Drive South and the berm shall be subject to inspection by staff to make sure that the building is not visible. 4. Eliminate the secondary access to the ECC and provide only one access route via Crestmont and change Condition D.3 to reflect that the security gate and attendant booth will be moved uphill as a result. 5. The exterior color of the ECC shall be an earthtone color and subject to review or modification by Staff. 6. Staff shall request and approve a lighting plan for the project. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to conceptually approve Conditional Use Permit No. 92 - Page 10 Planning commission Meeting November 10, 1992 Revision I'D" for the Education/conference Center (ECC), subject to amended Draft Conditions of Approval. Motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner Hayes dissenting because it is a massive, multi -story complex. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, discussed four wheel drive vehicles illegally entering the vacant property above her house from the end of Barkentine Road. ADJOURNMENT at 10:50 to November 21, 1992. Page 11