Loading...
PC MINS 199211240 IQ If/u MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 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, Hayes, Lorenzen (arrived at 7:40 p.m.) and Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman ABSENT: Commissioner Clark Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Senior Planner Joel Rojas, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planner Donna Jerex and Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas. The Pledge of Allegiance fol- lowed. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Director Onderdonk advised the Planning Commission of the Special Use Permit granted to the Chelsea American Garden and Flower Show in February 1993 at 6610 P.V.D.S. (Long Point). 2. Director Onderdonk announced an EIR Workshop December 9, 1992, 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the Community Center at City Hall. The Commission and the public are invited to attend. Please RSVP to Arlene Ruttenberg at 377-6008. 3. Director Onderdonk advised that the minutes of the November 21, 1992 meeting had not been available when the meeting packet was mailed, but they were now available and the Commission could make a motion to approve them on the Con- sent Calendar if they so wished. B. COMMISSION Commissioner Mowlds and Vice Chairman Byrd stated for the record that they were absent from the Planning Commission meeting of November 11, 1992, but that they had reviewed to the complete tape recording of that meeting and were quali- fied to comment and vote on any items continued to this meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of November 5, 1992. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 CONTINUED BUSINESS A. VARIANCE NO. 323, HEIGHT VARIATION 743 - APPEAL, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1617; Helen and David Engel, 6 Headland Drive. Commissioner Alberio requested that this item be continued because the owner and the architect were not present and the Planning Commission had questions and redesign requests. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to continue Variance No. 323, Height Variation 743 - Appeal, Grading Permit No. 1617 to December 8, 1992. Motion passed 6-0. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) B. P.C. Resolution No. 92- ; approving Conditional Use Permit No. 92 -Revision I'D", Variance No. 270, Grading Permit No. 1485 for the Education/Conference Center (ECC) at 30840 Hawthorne Boule- vard (The Salvation Army). Vice Chairman Byrd read and submitted a memorancum for the record which is hereby made a part of and attached to these minutes. He made the following points: 1. The main reservations of the Planning Commission were the massive appearance of the ECC and the certification of a 15 year EIR. 2. The Planning Commission requested that the Salvation Army divide the EIR into a segment for the Educational Center and a segment for the remainder of the master plan. They also requested that the Guest facility be separated into two or more buildings. The Salvation Army responded negatively to both requests. 3. The berm proposed by the Salvation Army as a solution to hide the ECC will have to be very large or close to Palos Verdes Drive South and would block the openness of the area and be less pleasant than the present landscaping. 4. If the Salvation Army is unwilling to separate the Guest facility into two or more parts, the Planning Commission should only approve a smaller facility. 5. The proposed access road at Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS) and Crestmont will be visible from PVDS and will be less attractive than what is there now. 6. The Commission understands that the approval process involves compromise and the commission has met the applicant more than halfway. N PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 7. Approving a project which has to be hidden from public view is not in the best interest of the City and its residents. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he could not vote to approve the resolution for the above reasons. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he would add his name to the memorandum and for the reasons stated he also could not vote for the resolution. commissioner Hayes said that she voted against it before and she concurs with the memorandum and would also sign it. Chairman Katherman suggested that the item be removed from the Consent Calendar so it would be open for discussion. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Chairman Katherman, to remove P. C. Resolution No. 92- , approving conditional Use Permit No. 92- , Revision I'D", Variance No. 270, Grading Permit No. 1485 from the Consent Calendar and to open it up for discussion. Motion tied 3- 3, with Commissioners Alberio, Lorenzen and Chairman Katherman voting yes and commissioner Hayes, Vice chairman Byrd and Commissioner Mowlds voting no. Senior Planner Rojas discussed staff's recommended changes. The following modifications to Exhibit "A", Conditions of Approval were suggested by staff and the Planning Commission: 1. Section A.- Condition No. 2.: Add to the last sentence: and require a new and separate environmental review. 2. Section B.,- Condition No. 2.: Change the last sentence from "A final building permit..." to "A Certificate of Occupancy...". 3. Section B. - Condition No. 3.: Change the last sentence from "A final building permit..." to "A Certificate of Occupancy...". 4. Section B. - Condition No. 4.: Commissioner Lorenzen stated that the term significant in the last sentence of Section B. - Item 4. was too vague and should be more precise. The Commission requested that it be changed to replace "significant" with "any change". Planning Administrator Petru suggested that, as has been done in the past with some large projects, have the Director determine what is significant. However, any variations that he approves to the project are reported to the Planning Commission who can call them up at their discretion if they feel they are significant. The commission agreed to reqUire that the Director determine what is significant and to report any variances to the Planning Commission. 5. Section B. - Condition No. 5.: Include "other than local communi- ty, religious and non-profit organizations, after ... "outside groups not associated with the Salvation Army,". 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 Commissioner Hayes said she did not agree with this change since many non-profit organizations meet on the Peninsula at restaurants and country clubs and this would be taking business away from them. Senior Planner Rojas responded that one of the issues discussed by the Commission was how to control the use of the facility by outside groups. Commissioner Hayes stated that her preference is that there be none and that use be strictly limited to Salvation Army activities. If there is anything else done it should be done similar to Long Point where a Special Use Permit is required with special consideration given to the impact of traffic, noise, people .and local businesses. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, to keep Section B. - Condition No. S. as written in Exhibit "A". Motion 4-2, with Commissioners Alberio and Chairman Ratherman dissenting. 6. Section D. - Condition l.a.: Change the last sentence to read "... to issuance of grading permits." instead of "...commencement of construction activity." 7. Section D. - Condition No. 9.: Add at the end of the first sentence, "between the western boundary of the Salvation Army parcel and Crestmont Lane. 8. Section P. - Condition 1.: The Planning Commission requested that "for use by pedestrians, bicyclists, horseback riders, horse d- rawn vehicle drivers, and wheelchairs." be deleted from the second sentence and "as defined by the approved Conceptual Trails Plan." be added. 9. Section G. - Conditions 1. through 7.: be changed to require that all the required soils reports and various studies be done prior to issuance of grading permits. Commissioner Hayes commented that the October 20th meeting referenced on Page One of the Resolution was not a public hearing and should be corrected. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, that P. C. Resolution No. 92- , approving Conditional Use Permit No. 92 - , Revision "D", Variance No. 270, Grading Permit No.1485 , including the modifications to Exhibit "A", Conditions of Approval, and the Additional Conditions for Exhibit A", be approved. Motion failed 4-2, with Commissioner Alberio and Commissioner Lorenzen voting yes, and Commissioner Hayes, Commissioner Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Ratherman voting no. C. Minutes of November 21, 1992. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to place on the Consent Calendar agenda and to approve the minutes of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 November 21, 1992. Motion passed 5-0, with Commissioner Lorenzen not voting as he had not yet arrived. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE NO. 344• Sayre -Smith and Nesbitt (applicant) representing Mr. and Mrs. Robert Williams (landowner), 7012 Calle del Pajarito. Since no one wished to speak on the project, commissioner Mowlds suggested that the staff report be waived and the Commission agreed without objection. Will Basilio, Sayre -Smith & Nesbitt (applicant), stated that he had read and agreed to the Conditions of Approval. MOTION: commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Vice chairman Byrd, to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to approve variance No. 344. Notion passed 6-0. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 174• Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, 28915 Northbay Road. The Planning Commission agreed without objection to waive the staff report. J. J. D. McLaren, 3923 Palos Verdes Drive South, stated that he thought the school should be kept for the Peninsula School District students and submitted a letter documenting what teachers had said testifying to the need for the school. The Planning Commission informed him that was an issue for the School Board and the commission could only address and vote on the use of the land. It was the School District's decision to lease out the building. John White, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, stated that the School District is trying to occupy the facility in the framework that is intended and he did not see a violation with this CUP. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the School District had made provisions, should they need the school in the future. Mr. White responded that they can get the facilities back for School District use with an 18 month notice to the lessee. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by commissioner Alberio to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 174, subject to conditions. Motion passed 6-0. RECESS AND RECONVENE - The meeting recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Chairman Katherman requested that the Commission again discuss the Salvation Army application to clarify the basis of denial in order to allow the applicant to appeal the case, with the concurrence of the City Attorney, without waiting for the Resolution on December 8th. He referred to Vice Chairman Byrd's letter and said that the mass and height of the building and the amount of grading for the building as well as the grading for the berm constitute the basis of the denial. Chairman Katherman advised that the height of 42 feet was in excess of the 30 feet allowed by Code, the mass of the building in terms of length and bulk and height is not compatible with the surrounding residential character of the community and the grading which is required for the berm and the foundation of the building is in excess of what is normally allowed for in an institutional zone. Commissioner Mowlds added that the access road was a point of issue. and he thought there had to be another way so it doesn't look like a freeway interchange from Palos Verdes Drive South. Chairman Katherman requested that the motion be prepared so it could be appealed Wednesday or Monday without requiring that a full resolution be brought back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission so ordered without objection. C. VARIANCE NO. 347• Nasser Rastegar-Panah, 5561 Graylog. Associate Planner Silverman presented the staff report advising that the applicant is requesting after -the -fact approval of a deck extending approximately seven feet over an extreme slope. Staff believes that the required findings for granting this variance can be made and recommended approval, with conditions. Ms. Silverman discussed the following changes to the conditions: The fence or wall suggested by staff along the northwestern corner of the deck would significantly impair the view of the adjacent neighbor and would not result in additional privacy for the adjacent property owner. Therefore, only a portion of the screening would be required. In addition, the planter on the eastern side of the deck will not allow for a screen to be attached to the deck as originally recommended and staff has worked out an acceptable alternative with the applicant which will be reflected in the Conditions of Approval. Based on recommendations from the Building and Safety Department, staff has requested that the applicant submit a hold -harmless agreement to the City which is typical of similar after -the -fact deck constructions. Ms. Silverman advised that if the Commission agreed with these N. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 241,1992 revisions, the revised conditions could be read into the record to allow action to be taken this evening. Director Onderdonk stated that he based his original approval on the belief that the applicant was replacing the deck with the exception of the corner that is subject of the variance. Vice chairman Byrd asked if there was subsequent information that made Director Onderdonk change his mind and Mr. Onderdonk replied that he understood that photographs recently produced may indicate a slightly smaller configuration of the original deck. Commissioner Lorenzen asked if replacing a deck included new footings and Associate Planner Silverman advised that typically when replacing a deck the original footings remain and only the surface is replaced, but in this case the footings were replaced and completed before permits were issued. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the deck was up to Code and was it safe. Chairman Katherman advised that under the Conditions of Approval the applicant has to obtain the necessary building permits which require inspection of all the footings and the structural members. Nat Panah {applicant), 5561 Graylog Street, stated that he agreed with the conditions and the required screening. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if he would agree to a condition that the screening be with his neighbors' approval. Mr. Panah responded that he talked with his neighbor, Mr. Weinhoff, and he had tentatively agreed that would satisfy his concerns about privacy. Commissioner Mowlds stated that his concern is that the approval of the variance would only approve a portion of the deck, and if it is later established that there was a larger section of the deck which the applicant extended beyond the original deck, the City can come back and ask the applicant to take that down. Mr. Panah responded that his contractor had provided him with a document that shows the original deck had always been 16 feet and that staff took pictures of the foundations which show that the length of the beam is 14 feet and there are two adjacent struts attached to the beam extending the deck from 14 feet to 16 feet. Howard Weinhoff, 26108 Basswood Avenue, requested that the Commission deny the variance, approve an appropriate size replacement deck of the Planning Commission's determination, specify the colors to blend with the landscape, and prescribe a time for compliance and reinspection to determine compliance. He said his backyard adjoins that of the applicant and his privacy is being sacrificed because of the intrusive nature of the deck. He provided pictures showing the new deck and the open space between his property and Mr. Panah's deck. He also provided pictures of the old deck which he said was 24 feet by 14 feet versus the new deck of 16 feet by 47 feet, for a net increase of 23 feet by two feet. Mr. Weinhoff advised the Commission that he had not agreed with Mr. Panah that approval of the screen would satisfy his concern about privacy. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 Chairman Katherman asked that there must be a size of deck and mitigation measures such as landscape screening that would satisfy his concern for privacy. Mr. Weinhoff responded that the Commission should deny the variance and let him work the problem out with the applicant. Chairman Katherman asked if he would approve of the 118 sq. ft. indicated by the orange area on Mr. Weinhoff's drawings. Mr. Weinhoff said that he would be satisfied if the Commission approved the green area plus the orange area since this would keep 13 feet of separation between them. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if he thought there should be some type of screening required. Mr. Weinhoff thought it would be best left for them to work out with the applicant. William M. Foltz, 3300 Via Campesina, testified against the project and stated that he lives directly below the applicant's deck. His main concern was, since the deck was not built with the Building and Safety Department's approval, will the Building and Safety Department be there to test the foundations to make sure they are of sufficient depth and meet Code requirements. Chairman Katherman responded that there would be a requirement that the applicant obtain building permits and in the process of doing that, the deck will be checked structurally. Vice Chairman Byrd suggested that the conditions of approval emphasize that the Commission is concerned about the safety of the deck and that everything necessary be done to thoroughly check it for safety. Brett Dougherty, 5555 Graylog, testified against the project and distributed drawings of where he thought the original deck was. He stated that he had been on the original deck many times over the years. He requested that the Commission deny the variance because of lack of neighborhood compatibility, environmental damage and intrusion into his privacy. Mr. Panah rebutted the testimony a with the safety and that was the r Panah said the original footings w original footings in the ground an than the present footings. He sta overlooking his living room and di Weinhoff's privacy any more than w the 98 square feet would make the his privacy. Mr. Panah felt the privacy. The pictures presented b the deck which surprised him since was no handrail. He said that the level as the original and that he nd said that he was also concerned eason he replaced the deck. Mr. ere very small and that he left the d that they are a foot and half less ted that Mr. Weinhoff's deck is ning room. He had not invaded Mr. hat it is now and that eliminating deck look ugly and would not improve screening would provide sufficient y his neighbor show a hand rail on when he purchased property there existing framework is the same can show this at the site. MOTION: commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by commissioner Alberiot to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0. P, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 Chairman Katherman stated that the Commission should consider the entire deck over the slope and come up with reasonable mitigation measures. Vice Chairman Byrd requested it be legal and conforming with minimal impact on the neighbors. Commissioner Alberio stated his inclination was to deny because the applicant did a lot of work without permits, and the applicant has actually tied the new deck to the old deck which is supposedly rotted out. He also requested that it be put in the conditions of approval that the railing be in accordance with Code as it is very dangerous as it is right now. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the bracing and the foundation were never inspected and he did not want to approve the variance without knowing how the deck was built. Also, the deck is required to blend in with its surroundings which it does not. The applicant did not comply with the stop order and continued to work and he should have determined if the deck met regulations. Commissioner Mowlds said that the handrail did not meet the Uniform Building Code and he could not vote for a deck over an extreme slope if he did not know if it was stable. He suggested that the variance be denied and the applicant be required to strip the deck back so the building department can review it and then come back to the Commission. Commissioner Hayes agreed this was not the time to approve this deck. Vice Chairman Byrd was also concerned about the handrail and thought it could indicate that there was something else wrong. He said it was difficult to approve the variance when he was not sure the deck was safe. He said the Commission should deny the variance and ask the Director to determine the actual size of the original deck. Commissioner Lorenzen agreed with the concerns expressed about the hand rail, the color not blending as required, the footings and bracing underneath the deck along the front end which he did not think were adequate or met Code requirements. Based on the photographs, he found it difficult to believe that the edge of the deck was as far over the slope originally as it is now. Therefore, he could not accept the project. Chairman Katherman stated that he disagreed and did not think it was the place of the Planning Commission to get into the structural design of the deck. It is required that the appropriate building permits and approval from the Building Department be obtained. He also said he does not see after -the -fact as an issue. As for punitive action against someone who probably should have known they were violating the City Code, that is why the City has penalty fees and a process to legalize otherwise illegal structures. He asked if the Commission denies the Variance, were they denying the 13 foot by 7 foot portion of the deck or were they denying the orange portion shown on Mr. Weinhoff's drawing which is the 118 sq. ft. (10 feet wide and 7 feet long in one spot and extending the old deck two feet). Ms. Silverman advised that the variance application was strictly for the 91 sq. ft. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 and the Planning Commission can make the finding that the orange portion was not part of the original deck and that could also be tied to this. Vice Chairman Byrd requested that the Director determine what the actual size of the deck was or at least do what is necessary to determine that the deck is safe. Associate Planner Silverman advised that Winston Ward did inspect the hand rail and determined that additional modifications would be required because it is not tied very well to the deck and the spacing between the acrylic pieces is greater than four inches which is prohibited by the Building Code and the applicant is aware of this. She did not know if Winston had inspected the bracing under the deck and she stated that the footings had not been inspected. Ms. Silverman advised that there was a final permit issued for the deck excluding the 91 sq. ft. and excluding the footings. Chairman Katherman asked if it is remanded back to staff, could they make a better estimate of what the original deck was. Commissioner Alberio recommended sending the project back to staff and the applicant to address the concerns of the Commission regarding safety and for the applicant to go back and work out the issues with his neighbors. There was then a discussion about determining the size of the pre-existing deck and Associate Planner Silverman responded that she thought the Commission had all the available information on the size of the previous deck. Director Onderdonk stated that if the Commission wanted to eliminate the orange area he would have to discuss that with the City Attorney since the applicant has made improvements to his property based on direction from the City. Director Onderdonk explained that he had given direction to the applicant to replace what they had. Assistant Planner Espe went to the site and brought back a measurement of a beam on the site of 16 feet. Based on that evidence, he said the applicant could build his deck out to 16 feet. Chairman Katherman said his question is what part of the deck is legal. From his point of view, he is looking at all of the deck over the extreme slope for the entire 47 feet width of the deck and would like to condition it accordingly. He thought denying the variance would create more of an impact, given what he heard from staff as far as what is a legal pre-existing deck and that they would not be able to put conditions on the existing deck if they denied the variance. Using drawings submitted by Mr. Weinhoff, the Commission discussion continued with questions regarding the safety of the deck and hand railing, screening, and landscaping as well as questions regarding the size of the original deck. It was suggested that the Commission ratify the Director's decision in approving the deck as shown on Site Plan Review No. 7110 and approve only 13 sq. ft. (13 ft. by 1 foot) of the deck which is subject to the variance with the following modified conditions: 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 1. The color of the deck shall be modified to blend with the' surrounding vegetation, subject to approval by the Director. 2. No screen will be required along the western side of the deck. 3. Screening on the eastern side of the deck shall conform to the staff's suggested configuration. 4. A hold -harmless agreement shall be submitted for the deck. MOTION: Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to approve Variance 347, with modified conditions of approval denying 80 sq. ft and requiring screening as approved by staff and that the color be compatible with the surrounding area as determined by staff. Motion passed 5-1, with Chairman Ratherman dissenting because he did not believe there was a nexus between the grant they are giving for the 13 sq. ft. and the requirements for the conditions of approval placed on the application. Vice Chairman Byrd stated for the record that the motion was also validating the Director's decision on the portions of the deck approved through Site Plan Review No. 7110. CONTINUED BUSINESS (Continued) B. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1390 FSEIR ADDENDUM FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37885; (Forrestal). Senior Planner Rojas presented the staff report stating that this item was continued from the November 10, 1992 meeting. The background of the project was given to the Planning Commission leading up to the modifications which are before the Commission now. At the November 10 meeting, public testimony was received consisting of verbal comments on the recirculated Supplemental EIR addendum. Staff reported that the comment period for that circulation ended yesterday and staff had received five letters of concern which were distributed to Planning Commission for their review. These letters will be responded to by the City's environmental consultant and presented to the City Council at a noticed, public hearing on this item on December 7, 1992. Staff's recommendation remains that the Planning Commission review the proposed modifications and make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the issues of concern have been properly addressed. The Commissionrhas the option of forwarding the project to the City Council without a recommendation. As far as new information, the developer's geotechnical consultant has determined that the fill slope is geotechnically feasible. The City's third party geologist, Converse Geotechnical, also looked at the project and they have also made the determination that it is geotechnically feasible. There was testimony at the November 10 meeting regarding placing fill on the slope on the quarry face. Staff's recommendation is the Planning Commission review the modifications and make a recommendation. Mr. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 Rojas advised that the decision has to be made tonight because of the limited time frame of the settlement agreement. Tom Schnerk, 3434 Hightide, testified against the project and stated that he had submitted a letter to the Planning Commission which he was sure they had read. His letter stated: 11 ... that the developer, at the City geologist's insistence, will transform the quarry slope (Rancho Palos Verdes' most distinctive geological feature) into an ugly, hulking monstrosity of scraped -off dirt and rock ... with six or seven horizonal concrete swales stacked up its shear face and seven horizonal concrete swales stacked up its shear face and running the entire length... to carry off water. The sanitary landfill appearance will be even more accentuated by miles of PVC pipe and sprinklers...." Chairman Katherman thanked him for his brevity and confirmed that the Planning Commission had both the letter he gave the Commission at the adjourned meeting of November 21, 1992 and the letter to the Editor which the Commission received today. J. J. D. McLaren 3923 Palos Verdes Drive South, testified against the project and stated that he understood that the City's geotechnical consultants, Converse, are the driving force on the shaping of the hill north of Forrestal. When he spoke with the developer, they explained to him that they would just as soon do nothing if it was ok with the City but it is not okay with the City's consultants. The geotechnical people are telling them they have to reshape that hill. Mr. McLaren said that the way he understands it is that nobody can tell the geotechnical consultants what to say and they tell the City what to do. So it doesn't matter what anybody says. It is their opinion backed by technical training. As far as filling the quarry, Dr. Ehlig was worried about the water in the quarry bowl. Apparently, when the water comes down hill it floods that area and Dr. Ehlig said he wanted to stop. There is no use for the citizens to complain because they cannot overrule the geotechnical people. If the hill is not changed, that street would become unsafe and the homes would be unsafe because of falling rocks. He recommended at the last meeting that they take out those five homes so they wouldn't be in danger. the Chairman Katherman stated that whenever the fire department and the geologists deal with a safety problem, it is tough to sit here and say we know better than them. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he would prefer to see nothing happen too but he thought the question is not just those five homes. He thought the problem also runs further down Forrestal and also the part that goes down toward Ladera Linda as far as safety is concerned. Mr. McLaren said he had not heard the geotechnical people say anything about the houses and that if the geotechnical people don't talk about 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 the development itself, then it is up to the Planning Commission and the City Council to decide. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, testified against the project and said that it is very difficult for them to fight this project when J. M. Peters has gone to court and sued the City and the City Attorney has worked out a settlement which is a big secret to the citizens. According to the agenda, it says make recommendations to the City Council. She said she thought what the City did this summer was dastardly in raising the appeal fee to $940. She thinks it is an absolute disgrace. She said she is proud of the Commission tonight because they had denied the Salvation Army because now they have to appeal to the City Council and pay the fee. Chairman Katherman stated that Forrestal would go before the City Council automatically and the Planning commission had been asked to look at the grading permit only and to make recommendations only on the grading permit. Senior Planner Rojas responded that this was not a new application and the public hearing is about modifications to a previously denied plan. He said that these modifications have been agreed to in the context of a legal settlement agreement. As part of the settlement, the City is conducting a public hearing to allow the opportunity for the public to comment on the modified project. The Planning Commission can recommend the grading activities that are necessary for the lots and streets and the remedial grading for trimming back the quarry slope and any related quarry bowl grading. The tract layout as approved in 1989 is not at issue tonight. Ms. Larue stated that the California First Amendment Coalition tells her that once a settlement is decided it becomes public record and she wanted to know why'if they have been circulating the EIR, why they haven't circulated the settlement so they can read it and find out exactly what they are fighting against. First of all, Mr. McLaren said we can't do anything if the geotechnical says something has to be that way. She has been familiar with Perry Ehlig since 1981 when he said that all the damage that is going to be done in Barkentine Canyon has been done, which is one example of how Perry Ehlig is wrong and so you can't just believe the geotechnical people. Also, Jess Morton told her that there is a nesting pair of gnatcatchers whose habitat will be destroyed by this project. The 10,000 cubic yards to be put in the quarry bowl will probably preserve some of the native plants and the gnatcatchers there may be okay, but all the habitat on that end will be destroyed. She has already told the Planning Commission that the project is illegal; the General Plan says you can't do that. She would like to read the settlement and find out what they are talking about, and she thinks the Planning Commission should read also read it. She feels that this project has been a disaster from day one and continues to be a disaster. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0. MOTION: commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to forward Grading Permit No. 1390, FSEIR Addendum for Tentative Tract Map No. 37885 to City Council without making a recommendation. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he did not concur with the plan and he agreed with some of the speakers. The way the quarry was going to be sculptured was not going to be decided by the Planning Commission so there is probably no point in discussing it. As far as filling in the quarry bowl, he said he does know what Ms. Larue and the others are talking about. Maybe the geotech people are wrong, but if they are right and we don't fill it in,, then we have the other side of the coin. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he had gotten a call from the President of the Seaview Homeowners Association and she asked if she should bring 15 people to testify for five minutes each. He advised that the Commission would appreciate if they would be brief and she said they would just reiterate what had been said before and he promised her that he would advise the Commission of their concerns. The Seaview Homeowners are: 1. Concerned about the impaction of fill. 2. Concerned about the drainage and they want to make sure that whatever is done there is safe for the people in the surrounding areas. 3. Concerned about protecting the habitat, but she also recognizes that the public safety will probably take precedence over the habitat. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that he likes the look of the cliffs just the way they are. As Commissioner Mowlds said, he does not think much can do about it if the geologist is saying you have to take part of it down to protect it because of rocks falling down on houses. The 10,000 cubic yards in the quarry bowl should stay if there it is needed to put sufficient dirt in that bowl to provide some drainage. He doesn't know what the amount is, but what they are looking for is to preclude surface water from draining into the bowl. Whatever can be done to reduce the slide has to be done. Commissioner Lorenzen commented that he would like to see the quarry bowl remain natural, but if there is a chance to stop the percolation of water down through Klondike Canyon and give adequate drainage in that area, then he would agree to the 10,000 cubic yards or whatever 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 it takes. He has trouble with the grading of the quarry bowl since he likes it the way it is. Chairman Katherman said that they have to balance public safety and habitat preservation with the litigation the City is facing. This has put the Planning Commission in a very tight box. From a planning point of view, he would be ashamed of himself if he didn't state publicly that he thinks the subdivision is absolutely an abomination to the topography and to the habitat in the area and he thinks that the City should figure out a way to negotiate its way out of this to come up with an alternative design. He said he recognizes the position of the property owners and he, as much as anyone on the Planning Commission, appreciates property rights, but he would like to suggest to the City Council very strongly and emphatically that some kind of a cluster development with 42 units be put in the place of this subdivision which looks like it was flown in from the San Fernando Valley and has no relevance to the topography or the habitat here on the Peninsula. He said he was not saying that to denigrate the applicant or the applicant's engineer as they are doing the best job they can given what they were handed in this situation. Chairman Katherman said he was sure that if they went back and thought about it and were given a choice to have 42 houses, they could preserve more of the natural habitat. Commissioner Mowlds said he agreed with Chairman Katherman and that if he had ever seen this development as it is laid out he would have never voted for it. He also agrees with chairman Katherman that it is a terrible desecration and nowhere has he seen anyplace where you were allowed to take off the ridge tops. It doesn't belong and if there was anyway the City could buy their way out of this one this is the place. This will look like a strip mine by the time it is finished. He hasn't seen a strip mine by the ocean but you will here. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that he totally agrees and it is a shame to see that whole thing shaved off. Commissioner Alberio stated that not having knowledge of the proposed settlement by the City with the applicant puts him at a disadvantage to make an intelligent decision. In this case, and in all fairness to the applicant and, of course, to the City, he believes that he concurs with Chairman Katherman and he couldn't go along with this project unless he has some say in how it should be graded. He agrees to forward the pr03ect without a recommendation. Vice Chairman Byrd suggested that Chairman Katherman make a presenta- tion on this project to the City Council. It was the consensus of the Commission to request that Chairman Katherman make that presentation. Chairman Katherman advised that this item will be heard by the City Council on Monday, December 7, 1992. 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 NEW BUSINESS NONE. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) A. Commissioner Mowlds discussed C.P. I (Lunada Pointe) and expressed concern about new conditions of approval language regarding the connection of trails to HMDI once the adjacent trails were built. This language did not appear in the signed P. C. Resolution but appeared in the City Council Resolution and should be administratively stricken. Staff will prepare a report for the next Planning Commission Meeting. B. Chairman Katherman discussed a date for a Holiday Party for the Commission and Staff. It was tentatively set for Friday, Decem- ber 11, 1992 at his home. Spouses and significant others are invited. ADJOURNMENT at 11:50 p.m. to Tuesday, December 8, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. at Hesse park. W. • • • Memorandum for Record 24 November 1992 Conditional Use Permit No. 92 -Revision I'D", Variance No. 270, and Grading Appl. No. 1485 (The Salvation Army) The Salvation Army hearings have been difficult, to say the least. The primary reservations of the commission, in general, have been the certification of a 15 year EIR, and the massive appearance of the Educational Center and associated Guest facility. The commission certified the EIR by a vote of 4 to 3. The minority was concerned about the issue of not seeing a guarantee that any subsequent additions to the Salvation Army property would have a supplementary EIR, specifically in the case of the field house addition proposed to be built where the current tennis club exists, and in general the policy of an EIR which can last for fifteen years. The proposed resolution does require revision of the CUP and approval by the PC for any future development. This will require a public hearing and the PC could require a supplementary EIR if one has not been prepared. The PC asked the Salvation Army to consider two items; 1) Divide the EIR into a segment for the Educational Center and a segment for the remainder; 2) To consider two or more separate buildings for the Guest facility. The Salvation Army responded negatively for both items. The EIR because of expense for preparation and the Guest