Loading...
PC MINS 19900109MINUTES / 1^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1� JANUARY 9, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7:35pm by Chairperson Wike at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. ^ PRESENT Wike, Hotchkiss, Von Hagen (arrived 7:40pm), McNulty, Brooks " ABSENT None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert / p Benard, Planning Administrator Curtis Williams, Associate Planners Carolynn Petru and Joel Rojas, and Assistant Planners Bonnie Olson and Terry Silverman. COMMUNICATIONS -- None. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of December 12, 1989 -- Commissioner Brooks presented written corrections to the minutes, and Chairperson Wike also requested three minor changes. Commissioner Brooks moved to approve the minutes as amended, Commissioner McNulty seconded, and the motion passed 4-0 (Von Hagen absent). B. Conditional Use Permit No. 140 (Extension) -- (Commissioner Von Iiagen arrived.) Mrs. Wike indicated that she did not wish to approve the extension request because she did not approve originally of the lack of a front setback and the encroachment of the facade into the public right-of-way. Commissioner McNulty moved to approve the extension, Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded the motion, and it passed 4-1 with Chairperson Wike dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE NO. 244 The staff report was presented 27809 Longhill by Associate Planner Joel Rojas regarding the applicant's request to allow an existing accessory deck structure to encroach 7'4" into the 15' rear setback; 3" into the 5' side setback, and to exceed the maximum 12' height limit for accessory structures by 115". Staff's recommendation is to approve the request with conditions. Mr. Rojas also stated that the existing upper deck rail must be- raised to meet Uniform Building Code requirements, which will bring the structure 2'2" over the maximum allowed height. The public hearing was opened. �7 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 9, 1990 Ted Haggstrom, 27809 Longhill, applicant, requested approval of the application and stated he would raise the deck railing height to meet code requirements. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brooks moved approval of the staff recommendation, Commissioner McNulty seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. B. VARIANCE NO. 251 Associate Planner Carolynn Petru 32410 Nautilus Drive presented the staff report detailing the applicant's request for approval of a new single family residence to exceed the maximum 30 foot downslope height. Staff's recommendation is to deny the request. Commissioner Von Hagen stated he felt the view impact was mitigated by the applicant's redesign of the entry tower, and that he supported the application. He also noted that the applicant's immediate neighbor, Mr. F. Merralls, had verbally indicated support of the variance. Mr. Benard noted that while the applicant's original proposal included a flat roof, the pitched roof redesign increased the ridge height to over 30'. Therefore, the appropriate application is for a variance, not a height variation, and findings other than view impairment criteria are required. Manuel Funes, 13663 S. Prairie, Suite "E", Hawthorne, project architect, spoke in support of the variance, stating that the pitched, red -tile roof would match the rest of the development. Mr. Benard suggested that if the architect lowered the roof pitch to 2.5:12, which is an acceptable minimum for tile, and put a flat cap on the ridge, it might reduce the excess height over 301. Dr. Crescenzo Pisano, 32327 Forrestal Drive, neighbor, spoke against the variance, citing significant view impact. Mr. Benard advised the Commission of three options: To continue the hearing, which would indicate to the applicant that he has to work with staff; or to deny the variance, after which the applicant could pursue the appeal process through the Council and maybe not work with staff any further; or to make findings to approve the project and direct staff to revise the resolution. Commissioner McNulty suggested asking the applicant to work with the staff. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated he did not like the idea of a flat roof, and wanted to approve the variance. Commissioner Brooks said that aesthetically she did not envision this project as beneficial to the overall Page 2 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 9, 1990 effect on development along the coastline. She also stated that she would like to direct the applicant to work with staff, and objected to the bulk of the facade. Commissioner Von Hagen noted that one of the letters against the variance was a complaint about houses already built in the development, but not about the subject house. Commissioner McNulty suggested that the architect maintain the same look but redesign the roof pitch. Commissioner McNulty moved to continue the public hearing to the January 23 meeting, and to direct the applicant to work with staff on lowering the ridge height. Commissioner Brooks seconded the motion, which passed 3-2 with Commissioners Von Hagen and Hotchkiss dissenting. