Loading...
PC MINS 19960423Approved 6j1Ij96 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 7:07 P M by Chair Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Councilman Tom Hollingsworth PRESENT Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Franklin, Ng, Whiteneck, Vice Chair Vannorsdall, and Chairman Clark ABSENT None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planners de Freitas and Klopfenstein, and Recording Secretary Drasco APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Franklin moved to hear Item No. 5 after Item No. 7, seconded by Commissioner Ng. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Whiteneck moved to hear Item No. 4 after Item No. 5, seconded by Commissioner Franklin. Approved, (7-0). Director/Secretary Petru noted that the City's Geotechnical Consultant was present to speak to Item No 4 and requested that the Commission here this item No 4 in its originally agendized order to minimize the applicant's cost for the consultants time Commissioner Whiteneck felt that the other items should not take long for the Commission to review Commissioner Whiteneck moved to hear Item No. 4 before Item No. 5, but after Item No. 7, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff. Director/Secretary Petru noted that, per the Commission's previous request, Staff had prepared and distributed resumes for the Planning Commission support Staff to the Commission members She also took this opportunity to discuss the Department's current Staff vacancies and the City's efforts to fill these positions. Director/Secretary Petru noted that late correspondence had been submitted for Item Nos. 4, 6 and 7, and distributed to the Commission that evening Commission. Commissioner Ng noted that she had submitted a report regarding the League of California Cities Planner's Institute to the Planning Commission and City Council Vice Chair Vannorsdall reported on his attendance at the Mayor's Breakfast. Chair Clark congratulated Director/Secretary Petru on her recent appointment and suggested that the Planning Commissioners submit resumes, as Staff had done. Commissioner Ng stated that she attended the dedication of the new playground equipment at Eastview Park She noted that most of the City Council was present at the event and that the Mayor presented a speech Chair Clark announced that the Community Leaders Breakfast would be held on Saturday, May 4, 1996, at Hesse Park. He noted that all City Committee and Commission members were invited to this event APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the Minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (7-0). 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 181 - CLARIFICATION, Roger and Diana Wolff, 5333 Ironwood Street (TS) Commissioner Alberio requested a discussion of this item Associate Planner Silverman presented a brief summary of the project A dialogue between the Commission and Staff revealed that the neighbors on the east side of the subject property were in agreement with Staffs recommendation Included in the remarks were Commissioner Albeno's concern that a future owner of the adjacent PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, `1996 PAGE 2 i property might not agree with Staffs determination that there was no Infringement on privacy and Chair Clark's belief that, with the exception only a part of one window, which Staff had recommended be made translucent, there was no possibility of an invasion of privacy Vice Chair Vannorsdall moved to approve Staffs recommended clarification of Condition No. 10 of P.C. Resolution No. 95-22, seconded by Chair Clark and approved via Minute Order, (7-0). 3. MISCELLANEOUS HEARING - CLARIFICATION - (STAIRWELL COVERS). Palos Verdes Villas Condominiums, 5630 Ravenspur Drive (FF) Commissioner Ng requested a discussion of this Item Assistant Planner de Freitas provided a brief summary of the request Commissioner Ng suggested that the Conditions of Approval be modified slightly to include two measurements for the height of the stairwell cover, one measured from the top stair to the lowest portion of the cover and one measured from the top stair to the highest point of the proposed stairwell cover Commissioner Cartwright was concerned that the applicant had been required to return to the Planning Commission for a clarification and stressed that the approval process needed to be streamlined and as "user friendly" as possible. Director/Secretary Petru agreed, but explained that, in this case, Staff was not aware of the minimum clearance requirement for emergency access to the roof until the project was reviewed by the Building and Safety Division. She went on to explain that projects were not usually submitted into Plan Check until after approval by the Planning Commission, due to the expense that would be incurred by the applicant before they knew whether or not their protect would be approved by the Planning Commission Commissioner Ng moved to accept Staffs recommendation, with amended Conditions of Approval to include a minimum and maximum height measurement for the stairwell cover, seconded by Vice Chair Vannorsdall. Approved via Minute Order, (7-0). Item Nos. 6 and 7 were heard out of order PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23,1996 PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. VARIANCE NO 407 Mr. Nalin Patel, 5350 Middlecrest Drive (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented a summary of the project, stating that Staff believed that all four findings for approval of the after -the -fact Variance could be made to allow the existing storage shed, which was built on an extreme slope and encroached 5'-0" into the east side yard setback area. Therefore, Staff recommended approval of the project, with conditions. During a discussion between Staff and the Commission, it was revealed that the County had previously granted permits for a swimming pool and pool equipment. In addition, the applicant had informed Staff that the pool equipment had originally been enclosed by a wooden shed However, Staff had found no evidence that the shed existed, a statement made by a neighbor who said that the shed previously existed, but had been taken down after the applicant moved into the property. