Loading...
PC MINS 19940823APPROVED 9/13/94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 23, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:09 P.M., by Chairman Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Vice Chairman Mowlds. PRESENT: Commissioners Hayes, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio ABSENT: Commissioner Ferraro (excused) Also present were Director of Planning, Building and code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Associate Planner Silverman, Associate Planner Jerex, and Assistant Planner de Freitas. wwon A. STAFF 1 Director Bernard reported that on August 16, 1994, the City Council considered the update on the Development Code Revision process and the schedule for the continuation of the process. They were satisfied with the progress and the schedule. 2. For Item VIA (Height Variation No. 791 -Appeal) six late letters of support were received and for Item VIIB (Conditional Use Permit No. 180) one late letter of support was received from the Portuguese Bend Community Association. 3. With regard to Item VIB (Ocean Trails) Planning Administrator Petru indicated that two stapled packages of late correspondence had been distributed to the Commission. The first was a memorandum from Commissioner Vannorsdall regarding the location of the golf course maintenance facility. The second package included a letter from Mr. Lyle Quatrochi, discussing clubhouse height issues; comments from the California Coastal Commission regarding the project, most particularly the location of the clubhouse; and correspondence from the California Native Plant Society regarding habitat issues on the site. B. COMMISSION 1. Chairman Alberio mentioned that there was an upcoming League of California Cities convention in Long Beach and Staff reported that there was no departmental budgeted funds for the Commissioners' attendance at that specific conference. Director Bernard explained that there were still funds available for several Commissioners, attendance at the League's Planning Commissioners Institute later in the fiscal year. Commissioner Hayes asked if an individual commissioner could attend and pay his/her own fee, and Director Bernard stated that was correct. 2. Chairman Alberio suggested re -arranging the agenda to hear the Continued Business items at the end of the agenda and the other Commissioners agreed. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Minutes of July 26, 1994. Commissioner Wang pointed out that on Page 1, under Communications, Late Correspondence, the word "not" should be removed from the phrase "not on this evening's agenda". Commissioner Hayes suggested that on Page 4, at the end of Paragraph 6, the word "any" should be deleted from the phrase "increase any visual impacts". Vice Chairman Mowlds asked that on Page 8, additional clarification be added to the next to the last sentence in the fifth paragraph which read: "He supported giving Staff more discretion in reviewing certain permits". Commissioner Hayes moved to approve the July 16, 1994 Minutes, as amended, seconded by commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (6-0). B. GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT: Citywide. (TS) Commissioner Hayes moved to waive the reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Commissioner Hayes asked that, on Page 19, Paragraph 8, the word "insure" be changed to "ensure" for consistency throughout the document. Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to accept the report as proposed, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds congratulated the Staff on their preparation of this report and pointed out that this report provided an overview of activities in the City for a whole year. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 2 Commissioner Hayes noted that the report would be a valuable reference in the future. Director Bernard expressed his appreciation of the Commissioners' comments and noted that most of the thanks should go to Terry Silverman, Associate Planner, who performed most of the work. He added that this was something the City had been remiss in doing over the few years and that Ms. Silverman's efforts would mean that only a annual checklist would be needed in the future to maintain this useful report. C. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1737• Mr. and Mrs. Cullen, 5 Diamonte Lane. (FF) Vice Chairman Mowlds recused himself from hearing this item because of his acquaintance with Mr. And Mrs. Cullen. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept the Staff's Recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Approved (5-0-1), with Vice Chairman Mowlds abstaining. Chairman Alberio mentioned that there was a 15 -day appeal period from that evening in which any interested party may appeal this decision to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 125 VARIANCE NO. 379• Mr. and Mrs. Greg Gawlik, 16 Seacove Drive. (FF) Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to waive the reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Commissioner Mowlds moved to continue this item to September 27, 1994, seconded by Commission Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 180• Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Clarke, 10 Peppertree Drive. (FF) Vice Chairman Mowlds moved the reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to Open the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Mr. Stanley Clarke, applicant, 10 Peppertree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Clarke informed the Planning Commission that he was present to answer questions. There were no questions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 3 Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to Close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to accept the Staff's Recommendation and noted that this project had received the approval of the Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association, seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Approved (6-0). Chairman Alberio mentioned that there was a 15 -day appeal period from that evening in which any interested party may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council. C. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 39• Ridgegate Homeowners Association, 6016 Ridgegate Court. (DJ) Commissioner Hayes moved to waive the reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Vice Chairman Mowlds. Approved (6-0). Since there were no speakers, Chairman Alberio opened and the closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hayes pointed out that, on page 3, just before subsections "A" and "B", the word "that" should be deleted. Commissioner Hayes moved to recommend approval of this item to the City Council, seconded by Vice Chairman Mowlds. Approved (6-0). Director Bernard reported that the date for review by the City Council would be September 20, 1994. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 791 - APPEAL; Dr. and Mrs. Ben Naghi, 60 Rockinghorse Road. (TS) Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff Report. At the June 28, 1994 meeting, the Planning Commission continued this item and directed the landowner and the architect to revise the project to address the concerns of neighborhood compatibility and, in particular, to reduce the bulk and mass of the proposed addition. Ms. Silverman detailed the activities on this project since that time and informed the Commission that Staff continued to recommend denial of the project but described some design alternatives which staff could support. Mr. Tom Blair, architect for the applicant, 2785 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite E149, Redondo Beach, CA 90277. Mr. Blair recalled that concerns at the last meeting were not about view impairment, square footage or height, but more about the appearance of bulk of the structure looking at the northeast elevation. He explained PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 4 • • that the Planning Commission suggested moving the second story back at least five feet in order to reduce the mass on the corner of the house that is seen driving up Rockinghorse Road. In the revised drawings, they had moved this corner of the house back 16 feet. Other reductions were made that were not suggested by the Planning Commission, but the owner is happier with the overall design. Mr. Blair added that a number of letters of support were received from neighbors. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. Blair to explain the new drawings on which a dotted line indicated the previously submitted plan and he did so, pointing out the corner of the house which had been set back. Dr. Ben Naghi, applicant, 60 Rockinghorse Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Dr. Naghi informed the Planning Commission that he and his wife (who could not be present because of illness) wanted to create a house which was compatible with the neighborhood, as well as being comfortable for their family. He explained that they had visited as many neighbors as possible and everyone they talked to had been in support when they showed them the new drawings, with the exception of the residents at 54 and 55 Rockinghorse Road. In addition, he had two more letters of support from neighbors which had not yet been submitted to Staff. Dr. Naghi mentioned that the residents at 54 Rockinghorse Road were renters and that Mr. and Mrs. Butts at 55 Rockinghorse Road were mainly objecting to obstruction of their view of the mountains. Dr. Naghi noted that the mountains were visible only four to five times per year, if at all, and that some of the photographs Associate Planner Silverman had taken indicated that the top of the proposed addition would be barely noticeable from Mr. and Mrs. Butts' home. Mr. Jim Butts, 55 Rockinghorse Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Butts pinpointed the location of his home in relationship to the subject property and said that he was opposed to the proposed addition in terms of size and bulk. However, his prime objection was that it would significantly block his home's view of the Santa Ana mountains, as well as a view of the Long Beach harbor. He explained that the harbor view was currently blocked by a tree which had grown up in the last year, but the owner of the tree would agree to trim it. If this project were approved, the view would be gone permanently. Chairman Alberio confirmed with Planning Administrator Petru that the mountain view was not a protected view and Ms. Petru said that was correct, but that the Long Beach harbor view was protected, even though it was currently blocked by foliage. Commissioner Hayes asked Mr. Butts if the owner of the tree had actually agreed to trim it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 5 Mr. Butts replied that his neighbors were on vacation, but said that they would be willing to discuss the subject when they returned. He explained that they had trimmed their trees in the past for views and he felt confident they would be cooperative this time, as well. Commissioner Vannorsdall inquired if Mr. Butts was opposed to any second story addition on the subject property. Mr. Butts responded that he was not entirely opposed to a second story addition, but preferred that this particular addition be scaled back on the southeast end to protect his views. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Butts if he was willing to compromise and he said he was. Chairman Alberio wondered if privacy was an issue and Mr. Butts said it was, as the windows from the proposed addition would look down into the family room of his home. Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to Close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Commissioner Hayes noted that, although she not present at the June 28, 1994 Planning commission meeting when this project was first discussed, she felt comfortable participating because she had visited the site, listened to the tapes, and read the minutes and reports pertaining to this item. Vice Chairman Mowlds was not in favor of reducing the size of the second story by expanding the first floor of the residence since this would increase lot coverage and crowd the setbacks. He mentioned that the original house was built far from the setbacks, which was to be encouraged, and that the applicant had followed direction from the Planning commission to provide significant articulation. However, he felt that possible invasion of privacy from windows on the proposed addition should be discussed further. Associate Planner Silverman replied that Staff was not necessarily encouraging the applicant to build out to the setback area, but it was a possible alternative. Other, more preferred, options for reducing bulk would be to eliminate two vaulted areas or to remove the roof from a second floor deck adjacent to the master bedroom. She added that two pieces of correspondence, in opposition to the project, had been received from the property owner of 54 Rockinghorse, which is a rental property. Vice Chairman Mowlds was not in favor of removing the vaulted areas, as a solution to reducing bulk and mass, because the structure could become sterile and lose the character the homeowner PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 6 0 desired. 0 Chairman Alberio asked Associate Planner Silverman if the applicants' plan complied with the Code's open space and setback requirements and she said that they were in compliance. Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested that the wood trellis be taken off the second story deck to further reduce bulk of the addition. He also encouraged further discussion of the window/privacy issue. Vice Chairman Movlds moved, seconded by commissioner Hayes to Re - Open the Public Hearing. Approved (6-0). Mr. Tom Blair was recalled to the podium by Chairman Alberio who asked him if he was willing to install opaque glass in the windows in question and remove the trellis from the upper deck. Mr. Blair indicated that he would be willing to make this change and noted that the windows are for the entry or bathroom to provide light and ventilation, and that the branches of a large tree near the upper level deck will perform the same function as the trellis. Commissioner Hayes asked the distance between the Naghi and Butts residences and Mr. Blair replied that he was not sure, but that it was a long distance. Commissioner Hayes agreed and felt that binoculars would be needed to invade the neighbor's privacy. Mr. Blair commented that other factors which protect privacy include the isolated location provided by the generous setbacks and large trees. Dr. Ben Naghi —returned to the podium and showed Planning Administrator Petru photographs from his roof toward Mr. and Mrs. Butts' home, indicating that their house could barely be seen from that perspective. Mr. Jim Butts returned to the podium to state that the windows and privacy issue were not his main objection and repeated that he was concerned about the loss of his views. Vice Chairman Mowlds walked to the podium and showed Mr. Butts a series of photographs provided by the applicant. Together, they made determinations of locations for each photograph, when possible, but Mr. Butts indicated that these photographs did not illustrate his view problem and provided photographs of his own. Associate Planner Silverman advised that there was no way of verifying that evening whether or not any of the photographs submitted by either party were taken from the viewing area as defined by the Development Code. She emphasized that the location from which the photograph were taken could be extremely significant PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 7 when using photographs to analyze the potential view impacts. Vice Chairman Mowlds and Mr. Butts then labeled Mr. Butts' photographs. Commissioner Hayes moved to Close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds passed the photographs among the other Commissioners. He pointed out that Mr. Butts' photographs labeled "C" through "E" were taken from inside Mr. and Mrs. Butts' house or from the edge of their patio and noted that the view of the temporary frame silhouette on Dr. and Mrs. Naghi's home in the background gave an indication of the view impact and the distance between the two residences. Mr. Mowlds' opinion was that the distance was great enough to have little effect on privacy. vice Chairman Mowlds moved to accept the applicant's proposed drawing as shown with the condition that the trellis and the roof be :removed from the upper deck and that opaque glass be used in all windows facing the residences at 54 Rockinghorse Road and 55 Roc:kinghorse Road, seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Approved (6-0). Planning Administrator Petru informed the Commission that a P.C. Resolution for approval of the revised project would be brought back to the September 13, 1994 meeting. Chairman Alberio added that the 15 -day appeal period would begin after the Planning Commission has adopted the P.C. Resolution at the next meeting. RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 8:06 P.M. and reconvened at 8:20 P.M. B. REVISIONS TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 50666 AND 50667, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 162 AND 163, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1541, ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO EIR NO. 36, AND (NEW) VARIANCE NO. 380 (OCEAN TRAILS); Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company, Inc. and Zuckerman Building Company, Coastal Subregions 7 and 8. (CP) Planning Administrator Petru stated that the Staff Report with the bulk of the P.C. Resolutions for the Ocean Trails project were delivered to the Planning Commission on the Saturday before the meeting. They were missing one set of Conditions of Approval