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Assistant Planner Bonnie Olson ` NO. 23 "NN", GRADING presented the staff report NO. 1292 detailing the applicant's 3324 Palo Vista Drive request for an after-the--a"6t approval of grading fora 6'-7' high downslope wall in the rear yard. Staff recommendation is to approve the requested action with conditions. r Commissioner Brooks stated for the record that she is an acquaintance of the applicant, but that she did not believe there was a conflict of interest. Commissioner Von Hagen stated he would like to know if the applicant had City -approved plans showing the wall. Kevin Sears, 3324 Palo Vista Drive, applicant, stated he had originally showed the plans to staff planner Jack Roberts in December of 1988, at which time Mr. Roberts told him that the proposed wall was well within Code restrictions. Mr. Sears also said that when he returned to get retaining wall specifications, he was given a brochure, but was never told of the Seacliff Bills Guidelines that were being developed. Mr. Sears also presented a petition signed by all his neighbors which stated that they did not object to the wall. The applicant also stated that he did not have a City - approved copy of the original plans. Mr. Benard noted that the applicant had started the wall before the guidelines were in effect, but that during a Code Enforcement investigation regarding the grading activity and height of the wall, the new guidelines were adopted and applied to the situation. Commissioner Brooks suggested that the guidelines be distributed to Seacliff Hills residents for their information. Mr. Benard stated that the idea would have to be examined by the City Attorney since the guidelines were -Page� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 9, 1990 • not adopted as Code, just to give assistance to staff and to the Commission. Mrs. Wike agreed with Mrs. Brooks' suggestion, and stated that the guidelines should at least be sent to the homeowners Association. Mr. Benard said he would investigate the possibility of circulating the guidelines. The public hearing was closed. Chairperson Wike stated she felt the guidelines should be followed to control the size of the walls on PVDS and to avoid jeopardizing current situations, such as the Tam case. She also expressed support of the staff recommendation to approve the application with a condition to modify the existing wall to a combination of a 42" retaining wall and a 30" fence. Commissioner McNulty expressed sympathy for the applicant's predicament, and noted that the Seacliff guidelines imposed after the fact on Mr. Sears were not specific standards but only guidelines. Cu Ac -'AQ t Commissioner Hotchkiss acknowledg d the bind the applicant was in, but stated the guideline were s r --goo reason, and recommended conform ng to�h�. Commissioner McNulty expressed rong timents 11a the was unconstitutio 11 imposing ex post facto •Commission standards on the applicant. aa�rd- moved to approve staff alternative #1, approval of the application as submitted without conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen, but failed 2-3 with Chairperson Wike, Commissioners Brooks and Hotchkiss dissenting. Chairperson Wike moved to adopt the staff recommendation to approve the application with conditions, Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded, �r and the motion passed 3-2 with Commissioners McNulty and Von Hagen dissenting. Uri p \r•s A ten-minute recess was called at 9:15pm. B. GRADING NO. 2010-- Reading of the staff report REVISION was waived. The applicant is 30825 Marne requesting that the conditions of approval for grading application No. 1010 be revised to allow existing garden walls and planter boxes on the rear yard slope to remain. Staff's recommendation is to approve the applicant's request with conditions. Adelaida Abdalian, 30825 Marne, representing the applicant, claimed that the staff had verbally approved two -foot planters on the slope, and stated that the landscaping was not yet done because of family problems. Mrs. Wike stated that the applicant had violated the conditions of the original grading application that were specifically designed to prevent the kind of disturbance of Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 9, 1990 the steep slope that has now taken place. She also noted that not only had the applicant never made an attempt to landscape the slope, but that he also has a pattern of not observing correct permit procedures. Chairperson Wike moved to adopt staff alternative #1 to deny the request with a condition to restore the slope as originally recommended in 1987. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen, but was not voted upon. Commissioner Von Hagen noted that he had voted 4ap the ^ g a{3�� original recommendation to deny the application in 1987, because he was concerned about the extreme slope, and because the applicant had received other concessions. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated that the property was an eyesore, and suggested that the merits of the project be re- examined without being punitive towards the applicant. Commissioner Brooks expressed her objections to the applicant's blatant disregard for the decision-making process, and stated her concern that approval of this application would set a bad precedent. Mr. Benard acknowledged the difficulty of the situation, but said that the staff feels that a better solution is to examine the situation as it exists today, and to try and avoid further damage of the slope that could be caused by removal of the illegal fixtures. Chairperson Wike restated her original motion to adopt staff alternative #1 to deny the request, the motion was re - seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen, and passed 3-2 with Commissioners Hotchkiss and McNulty dissenting. NEW BUSINESS A. HEIGHT VARIATION Commissioner Von Hagen moved NO. 640 --APPEAL to receive and file the 6923 Vallon Drive appellant's request to withdraw this appeal. Commissioner Brooks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. B. SIGN PERMIT NO. 486 Reading of