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). Mr. Chuck Stadell, 5360 Middlecrest Road, said that he was the neighbor located immediately east of the subject property and that he had lived in his home for 25 years. He said that he would withdraw his objection to the shed, if the Commission required that it be adequately screened from his view by landscaping Commissioner Alberio asked Mr Stadell why he had not complained about the shed until only recently Mr. Stadell that the old shed did not bother him, because he could not see it from his property. However, he added that the new shed was very visible from his property. Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked Mr. Stadell if he could hear noise from the pool equipment. Mr Stadell said that he could not hear the pool equipment, but that he was bothered by the construction noise which had been taking place on the property from early in the morning until late at night for the last ten months He indicated that the noise bothered him to the extent that he had moved temporarily to Palm Desert. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23,1996 PAGE 4 Mr. Kim Koch (representing the applicant), 101 S Lucia, Redondo Beach, CA 90278, said that existing structure was built on top of a permitted retaining wall. He added that he would be willing to work with the City to improve the situation for the neighbor Chair Clark asked Mr. Koch if he had done construction work in the City before Mr Koch said that he had not, but that he was not purposely disregarded the City's regulations and that he had obtained five permits for the work he was currently performing on the subject property Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked Mr Koch if he had realized that Mr. Stadell had moved because of the construction noise Mr Koch said that Mr Stadell had not mentioned that there was a problem and that, if he had known, he would have tried to improve the situation. A discussion between Mr Koch and Vice Chair Vannorsdall revealed that Mr. Koch had been working on Saturdays as well as week days, sometimes as early as 8:00 A M., which was allowed by the Development Code, since the allowed hours of construction were from 7 00 A M to 7 00 P.M., Monday through Saturday In addition, Mr. Koch indicated that the project should be completed in slightly less than a month. Mr. Nalin Patel, 5630 Middlecrest (applicant/landowner), said that he had attempted to contact Mr. Stadell in May 1996 regarding his concerns about the construction, including leaving him a note, but that he never heard back from him. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr Patel if he objected to screening the shed with landscaping. Mr. Patel said that he did not object to this type of condition. Commissioner Franklin pointed out that because the structure was located in the setback area, landscaping to screen it would have to be located on Mr Stadell's property During a discussion between Staff and the Commission, it was determined that a condition of approval could required the owner of the shed to pay for the installation of the landscaping, but that the adjacent property owner would be responsible for maintaining it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23,1996 PAGE 6 Vice Chair Vannorsdall moved to approve the project, with amended Conditions of Approval to require the landowner to install landscaping to screen the shed from the adjacent property, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (7-0). Director/Secretary Petru stated that P C Resolution No 96-9 would be signed by the Chair that evening and that there was a 15 -day appeal period for anyone to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 176 -REVISION "B": Mr. and Mrs. John Ernst, 32201 Forrestal Drive (Ladera Linda Community Center). (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas presented a summary of the protect by describing the proposed expansion of the existing Montesson School. He also noted that the modified lease had been conceptually approved by the City Council and forwarded to the Planning Commission. Mr de Freitas stated that Staff found that all of the criteria necessary to grant the permit revision had been met and recommended approval, subject to conditions. Commissioner Alberio expressed concern that the facility was intended to be used by the public and asked about uses in the other buildings on the property Assistant Planner de Freitas explained that there were other private tenants on the site in the past, but now the facility was only occupied by the Montessori School and the City's Discovery Room Director/Secretary Petru added that the multipurpose room was for a variety of City functions, including Town Hall Meetings and Recreation and Parks Committee meetings Commissioner Alberio noted that Community Leader's Breakfasts were sometimes held at this location as well Chair Clark mentioned that one of the classrooms was used as a polling place, but that possibly the multipurpose room could be used as a polling place instead. Assistant Planner de Freitas noted that the school would be using no rooms in Buildings C and D, and only one room in Building A. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, discussed the utility costs at Ladera Linda and urged the City to make sure that the Montesson School was paying for their share PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 11996 PAGE 6 Director/Secretary Petru replied that this was a matter for the City Council to considered as part of the amended lease with the Montessori School Assistant Planner de Freitas added that, if the Commission desired, Staff could forward this information to the Director of Parks and Recreation, as well as the to City Council The Commission agreed that this would be a good idea John and Judy Ernst (applicants), 112 Via Calisaya, Redondo Beach, CA 90277, and Janine Holmstedt, 610 Garnet, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Mr Ernst explained that he and his wife owned the school and that Ms Holmstedt was the administrator Commissioner Alberio asked the applicants if they objected to paying their fair share of the utilities Mr Ernst said that this item had previously been negotiated in the current rental agreement, and that he had requested that the school pay for even more than its share He added that he was happy to do this, because the school was doing very well at this location Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked about the purpose of the expansion Ms Holmstedt replied that the expansion was intended to maintain the high quality of the school A discussion between Commissioner Ng and Ms Holmstedt revealed that the school's current enrollment was 56 students, that there would be no increase in enrollment. The two additional rooms being requested would be used for a library, office, and a dance room Commissioner Cartwright moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (7-0) A short discussion between the Commission and Staff determined that the need for a polling place at this location could probably be accommodated, since there would still be a number of rooms unused by the school Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve the project, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (7-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 1996 PAGE 7 Director/Secretary Petru stated that Resolution No. 96-10 would be signed that evening by the Chair and that there was a 15 -day appeal period for anyone to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. RECESS AND RECONVENE The meeting recessed at 8:25 P.M. and reconvened at 8:42 P.M. Item No. 4 was heard out of order CONTINUED BUSINESS. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 185, VARIANCE NO. 388 GRADING PERMIT NO 1793, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 679; Wayfarers Chapel, 5755 Palos Verdes Drive South. (TS) Due to the large number of speakers on this item, Chair Clark, with input from the Commission, Staff, and the speakers, established guidelines regarding the length of time of each speaker would be allowed to address the Commission He encouraged those in favor of and in opposition to the project to consolidate several speakers' comments to be presented by one person, and asked that each speaker refrain from repeating comments previously made by others Associate Planner Silverman presented a summary, stating that, at the last hearing, the Commission had requested that the City's geotechnical consultant give a presentation, specifically answering questions presented in advance by Commissioner Franklin. Mr. Dale Hinkle (City's Geotechnical Consultant), 31031 Augusta, Laguna Niguel, CA, explained that his firm, acting on behalf of the City, had reviewed and approved the geologic reports for the project He indicated that he was present to provide information and answer questions for the Commission Commissioner Alberio asked Mr Hinkle to explain his background Mr. Hinkle replied that he owned his own firm, that he was a licensed engineer, and that he had experience in geotechnology. He clarified that he was not a geologist, but had a geologist, Mr Art Keene, who worked for him and also reviewed the proposed project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23,1996 PAGE 8 At the Commission's request and by drawing on a large chalkboard, Mr Hinkle described the dynamics of the Abalone Cove landslide, which affects the subject property At this time, Chair Clark asked Mr Hinkle to please answer each of the questions raised by Commissioner Franklin in his memorandum that had been distributed to the Commission Question No. 1: Hinkle explained that guarantees were never given in these instances because the experts were dealing conditions located far below the ground surface and that there was some risk of this uncertainty whenever construction was allowed to occur in the Landslide Moratorium area Question No. 2: Mr. Hinkle said that, although it was always comforting to obtain more than one opinion on a project, the report submitted by Keith Ehlert, the applicant's geologist, had been reviewed by Art Keene, the City's geologist, and that they were both competent professionals. He felt that further opinions would be a waste of the applicant's