facility because of cost and for the functional convenience of having the facility adjacent to the Educ Center. The proposed solution is to create a berm to hide the Educational Center and the Guest facility from the view of traffic on PV Dr. South. While the General Plan recommends the use of berms to help remove parking lots from the public view, there is no mention of the use for removing buildings from public view. It seems that we should be approving developments of which we are proud and would wish the public to view them. The berm will be necessarily either close to PV Dr. South or very large to shield the facility from view. A large berm removes the openness to the north of the drive and will be less pleasant that the present landscape. I believe that if the Salvation Army is unwilling to separate the Guest - facility into two, or more, parts, the commission should only approve a smaller facility. It was also necessary to landscape the roof of the Guest facility to make it less visible to the residents living above the project. page 1 0 The access to the Educational CentE the PV Dr. South and Crestmont Lan will be visible from the drive currently exists. The alternative improvements done by the Salvation 0 r is from an access road off of e intersection. The access road and less attractive that what is to have the PV Dr. South Army in this project. The commission understands that the approval process involves compromise. However, in this application, the commission has more than met the applicant halfway and compromise has been mostly by the commission. Approving this project which has to be hidden from public view is not in the best interest of the city and its residents. For the above reasons, I cannot vote to approve the subject esolution. ee By�i Planning ComItissioner Clu c�"s page 2 LAI 11 E MEMORANDUM • PALOS VERDES TO: CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FROM: GILBERT ALBERIO, PLANNING COMMISSIONER DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1992 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO: MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD -NOVEMBER 24, 1992 FROM COMMISSIONER LEE B. BYRD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92 -REVISION "Doi, VARIANCE NO. 270, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1485, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 616 (THE SALVATION ARMY) THE SALVATION ARMY 15 -YEAR MASTER PLAN AND EIR The Salvation Army submitted a 15 -Year Master Plan and applied for a 15 -Year EIR for such Master Plan. After various Planning Commission hearings and much discussion, the application was approved by a 4 to 3 vote; the majority vote in this case relied on the following criteria and requirements which is standard as governed by the California Quality Environmental Act (CEQA). CEQA was conceived with checks and balances primarily as a means to force public agency decision -makers to document and consider the environmental implications of their actions. CEQA applies to local agencies, such as the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and to all levels of government, including regional agencies, state agencies, boards, and commissions. CEQA contains a number of substantive provisions with which the City of Rancho Palos Verdes must comply Imo. This means that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes must structure all projects to ensure CEQA requirements. Moreover, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has adopted its own local CEQA Guidelines which also must be complied with by the Staff, Planning Commission, and the City Council. Therefore, every development project that is submitted to the City is reviewed for compliance with the requirements of CEQA and City Guidelines. However, any project that requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation, or decision on the part of a public agency is considered to have a discretionary approval and requires a greater level of environmental review and scrutiny. 30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274-5391 / (310) 377 0360 MEMORANDUM: Response to Memorandum for Record (Salvation Army) December 1, 1992 In reviewing a discretionary project, the City must determine if the project is either: 1. Categorically Exempt (No significant effect on the environment). 2. Requires an Initial Study (Projects that would result in any significant adverse environmental impacts). Projects that may result in a significant effect on the environment will cause the City Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council to determine if the project requires: 1. Preparation of an EIR; or 2. Use of a previously prepared EIR or a Supplemental EIR; or 3. Preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND) -- No significant effect on the environment. If the project will not result in any significant effects or the project can be easily modified or conditioned to eliminate the adverse effects, a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration must be prepared. The declaration must be circulated to all interested parties and local agencies having jurisdiction and must be done for a minimum of 21 days prior to the City taking action on the project. On the other hand, if the project is likely to result in significant effects, the City must order an EIR and send it to the State Clearinghouse for a 45 -day circulation period to allow comments from responsible agencies. I refer you now to the State Clearinghouse Handbook published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State of California, which under the section Type of Documents addresses how to analyze projects, such as the Salvation Army project (See Exhibit I). Approving the 15 -Year Master Plan EIR now does not require any guarantee,but it is a matter of CEQA compliance such as shown here in after. Failure to do so carries a State penalty or penalties against the lead agency. THE EDUCATIONAL CENTER AND GUEST FACILITY SIZE (EC/G) The size of the Educational Center and Guest Facility meets the City requirement for this type of building, including its height. Moreover, this building is a lot smaller than the approved, proposed Long Point Hotel which will be in plain view. The Educational Center and Guest Facility will be screened from view Page 2 MEMORANDUM: Response to Memorandum for Record (Salvation Army) December 1, 1992 with help of landscaping, including its roof. More important, it will have a lesser impact on the environment as opposed to more than one building as suggested. More than one building does not guarantee that all the buildings will be constructed in one phase. Should the Salvation Army elect to build one, two, three, or four buildings in compliance with the Planning Commission and the City Council, the impact to the environment could be two -fold, three -fold, or quadruple. More important and exercising some foresight, if these buildings were to be demolished in the future because of change