the staff report 500 Silver Spur Rd. was waived. The applicant is requesting that the established sign program be amended to replace two and add one permanent tenant identification sign. Staff's recommendation is to approve the application with conditions. Nancy Fine, 500 Silver Spur Road, representing the applicant, requested that signage on the west side not addressed in the staff report be allowed. Ms. Fine also Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 9, 1990 asked the Commission to consider granting a larger sign on the south facade. Commissioner Von Hagen noted that his partner had once represented the applicant, but did not feel that it constituted any conflict of .interest. Mr. Benard stated for purposes of clarification that the applicant was requesting consideration of a new sign program for the building, and that they are authorized by the current owner of the building to do so. Mrs. Wi.ke noted that if this new program is approved, other tenants from the building might come in with requests of their own. Mr. Benard said he did not feel this would be a problem, since staff is recommending that the east and west facing signs not be approved, and the south and north facing sign changes would be relatively insignificant. Commissioner McNulty moved to approve staff recommendation #1, the motion was seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen, and it passed unanimously. C. GRADING NO. 1322 -- The staff report was presented APPEAL by Planning Administrator 40 75 Marguerite Drive Curtis Williams regarding the appellant's request to overturn the staff's denial of grading for a new single family residence. Staff's recommendation is to deny the appeal. Liza Gunaratna, 4205 Alonzo Ave., Encino, project designer for the applicant, gave a brief background on her client, and asked the Commission to support the appeal. Mr. Williams stated that since the Code does not contain specific criteria for excessive grading, the Lunada Pointe grading guidelines were developed when several owners of the pre -graded lots started coming in with requests for further grading to create subterranean living areas. Mr. Von Hagen noted that the market conditions have changed in the nine years since the pads were graded, and that people want bigger houses today. Mr. Benard expressed the staff's concern that the nature of the tract is being altered. Commissioner McNulty stated that he felt the "basement" grading in question was an option never taken into account by the Code, which more specifically addresses building pad enlargement, and that since it is done under the footprint, it is unobtrusive. Chairperson Wike moved to adopt the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. Commissioner Brooks seconded the motion, which failed 2-3 with Commissioners Hotchkiss, Von Hagen and McNulty dissenting. Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 9, 1990 't Commissioner McNulty moved to adopt staff alternative #2 to approve the appeal. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen, and passed 3-2 with Chairperson Nike and Commissioner Brooks dissenting. At this point, Mr. Benard asked the Commission for direction concerning the Lunada Pointe grading guidelines. Commissioner McNulty said he felt it would take months to examine and determine the guidelines, and that with only 29 lots and 8 homes left to be approved, it was more easily done on a case-by-case basis. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE -- None. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Benard provided the Commission with the draft language on the pre-screening workshops at the direction of the Council, which would be handed out to anyone interested in the pre- screening process. `f COMMISSION REPORTS Chairperson Wike handed out information taken from the •California League of Cities Handbook detailing how the Commission can use the staff as a resource. Mr. Benard stated that the appropriate staff resource was himself. He also noted that the City Attorney is currently preparing a procedural guidelines briefing for the Commission regarding this subject, which is planned for early February. Commissioners Brooks and McNulty also asked that the informational pamphlets handed out in the Planning Department to the public should contain some sort of language that the information might not apply or be accurate in certain circumstances. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:18 pm. • Page 7 0 # to & ,, ow,m " MINUTES `' Q� \,\ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 9, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7s35pm by Chairperson Wike at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Wike, Hotchkiss, Von Hagen (arrived 7:40pm), McNulty, Brooks ABSENT None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Planning Administrator Curtis Williams, Associate Planners Carolynn Petru and Joel Rojas, and Assistant Planners Bonnie Olson and Terry Silverman. COMMUNICATIONS -- None. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of December 12, 1989 -- Commissioner Brooks presented written corrections to the minutes, and Chairperson Wike also requested three minor changes. Commissioner Brooks moved to approve the minutes as amended, Commissioner McNulty seconded, and the motion passed 4-0 (Von Hagen absent). B. Conditional Use Permit No. 140 (Extension) -- (Commissioner Von Hagen arrived.) Mrs. Wike indicated that she did not wish to approve the extension request because she did not approve originally of the lack of a front setback and the encroachment of the facade into the public right-of-way. Commissioner McNulty moved to approve the extension, Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded the motion, and it passed 4-1 with Chairperson Wike dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE NO. 244 The staff report was presented 27809 Longhill by Associate Planner Joel Rojas regarding the applicant's request to allow an existing accessory deck structure to encroach 7'4" into the 15' rear setback; 3" into the 5' side setback, and to exceed the maximum 12' height limit for accessory structures by 1'S". Staff's recommendation is to approve the request with conditions. Mr. Rojas also stated that the existing upper deck rail must be raised to meet Uniform Building Code requirements, which will bring the structure 212" over the maximum allowed height. The public hearing was opened. PLANNING COMMISSION WUTES January 9, 1990 C Ted Haggstrom, 27809 Longhill, applicant, requested approval of the application and stated he would raise the deck railing height to meet code requirements. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brooks moved approval of the staff recommendation, Commissioner McNulty seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. B. VARIANCE NO. 251 Associate Planner Carolynn Petru 32410 Nautilus Drive presented the staff report detailing the applicant's request for approval of a new single family residence to exceed the maximum 30 foot downslope height. Staff's recommendation is to deny the request. Commissioner Von Hagen stated he felt the view impact was mitigated by the applicant's redesign of the entry tower, and that he supported the application. He also noted that the applicant's immediate neighbor, Mr. F. Merralls, had verbally indicated support of the variance. Mr. Benard noted that while the applicant's original proposal included a flat roof, the pitched roof redesign increased the ridge height to over 301. Therefore, the appropriate application is for a variance, not a height variation, and findings other than view impairment criteria are required. Manuel Funes, 13663 S. Prairie, Suite "E", Hawthorne, project architect, spoke in support of the variance, stating that the pitched, red -tile roof would match the rest of the development. Mr. Benard suggested that if the architect lowered the roof pitch to 2.5:12, which is an acceptable minimum for tile, and put a flat cap on the ridge, it might reduce the excess height over 301. Dr. Crescenzo Pisano, 32327 Forrestal Drive, neighbor, spoke against the variance, citing significant view impact. Mr. Benard advised the Commission of three options: To continue the hearing, which would .indicate to the applicant that he has to work with staff; or to deny the variance, after which the applicant could pursue the appeal process through the Council and maybe not work with staff any further; or to make findings to approve the project and direct staff to revise the resolution. Commissioner McNulty suggested asking the applicant to work with the staff. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated he did not like the idea of a flat roof, and wanted to approve the variance. Commissioner Brooks said that aesthetically she did not envision this project as beneficial to the overall Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION *UTES January 9, 1990 11 effect on development along the coastline. She also stated that she would like to direct the applicant to work with staff, and objected to the bulk of the facade. Commissioner Von Hagen noted that one of the letters against the variance was a complaint about houses already built in the development, but not about the subject house. Commissioner McNulty suggested that the architect maintain the same look but redesign the roof pitch. Commissioner McNulty moved to continue the public hearing to the January 23 meeting, and to direct the applicant to work with staff on lowering the ridge height. Commissioner Brooks seconded the motion, which passed 3-2 with Commissioners Von Hagen and Hotchkiss dissenting. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 "NN", GRADING NO. 1292 3324 Palo Vista Drive 61- 71* high downslope wall recommendation is to approve conditions. Assistant Planner Bonnie Olson presented the staff report detailing the applicant's request for an after -the -fact approval of grading for a in the rear yard. Staff the requested action with Commissioner Brooks stated for the record that she is an acquaintance of the applicant, but that she did not believe there was a conflict of interest. Commissioner Von Hagen stated he would like to know if the applicant had City -approved plans showing the wall. Kevin Sears, 3324 Palo Vista Drive, applicant, stated he had originally showed the plans to staff planner Jack Roberts in December of 1988, at which time Mr. Roberts told him that the proposed wall was well within Code restrictions. Mr. Sears also said that when he returned to get retaining wall specifications, he was given a brochure, but was never told of the Seacliff Hills Guidelines that were being developed. Mr. Sears also presented a petition signed by all his neighbors which stated that they did not object to the wall. The applicant also stated that he did not have a City - approved copy of the original plans. Mr. Benard noted that the applicant had started the wall before the guidelines were in effect, but that during a Code Enforcement investigation regarding the grading activity and height of the wall, the new guidelines were adopted and applied to the situation. Commissioner Brooks suggested that the guidelines be distributed to Seacliff Hills residents for their information. Mr. Benard stated that the idea would have to Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AUTES