money. Question No. 3: Mr Hinkle agreed that one would not want to erect a structure on an earthquake fault line, but noted that the subject case was a landslide and not a fault A discussion between Commissioner Franklin and Mr Hinkle determined that, when necessary, a structure could be built over a landslide scarp, with proper engineering, which would most likely include deep, large caissons Mr Hinkle noted that the site selected on the Chapel property for the replacement of the Visitors Center was the most stable portion of the site and, therefore, the best location available for the proposed building Mr Hinkle also indicated that a two-story building, like the one proposed by the landowner, would be on the order of 12,000 to 15,000 pounds, which would be insignificant compared to the driving force of the landslide. Question No. 4: Mr Hinkle said that core samples had been taken in the Abalone Cove area, but did not know of any exact studies on that portion of the landslide He mentioned that Bing Yen Associates had installed three sloping inclinometers in the area to record accurate data regarding the movement along the landslide's slip plane. Commissioner Franklin's original question asked if there is a geologic structure of some kind in place that would prevent further expansion of the Abalone Cove Landslide into the region west of the shear line PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 1996 PAGE 9 Mr Hinkle replied that there might be a "bump" or similar structure in the bedrock geometry, but that he did not know for sure Commissioner Albeno stated that a lack of resistance from below had caused the slide scarp. Mr. Hinkle said that this was true, and that one important aspect of managing the landslide was to try to stop this by dewatering the area He said that he believed that the ancient landslide may be 25 to 50 feet below the ground surface and that investigation of the ancient landslide debris would be necessary to make a more accurate statement Commissioner Franklin asked for information on part C of Question No 4. Mr Hinkle indicated that the investigation asked about in Question 4c would be "nice to know" but that it would not change the situation . He said that he had been told that it was alright to build in the Moratorium Area with the design constraints the City has imposed on the landowners Mr Hinkle noted that the Wayfarers Chapel project was as safe a construction project as any of the others previously allowed in the Moratorium Area He said that he was not sure how to answer part "d" of Question No. 4. Question No. 5: Mr. Hinkle stated that, even though it was not possible to make predictions regarding earthquakes, his best guess was that the most severe earthquake which could be expected in this area was 7 2 Question No. 6: Mr. Hinkle said that Dr. Perry Ehlig had performed a study for the L A Harbor Department which indicated that a small earthquake could possibly reactivate the ancient landslide, but that the probability was low since it was expected that there might be a 6 5 earthquake once every 25 years. In addition, the type of movement that would likely result from an earthquake of this magnitude would be a slump, but that it would not move much more that the initial amount. Commissioner Alberio speculated that the distance from the epicenter might also be a factor Mr. Hinkle agreed and added that the time interval between earthquake waves was significant also. Question No 7: Mr. Hinkle said that a driving force would be needed to move the slide again, such as water from a 100 to 500 year storm where it rained continuously for ten days and nights, or an earthquake of 6 5 to 7 He added that earthquakes of this magnitude would cause a g -force of 25 to 4 to make the slide move. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 1996 PAGE 10 A discussion ensued as to whether this area should be investigated before removing moratorium limits on allowing construction to the north and west of the shear line on the property Mr Hinkle indicated that this information would be interesting, but would not change the review that he performed for the City, since the Moratorium Ordinance allows for the replacement of structures as long as there was no immediate danger of movement. Commissioner Franklin asked Mr Hinkle who had said it was acceptable to build in the Moratorium Area Mr Hinkle responded that the City had indicated that it was acceptable, through the language that is included in the Moratorium Ordinance Question No. 8: Mr Hinkle explained that the test data was meaningful for only the 85' long region for this specific investigation He said that there was test data to only 15' deep, however, he believed that their computations suggest that the clay layers stay consistent for hundreds of feet. He added that they had looked at both sides, not the middle and he did not believe it was necessary to spend more money to prove this because the slide activity was much deeper Question No 9: Mr Hinkle compared the situation described in the question to one in which someone left irrigation running 30 days and then a major earthquake occurred He believed that the likelihood of damage caused by this type of event was approximately one possibility every 10,000 years Question No. 10• Mr Hinkle said that, according to Dr Ehlig, the toe of the ancient landslide was below the ocean Question No. 11: Mr Hinkle stated that the weight of two-story building was insignificant compared to the entire driving force of the landslide