or circumstances, the ill effect on the environment would be enlarged accordingly. In conclusion, the trade-offs in this case, that is one size for four sizes, would have a detrimental effect on the environment and would be counter productive. THE ACCESS ROAD OFF PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH An access road parallel to Palos Verdes Drive South properly designed to merge with traffic at ingress and egress and with the proper landscaping should be acceptable and would reduce traffic impacts. The access road design should include a traffic light at the Crestmont Lane intersection with Palos Verdes Drive South to slow down traffic and also reduce potential traffic accidents. No light at said intersection would seriously impact the traffic and should not be ignored. RECOMMENDATION That the Salvation Army application for: 1. A 15 -Year Master Plan and EIR be approved accordingly; and 2. The Educational Center and Guest Facility be approved as revised and with conditions; and 3. The access road be approved as discussed above and with conditions. GA: pg Attachment (STAFF REPORTS #13 SALVATIO GILL 0 Page 3 • HandbaoK in T 1TES OF DOCUMENTS 0 3?79868 p,e? It is the responsibility of the lead agency to determine the appropriate type of aQA document for its pro}ect based on interpretation of the CEQA Statutes and CEQA Guidelines. Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371): "Negative Declaration' means a written statement by the Lead Agency briefly desmb. ing the reasons that a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore does not require the preparation of an M - The contents of the Neg Dec are described in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15071. (See form A for the SCH transmittal form). Enviroamcn.tal Impact Report (CEQA Guidelines Section 1536Z. - 'EM means "a detailed statement prepared under CEQA describing and analyzing the significant environmental effects of a project and discussing ways to mitigate or avoid the effects." The contents are also listen' under CEQA Guidelines, Article 9. (See form A for the SCH transndttal form.) Notice of preparation. (CEQA Guidelii es Section 15375): "'Notice of Preparation` means a brief notice sent by a Lead Agency to. notify the Responsible, Trustee, and involved federal agencies that the lead Agency plaits to prepare an MR for the project. The purpose of the notice is to solicit guidance from those agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the Eli." The contents of the XOP are descrBed in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082. (See Form B for the SCH XOP transmittal form.) Project FSR (CEQA Guidelines Section 35161): "The most common " of ER examines the environmental impacts of 'a specific development project. This type of ER should focus psixna,:ily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EM sha omn-Ane all phases of the project including planning,, canstiuction, and operation." I Program ELK (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168): 1 "A EMS2m EIR is an EIZ. which 4!ybeon a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either geographically," or are "logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, or are in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated In similar ways." (This section goes on to e --plain the ad=tages of a program EM, using the program M trrith tater activities, using the program VR zoah subsequent M and Nig Decs, and noticing with later activities.) Staged EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 151571: 1 in part, a staged EIR is: "'Where a i8Me =Rita! project will require a number of disreti►onary apvravais from government agencies and one of the apL= Z- X/V/0/ 7- -f I TO 3779868 r' • IOU L�Er_.-0c-1a'-' 10:35 FROM LDPClRT 3rd F1. C12atasiit $!i!! Ctl:TutA more than two years before construction will bes;inta staged EIR maybe prenar�ecico_v_ering Vl�t the entire project in a general form.. The staged EIR shall evaluate the proopWfn light of current and contemplated plans and produce an informed estunate ao thg„'onxnental �Q� consequences of the entire project- The aspect of the project before the public agency for inf approval shall be discussed with a greater degree of specificity.” When a staged EIR has been prepared, a supplement to the EIR shall be prepared when a rater �. approval is required for the pr ed, and the information available at the time of the rater approval would permit consideration o f additional environmental impacts, mitigation measures, or reasonable alferrurfives to the project." Supplement to an BIR. (CEQA Guidelines Section 151623): 'The lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if ... only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation" "Tire supplement to fhe SIR need contain only the information necessary to drake the previous EIR adequate for the project as remised. A supplement to ars EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public revi-ax as is givers to a draft EIR under Section 75087. A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or ficial EIR ..." Subs (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(2)): In part,. this section states: "Where are EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared, no additional £fft need be prepared unless... jslubstantial changes occur with respect ,to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken... which will require important revisions in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the -involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in a previous ER or Negative Declmtion Refer to CEQA Guidelines, Section 75162, for a complete discussion of subsequent EMs. Addendum to an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164): ' Tice Lead or Responsible Agency snail prepare an addendum to an EIR if , .. only minor technical changes or additions Are necessary to make the EIR adequate." And the changes "made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment." "An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR- The decision-making body snail consider the addendum with the final EiR prior to rr &.-zg a decision on the project. Piz zl M (C£QA Guidelines Section 15362): "'mal Eft' means an MR containing the inforxnation contained in the draft EM, comments either verbatim or in summary received in the review process, a list of persons conn eenting, and the response of the Lead Agency to the conaments received. - 77W contents are also listed under CEQA Guidelines, Section 7513Z TOTAL P.08 • ATTACHMENT TO ALBERIO MEMORANDUM SIZE COMPARISON FOR LARGE PROJECTS IN RANCHO PALOS VERDES . . ........ .. . .. ... ... . . ... ........................... . .............. . .................. ..... .... . . .............. ................. CANTERBURY 157,000 SQ. .. ..... FT. LONG POINT HOTEL 460,000 SQ. FT. MARRIOTT 337,000 SQ. FT. ,SALVATION ARMY (EC/G) 68,000 SQ. FT. 3=- - (STAFF REPORTS 1113 - SIZECOMY CHT)