January 9, 1990 be examined by the City Attorney since the guidelines were not adopted as Code, just to give assistance to staff and to the Commission. Mrs. Wike agreed with Mrs. Brooks' suggestion, and stated that the guidelines should at least be sent to the Homeowners Association. Mr. Benard said he would investigate the possibility of circulating the guidelines. The public hearing was closed. Chairperson Wike stated she felt the guidelines should be followed to control the size of the walls on PVDS and to avoid jeopardizing current situations, such as the Tam case. She also expressed support of the staff recommendation to approve the application with a condition to modify the existing wall to a combination of a 42" retaining wall and a 30" fence. Commissioner McNulty expressed sympathy for the applicant's predicament, and noted that the Seacliff guidelines imposed after the fact on Mr. Sears were not specific standards but only guidelines. Commissioner Hotchkiss acknowledged the bind the applicant was in, but stated the guidelines were set up for good reason, and recommended conforming to them. Commissioner McNulty expressed strong sentiments that the Commission was unconstitutionally imposing ex post facto standards on the applicant. Bonnie Olson reminded the Commission that this issue was before them because of the applicant's failure to obtain the necessary permits for retaining walls and that the applicant exceeded the height of side and rear walls as per the City's pre-existing development code, not the Seacliff Hills Guidelines on fences, walls and hedges of July 11th. Commissioner Brooks expressed concern for the fact that the applicant faced an adjustment to the walls already erected. She also noted that given the fact that two violations of the city's development code existed regardless of the recently enacted guidelines, and the impact the walls have created in the Seacliff Hills development, were of significant importance as well. Commissioner McNulty moved to approve staff'alternative #1, approval of the application as submitted without conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen, but failed 2-3 with Chairperson Wike, Commissioners Brooks and Hotchkiss dissenting. Chairperson Wike moved to adopt the staff recommendation to approve the application with conditions, Commissioner Hotchkiss seconded, and the motion passed 3-2 with Commissioners McNulty and Von Hagen dissenting. A ten-minute recess was called at 9:15pm. Page 4 PLANNING. COMMISSION OUTES January 9, 1990 B. GRADING NO. 1010 -- REVISION 30825 Marne application No. 1010 be walls and planter boxes Sta€f,'s recommendation with conditions. Reading of the staff report was waived. The applicant is requesting that the conditions of approval for grading revised to allow existing garden on the rear yard slope to remain. is to approve the applicant's request Adelaida Abdalian, 30825 Marne, representing the applicant, claimed that the staff had verbally approved two -foot planters on the slope, and stated that the landscaping was not yet done because of family problems. Mrs. Wike stated that the applicant had violated the conditions of the original grading application that were specifically designed to prevent the kind of disturbance of the steep slope that has now taken place. She also noted that not only had the applicant never made an attempt to landscape the slope, but that he also has a pattern of not observing correct permit procedures. Chairperson Wike moved to adopt staff alternative #1 to deny the request with a condition to restore the slope as originally recommended in 1987. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen, but was not voted upon. Commissioner Von Hagen noted that he had voted for the original recommendation to deny the application in 1987, because he was concerned about the extreme slope, and because the applicant had received other concessions. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated that the property was an eyesore, and suggested that the merits of the project be re- examined without being punitive towards the applicant. Commissioner Brooks expressed her objections to the applicant's blatant disregard for the decision-making process, and stated her concern that approval of this application would set a bad precedent. Mr. Benard acknowledged the difficulty of the situation, but said that the staff feels that a better solution is to examine the situation as it exists today, and to try and avoid further damage of the slope that could be caused by removal of the illegal fixtures. Chairperson Wike restated her original motion to adopt staff alternative #1 to deny the request, the motion was re - seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen, and passed 3-2 with Commissioners Hotchkiss and McNulty dissenting. Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION WUTES January 9, 1990 NEW BUSINESS A. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 640 --APPEAL 6923 Vallon Drive Commissioner Brooks seconded unanimously. • Commissioner Von Hagen moved to receive and file the appellant's request to withdraw this appeal. the motion, which passed B. SIGN PERMIT NO. 486 Reading of the staff report 500 Silver Spur Rd. was waived. The applicant is requesting that the established sign program be amended to replace two and add one permanent tenant identification sign. Staff's recommendation is to approve the application with conditions. Nancy°Fine, 500 Silver Spur Road, representing the applicant, requested that signage on the west side not addressed in the staff report be allowed. Ms. Fine also asked the Commission to consider granting a larger sign on the south facade. Commissioner Von Hagen noted that his partner had once represented the applicant, but did not feel that it constituted any conflict of interest. Mr. Benard stated for purposes of clarification that the applicant was requesting consideration of a new sign program for the building, and that they are authorized by the current owner,of the building to do so. Mrs. Wike noted that if this new program is approved, other tenants from the building might come in with requests of their own. Mr. Benard said he did not feel this would be a problem, since staff is recommending that the east and west facing signs not be approved, and the south and north facing sign changes would be relatively insignificant. Commissioner McNulty moved to approve staff recommendation #1, the motion was seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen, and it passed unanimously. C. GRADING NO. 1322 -- The staff report was presented APPEAL by Planning Administrator 75 Marguerite Drive Curtis Williams regarding the appellant's request to overturn the staff's denial of grading for a new single family residence. Staff's recommendation is to deny the appeal. Liza Gunaratna, 4205 Alonzo Ave., Encino, project designer for the applicant, gave a brief background on her client, and asked the Commission to support the appeal. Mr. Williams stated that since the Code does not contain Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION OUTES January 9, 1990 a specific criteria for excessive grading, the Lunada Pointe grading guidelines were developed when several owners of the pre -graded lots started coming in with requests for further grading to create subterranean living areas. Mr. Von Hagen noted that the market conditions have changed in the nine years since the pads were graded, and that people want bigger houses today. Mr. Benard expressed the staff's concern that the nature of the tract is being altered. Commissioner McNulty stated that he felt the "basement" grading in question was an option never taken into account by the Code, which more specifically addresses building pad enlargement, and that since it is done under the footprint, it is unobtrusive. Chairperson Wike moved to adopt the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. Commissioner Brooks seconded the motion, which failed 2-3 with Commissioners Hotchkiss, Von Hagen and McNulty dissenting. Commissioner McNulty moved to adopt staff alternative #2 to approve the appeal. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Von Hagen, and passed 3-2 with Chairperson Wike and Commissioner Brooks dissenting. At this point, Mr. Benard asked the Commission for direction concerning the Lunada Pointe grading guidelines. Commissioner McNulty said he felt it would take months to examine and determine the guidelines, and that with only 29 lots and 8 homes left to be approved, it was more easily done on a case-by-case basis. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE -- None. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Benard provided the Commission with the draft language on the pre-screening workshops at the direction of the Council, which would be handed out to anyone interested in the pre- screening process. Commissioner Brooks requested that the Commission members be informed of future meetings involving them outside the regularly scheduled meetings at the earliest possible date in order to accommodate their schedules. COMMISSION REPORTS Chairperson Wike handed out information taken from the California League of Cities Handbook detailing how the Commission can use the staff as a resource. Mr. Benard stated that the appropriate staff resource was himself. He also noted that the City Attorney is currently preparing a procedural guidelines briefing for the Commission regarding this subject, which is planned for early February. Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION *UTES 10 January 9, 1990 Commissioners Brooks and McNulty also asked that the informational pamphlets handed out in the Planning Department to the public should contain some sort of language that the information might not apply or be accurate in certain circumstances. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:18 pm. * * * * Corrections per attached. Page 8 Suggested Corrections to Minutes of January 9th Planninng Commmission Meeting submitted by Susan Brooks CUP#23"NN" p.3, Continued Business item A., paragraph 1 "approval of grading for a 6 — 7' high downslope wall..." p.4.,paragraph 5."... ex post facto standards on the applicant." Bonnie Olson reminded the Commission that this issue was before them because of the applicant's failure to obtain the necessar ermits for retaining walls and that the aDolicant exceeded the hei ht of side and rear walls as per the city's re—existin development code. not the Seacliff Hills guidelines on fences. walls and hedges of July 11th. insert p.4, after above paragraph. Commissioner Brooks expressed concern for the fact that the aDplicant faced an adjustment to the walls alreadv erected. She also noted that iven the fact that two violations of the city's development code existed re ardless of the recently enacted uidelines and the im act the walls have created in the Seacliff Hills development. were of si nificant im ortance as well. page 5, paragraph 3. Commissioner Von Hagen noted that he had voted for the original recommendation to deny the application. page 7, add to Staff Reports Commissioner Brooks reguested that the Commission members be informed of future meetings involving them outside the regularly scheduled meetings at the earliest possible date in order to accommodate their schedules.