mass, and there would have to be a 20 -story building on the site in order to have sufficient weight to affect the stability of the site Question No. 12: Commissioner Franklin asked Mr Hinkle why the building was required to be located 15' from the retaining wall Mr Hinkle replied that he had imposed the condition, since it was a requirement of the Code PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 1996 PAGE 11 Associate Planner Silverman clarified that the original plans for the Visitors Center did not indicate this additional setback from the retaining wall, since this condition had been imposed at a later date Commissioner Franklin asked if there was another reason for the setback, other than just for conformance with the Code Mr Hinkle said it was important to locate the building away from the retaining wall so that if there ever was a mudslide, injuries could be avoided Commissioner Franklin asked if the setback contributed to the stability of the soil Mr. Hinkle replied that the setback was intended to protect people, as well as to minimize damage to the building Question No 13: Mr Hinkle explained how the weight of the slide mass was determined using a computer program, which calculated the resisting and driving forces of the soil being studied Commission Ng asked if the location of the slide plane was unknown, how was alpha calculated Mr Hinkle said that there was no reason to perform this analysis, since it was already known that the site would not meet a safety factor of 1 5 He indicated that the City's Code (i a the Uniform Building Code) requires a minimum facotr of safety of 1 5 He estimated that the factor of safety on the site was 1.1 or 1.25. Question No. 14: Mr Hinkle stated that the data received from the three hand dug pits was analyzed carefully and professional judgment was used to draw the conclusions. Question No. 15: Mr Hinkle explained that the data was calculate by computer, using a series of trial and error procedures, and that the computer searched for the lowest factor of safety Mr Hinkle also noted that this type of slope calculation was used and accepted by Los Angeles County After reviewing the pages in question, Mr. Hinkle indicated that the 1 62 safety factor applied to the slope above the site and the 1 23 safety factor applied to the area where the backcut was made during the construction of the retaining wall The latter only required a safety factor of 1 25 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23,1996 PAGE 12 Question No. 16: Mr Hinkle said that the analysis was not intended to provide significant information about the possibility of deeper instabilities, but was only used to predict mudflow, etc Question No. 17: Mr Hinkle said that the data was significant only for the subject property, and would not apply to adjacent areas Since Mr Hinkle had addressed each of the questions in Commissioner Franklin's letter, a general discussion ensued between the Commission, Staff and Mr Hinkle Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr Hinkle if his role was to evaluate geotechnical reports for the City Mr Hinkle replied that his firm had done all the geotechnical reviews for the City for the last four years Commissioner Cartwright assumed that the final project would have to meet all of Mr Hinkle's conditions of approval He asked Mr Hinkle at what point in the process he would be involved with the project again Mr Hinkle explained that he had already provided a copy of his approval letter for the Wayfarers Chapel project to the Building and Safety Division, and that the Building Official would be responsible for verifying that the conditions contained in the letter were satisfied and included on the final plans for the project. He added that, if there was doubt about compliance with a particular condition, or if he had specified that he wanted to have final approval of some aspect of the project, he would be brought back into the project at that time Chair Clark asked about the two options mentioned for the construction of the retaining wall, caissons versus slot cutting, and asked when a decision would be made as to which method of construction would be used on the project. Mr Hinkle indicated that this decision would be made during the final design phase of the project. Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked if the choice between the two methods might be based on the difference in cost. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 1996 PAGE 13 Mr. Hinkle said that cost would probably be a major deciding factor Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked if caissons were being used for the building itself Mr. Hinkle answered that a conventional foundation was being proposed, but that it would include extra steel reinforcement Vice Chair Vannorsdall noted that the report written by Keith Ehlert, the geologist hired by Wayfarers Chapel, stated that the building would be constructed on expansive soils He asked Mr Hinkle if this type of soil condition might cause the foundation to break Mr Hinkle replied that it should not be a problem because the foundation would be deeper than a typical design and would be reinforced with extra steel rods. Director/Secretary Petru added that the project included remedial grading of the building pad area of the building and that re -compaction was a technique that was often used in the City to provide a more solid base for a new structure Commissioner Franklin asked how approval could be given for construction on a site which did not meet a minimum safety factor of 1.5 Mr Hinkle responded that no property in the City's Landslide Moratorium Area could meet a 1 5 safety factor Director/Secretary Petru explained that there was a building moratorium against the issuance of permits for new structures. However, the Municipal Code did allow for the approval of certain exceptions in order to maintain and make minor additions to existing structures, or to replace structures that were severely damaged by the landslide or other natural forces (fire, flood, etc ), so long as the work performed did not exacerbate the landslide conditions on the property. She added that this project was initially reviewed by the City Council since the proposed building was not proposed to be re- built in the same location on the property. She went on to explain that the City Council had granted a Moratorium Exception Permit to the Wayfarers, which allowed them to proceed with the Conditional Use Permit process. She clarified that the granting of the Moratorium Exception Permit did not indicate an endorsement of the project by the City Council, only permission to go through the permit process. A discussion between the Commission and Staff revealed that construction of the foundation was not approved by the Planning Commission, but by Building and Safety Division, with input from Dale Hinkle, the City's geotechnical consultant However, the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 11996 PAGE 14 project could not move into Building and Safety Plan Check, until it was approved by the Planning Commission and all appeal rights had been exhausted. In answer to Commissioner Ng's queries, Director/Secretary Petru explained that Dr. Perry Ehlig was a geologist who had extensively studied the Portuguese Bend and Abalone Cove landslides and offered free advice to the City regarding management of these slides Ms Petru indicated that Keith Ehlert was a geologist hired by Wayfarer's Chapel, who prepared the initial geology reports on the proposed project These reports were then submitted to the City for review by Dale Hinkle and Associates, the City's geotechnical consultant She went on to clarify that Art Keene was a geologist employed with Dale Hinkle and Associates, and that he also reviewed the geology reports for the proposed project Commissioner Franklin stated that, even though the site did not meet the safety factor of 1 5, if the weight of the proposed structure was negligible in comparison to the entire slide mass, it would probably cause little risk to the area. Chair Clark thanked Commissioner Franklin for his extensive thought on this topic and Mr Hinkle for attending the hearing to provide the Commission with additional information Chair Clark stated that the proponents and opponents of the project had made the following decisions regarding speakers 1) there would be a total of two spokesperson in favor of the project who would be allowed to speak for ten minutes each, and, 2). here would be nine speakers in opposition to the project who would be allowed to speak for three minutes each. Mr. Victor Bothmann (applicant), 3616 Almeria Street, San Pedro, CA 90731, stated that he was a member of the Board of Managers for the Wayfarers Chapel He directed the Commission's attention to the previous Sunday's service guide which listed some of the religious programs held at the Chapel. Mr. Bothmann reported that he had heard from Eric Wright, the original architect's son, and that Mr Wright hoped to have new drawings for the proposed Visitors Center completed in June, but this would largely depend on Mr. Wright's schedule. Mr. Bothmann listed the main issues associated with the project as. 1) security, 2) noise; and, 3) geology. Chair Clark asked Mr. Bothmann to describe the discussions that had been held with the surrounding neighbors Mr Bothmann replied that he had reviewed the correspondence the City received from the neighbors which were critical of the project and he agreed that their concerns PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 1996 PAGE 15 needed to be addressed However, he disagreed with the statements made by some of the neighbors that the Chapel was merely a fund raiser for the Swedenborgian Church He stated that the Chapel served the religious needs of the community and that the Chapel did not generate surplus funds that were sent to the Church. In fact, the Church had come to the financial aid of the Chapel in some instances. He referred to the geologist's evaluation that the land under the proposed building site had not moved for thousands of years Mr Bothmann said that he did see the Wayfarers Chapel property as a fragile site Mr Bothmann said that the neighbors had expressed concerns about view impairment and traffic circulation, however, he felt that there would be no real problems associate with these issues In reference to the meeting with the neighbors, Mr Bothmann said that there were two meetings scheduled and, on both occasions, only one local resident (Ms. Gerrard) attended. Mr. Bothmann believed that this showed a lack of interest and concern about the project by the neighbors Mr. Dean Andrews (applicant's architect), 1064 Upland Avenue, San Pedro, CA 90732, said that he was present to answer questions Commissioner Alberto asked Mr. Andrews if believed that the new design being prepared by Eric Wright would be compatible with Lloyd Wright's original design. Mr. Andrews replied that he had spoken with Eric Wright on the telephone about a month earlier and that he hoped that Mr Wright would be able to provide some direction to improve the design of the project He said that the linear arrangement of the buildings had been lost when the original Visitors Center was demolished. However, he hoped that it might be possible to make the new building subservient to existing structures. Chair Clark asked if Mr. Andrews if he understood that Eric Wright's design might not be ready by June. Mr. Andrews said that he understood that Mr Wright would not be available to look at the project until June. Commissioner Ng asked if Eric Wright would be designing a completely new structure and, if so, what would be Mr. Andrews' future involvement with the project. Mr Andrews said that he was unsure at the present time, but he believed that he and Mr Wright would work together in a collaborative effort since Mr. Wright was very busy. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23,1996 PAGE 16 RECESS AND RECONVENE The meeting recessed at 10:17 P.M. and reconvened at 14:35 P.M. Mr, Philip Batchelder , 6546 Eddinghill Drive, questioned the wisdom of building in the landslide area and believed a full Environmental Impact Report should be required for the project. He also expressed opposition to other recent projects, including the road that had been recently graded into Sacred Cove, with an after -the -fact permit and no EIR, as well as the roads that had been graded through the sensitive habitat in the Portuguese Bend area for exploratory drilling, which again was done with an after -the - fact permit and no EIR Commissioner Alberio asked Staff to comment on Environmental Impact Reports Director/Secretary Petru said that an EIR was not always required for a project, since the determination was based on whether or not the impacts to environment were significant or could be mitigated. Since the impacts from Wayfarers Chapel project could be mitigated to less than significant levels, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project, rather than an EIR She noted further that the City had complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr Batchelder responded that, even if an EIR was not required, there should be a more thorough analysis of proposed protects. He was concerned about the City's liability in approving projects in a known landslide area Commissioner Albeno stated that, if the project were approved, the City would be protected from liability by a hold harmless agreement Ms Corinne Gerrard, 22 Narcissa Drive, said that she also speaking for Gino Rudolfi, who was not in favor of the construction and was concerned that the number of weddings held on the site would be increased. She further indicated that she was also speaking for Jack Downhill, who believed that the Planning Commission should make a determination based on whether there was conformance with the Code and recommended that the City and the Redevelopment Agency formulate a set of rules to control future development in the Landslide Moratorium Area Ms Gerrard stated that she personally was against building in the Moratorium Area, particularly since her property was immediately above the Chapel, and that she felt even less comfortable with the stability of the land after hearing Mr Hinkle's comments. She expressed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23,1996 PAGE 17 concern about increased noise, but said that she did appreciate the Increased security measures that the Chapel had taken within the last month or two She also mentioned that she was satisfied that she would not see the roof line of the proposed structure from her property. Mr. Bill Griffin, 5 Ginger Root Lane, reported that his home was located above the active slide and that he did not want to lose his home if the slide started to move again He cited a situation in the Flying Triangle landslide area, in which the City was told by experts that the land was stable. However, after development was allowed in 1970 in this area, the land collapsed approximately eight years later Mr Griffin went on to say that he did not believe that the geologic investigation at the Wayfarers Chapel site was as complete as the one done for the Flying Triangle since no holes were dug. He suggested that the City speak to Jim York, who had recently conducted geologic boring on his property, which is adjacent to the Wayfarers Chapel. Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked if Mr Griffin had spoken to Mr York about the results of his geologic investigation Mr Griffin said that he had not. Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked Staff if Mr York had submitted any geologic reports to the City Director/Secretary Petru said that he had not Vice Chair Vannorsdall said that he had talked to Mr York, but that he was not willing to provide any information Mr Vannorsdall speculated that Mr York may not yet be ready to disclose his data Mr. Griffin replied that he felt that if there were favorable geology on Mr. York's property, he would probably be happy to share that information Ms. Muriel Titzler, 2 Ginger Root Lane, stated that she lived dust adjacent to the Abalone Cove landslide She was concerned about stability of the land, did not trust the geological findings, and said that Narcissa Drive provided the only convenient access to her property She believed that it would be a good idea if the various groups contemplating development in the Moratorium Area would share information with one another, so that the City and residents could have a better understanding of the geology in the area as a whole Commissioner Alberio asked Mrs Titzler if she had attempted to get property owners together Ms Titzler said that she had not, but it be worth trying She noted that she had not been able to attend any of the neighborhood meetings held by the Chapel because she PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 1996 PAGE 18 had always received the information too late and had not received any notification by mail Ms Maureen Griffin, 5 Ginger Root Lane, reported that she was representing the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Association since Jeanette Mucha had another commitment that evening She said that she had been living under the threat of land movement jeopardizing her property for 18 years and was opposed to the project She believed that there was sufficient risk to warrant an Environmental Impact Report, as well as a more extensive geological studies. Ms Griffin said that she felt uncomfortable with the comments made by Mr. Hinkle, even though she understood why no absolute guarantees could be made Mr. William R. Muller, 24 Narcissa Drive, said that he echoed the sentiments of previous speakers opposed to the project. He added that he did not agree with the gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Chapel. Ms. Jean Curtis Wells, 2104 Chandeleur Drive, said that she had moved to her home in 1950 and remembered the beginning of the landslide, noting that, in the beginning, property owners in the area were optimistic that there would be improvement, but now they were more anxious than ever She reported that, contrary to what Mr Hinkle had stated, bedrock had not been found when her home was built Ms Wells closed by commenting that she believe any change in the land was dangerous and that the construction of the Visitors Center would result in more traffic in the area and more water being discharged into the landslide Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, described her son's involvement with the landslide since he was a geologist and the fact that he believed it would be a mistake to build on the Wayfarer's Chapel property. She questioned whether Eric Wright would be able to submit a design that would be as beautiful as his father's work and was disappointed that the public had not been provided with a copy of the letter that Commissioner Franklin had prepared. Chair Clark asked Staff to comment on the last observation. Director/Secretary Petru said that Commissioner Franklin's letter was a part of the public record and that it could be provided to anyone requesting a copy Commissioner Whiteneck suggested that the public hearing be continued. Chair Clark asked Staff for a suggested continuation date, with input from the applicant, since the preparation of the new design by Eric Wright had been delayed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23,1996 PAGE 19 Director/Secretary Petru replied that a time extension would be required from the applicant She added that the Commission had three options 1) With the applicant's permission, it could grant a time extension to a date certain, with the hope that the plans would be ready at that time, 2) Ask the applicant to withdraw the application and resubmit it when they are able to proceed (however, if this option is chosen, the applicant would be required to submit a request to the City Council for a new Moratorium Exception Permit); or, 3) Deny or conceptually approve the application and Staff would return with the appropriate P C Resolutions at the next meeting. With input from Mr. Bothmann, the timing of the continuation was decided after a discussion between the Commission and Staff Commissioner Cartwright moved to continue the public hearing to September 10, 1996, to allow the applicant adequate time to prepare new plans, seconded by Commissioner Ng. Approved, (7-0). Chair Clark thanked everyone in the audience for attending and presenting testimony. Director/Secretary Petru stated that a courtesy notice would be sent to all interested parties, including citizens who have given testimony at the previous meetings on this project 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES (CPl Due to the lateness of the hour, the Commission continued this item to May 28, 1996, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 8 Commission Subcommittee Report on Position Paper to City Council regarding appointment of the Chair and terms of the Commission members Since the Subcommittee needed additional time to prepare this item, the Commission continued this item to May 28,1996,(7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS - Staff 9. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, May 14, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 1996 PAGE 20 0 _0 The Commission canceled the meeting of May 14, 1996, due to a lack of scheduled items, (7-0). Commission. None COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) There were no requests from the audience to address the Commission Associate Planner Silverman announced that she would be leaving the City on May 2, 1996 She expressed her appreciation to the Commission for their support during her six and a half year tenure with the City. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ng moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. The motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:30 P.M. to May 28, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 1996 PAGE 21