for the Residential Planned Development associated with Conditional Use Permit No. 162 and this document was distributed before tonight's meeting. Ms. petru noted that there had been some additions to the P.C. Resolutions since their distribution to this Commission and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 8 that she would review these changes later. She also mentioned that she had received comments on the Variance Resolution from City Attorney Carol Lynch and these revisions had been distributed this evening also. Planning Administrator Petru introduced Mr. Quinn Barrow, a representative from the City Attorney's office, who was assisting in Carol Lynch's absence, and thanked him for attending the meeting. Ms. Petru discussed the late correspondence mentioned at the beginning of the meeting and a memo dated August 23, 1994 from Commissioner Vannorsdall regarding the location of the golf course maintenance facility. Planning Administrator Petru then described, in detail, the changes to the P.C. Resolutions, as follows: CUP 162 - Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 13, Permit Expiration and Completion Deadline: This condition was inadvertently omitted from the original project, therefore, Condition C.1 is being added, which states that this Conditional Use Permit expires two years from the date that the Coastal Commission takes final action on this project. This is consistent with language found in the other Conditions of Approval for the golf course (Conditional Use Permit No. 163) and the two vesting tentative tract maps. Page 4, Conditions F.1c and F.1d, Tract Fencing Plan: The requirements for fencing within the rear yard and street side setback areas were modified, based on the new lot configurations in each tract. Page 6, Condition R.1, Common Open Space Bonds: This section was not changed except to list for each tract those lots which will be used in calculating the minimum 30% common open space requirement. Page 7, Condition L.2, CC&R's: Staff added to the legal agreements and documents necessary to establish the Homeowners Association, the dedication of the common open space lots, which had previously not been specifically mentioned. Page 10, Conditions P.1 and P.2, Setbacks: Staff modified these conditions so that the sideyard setback requirements were tied to lot size, for example, the most stringent sideyard setback requirements were put on the largest lot for both tracts. Also, for Tract No. 50667, the front yard setbacks were decreased from 35" to 2511, for several lots that would have a very narrow lot depth. Page 12, Condition 5.6, Heights: Since the last hearing, Staff received several calls from landowners in the Seaview tract who were concerned about the increase in the height of the clubhouse PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 9 and the fact that, even though the higher clubhouse might not block the views from the homes in Seaview, it would definitely affect some of the views within the tract, particularly Lots 6, 7, and 8. Once the developer sold these lots, the owners would seek a Conditional Use Permit revision to increase the approved ridge height of their lot in order to gain a view over the clubhouse or the other homes in front of them who had increased their ridge heights. To preclude that, Staff crafted Condition No. 6 to prohibit the application for a Conditional Use Permit revision to increase the approved ridge height and to require covenants to be placed on the single family lots within both tracts, so that future landowners are put on notice through their deeds that the maximum heights have already been established for this tract. Variance Resolution Clubhouse Height: Since the last meeting, Staff has had discussions with the developer and they have agreed to lower the height of the clubhouse by 2'. Now they are requesting a 161 height increase, rather than an 18, increase, over the 301 height limit, for architectural features, such as the stairway tower and the chimneys. Therefore, the Resolution was modified accordingly. Section 1, Paragraphs 1 and 2: This section was expanded by two paragraphs to include findings regarding the Addendum Environmental Impact Report. Planning Administrator Petru asked that the same language be included in each of the six other Resolutions before the Planning Commission to explain why an Addendum EIR was appropriate in this case and why it was consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Section 1, Paragraph 3: The last sentence was revised to reference the previous City Council and Planning Commission actions on the environmental documents prepared for this project. Section 2: A section was added stating that, although there are other sites in the Coastal Zone which are zoned for or allow visitor -serving uses, in particular Long Point or in Subregion 1, which have more favorable geologic conditions than the project site, neither of those properties are large enough to accommodate an 18 -hole golf course, residential tract, and public open space. Therefore, there are physical constraints on the property which create special circumstances not found on similar properties. Section 4: This section originally discussed the visual impacts of increasing the height of the clubhouse only as it affected the lots within the tract. It has been expanded to include the finding that, even at the increased height, the highest point of the clubhouse is still below the elevation of the proposed homes parallel to Palos Verdes Drive South. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 10 Section 7: This section was modified to include not only the maximum downslope height of the structure, but also the maximum upslope height, for additional clarity. Regarding Section 7, Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if the 381 downslope height was measured from the grade adjacent to the lowest foundation and if that was in accordance with the developers new plan to lower the clubhouse height by 21. Planning Administrator Petru said yes and added that this height is consistent with the developer's current drawings, which were reviewed by the Commission. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 - Conditions of Approval Condition L.16, Trails: Staff had originally indicated that there would be two trails going down either side of the clubhouse structure in order to connect the public roadway with the *park. The new suggestion is to extend the trail to form a loop around Halfway Point Park to offset the elimination of the Mariposa Lily Point trail in the West Bluff Preserve Area, due to the presence of sensitive plant species. Condition L.17, Trails: Originally the Coastal Commission had required that the trail down to the shoreline from Half Way Point Park be handicapped accessible. After it was discovered that a significant amount of grading would be required to accomplish this, resulting in damage to the bluff face and habitat areas, it was suggested a loop trail around Hole 18 be provided as an alternative. However, the developer's engineer discovered that there is too much of a grade change to meet State handicap accessible requirements. Therefore, Condition L.17 has been modified to create a trail on the northern side of Hole 18 to be handicapped accessible to the greatest extent possible. At the terminus, when the grade becomes too steep, there would be a shaded rest stop and anyone using it for handicapped purposes could then turn around at that point and proceed back to Half Way Point Park. Condition L.18# Trails: This is a new condition because Staff had forgotten to include a 61 wide pedestrian trail along the south side of La Rotonda Drive which was a coastal Commission requirement. Chairman Alberio asked if the opponents to the project were invited when the City met with the coastal Commission Staff to discuss the trails on the property and Planning Administrator Petru indicated that they were invited to attend, but declined. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 11 Conditional Use Permit No. 163 - Conditions of Approval Condition C.1, Golf Course Clubhouse: In respect to the location of the clubhouse, Staff prepared a clarification, to address the comments received from the Coastal Commission Staff regarding for the need for a visual connection between Paseo del Mar and Half Way Point Park. Additional language has been added to allow the location of the clubhouse to be moved slightly to the west, subject to the review and approval of the Director. Condition 2.B.H, Maintenance Facility: Staff had suggested that the golf course maintenance facility building be rotated 90 degrees so that the service doors faced away from Palos Verdes Drives South and the homes in the Seacliff Hills tract. When the noise analysis was performed for the original Environmental Impact Report, the clubhouse was at this location. The noise impact was found to be insignificant and the maintenance facility will be a less intensive use, therefore the maintenance facility would not create a significant noise impact. A memo from Commissioner Vannorsdall discussed some of the disadvantages of rotating that structure. The developer performed a line of sight study which shows that there is a knoll between the maintenance facility and the ocean Terraces Condominiums which will act as a sound buffer. In addition, the developer proposed that a 61 block wall be built around the maintenance facility for security, sound attenuation and visual screening. A higher wall would require a Variance. Chairman Alberio asked Mr. Quinn Barrow from the City Attorney's office if the Commission had the power at this meeting to increase the height of the wall and Mr. Barrow said that this would not be possible without a noticed public hearing on the Variance request. He added that the Commission could make a suggestion to the City Council that a higher wall would be preferable. Commissioner Hayes stated, for the record, that, even though she had not been present at the last hearing on August 9, 1994, she had read the draft minutes, listened to the tape, read all the Staff Reports and felt qualified to participate on this item. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the maintenance building would be visible from the Ocean Terrace Condominiums. Planning Administrator Petru clarified that the maintenance facility would not be visible from the Ocean Terraces Condominiums because of a knoll on one of the golf course holes. Chairman Alberio added that the maintenance facility would be at lower elevation than Ocean Terraces. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 12 Planning Administrator Petru said that not only is it at a lower elevation, but also that the structure was being graded into the hillside. This was done to protect views and for aesthetic purposes, although it also acts to buffer unwanted noise, as well. Chairman Alberio noted that the maintenance facility would also be turned not only toward Ocean Terraces but also toward the Ocean Trails proposed housing development. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the line of sight from the maintenance facility to these new homes. Planning Administrator Petru replied that a line of sight study had not been performed, but it appeared that the facility may be visible from Lots 35 and 36. Commissioner Vannorsdall expected the noise level from the maintenance facility to be approximately 65 to 70 dBa, which is acceptable by State standards. Chairman Alberio asked the distance of the maintenance facility to Ocean Terraces and Planning Administrator Petru reported that it was about 2,500 feet. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the line of sight going in the opposite direction. Planning Administrator Petru answered that the Planning Commissioners were furnished previously with copies of architectural drawings indicating that a person would have to be standing on the roof of the maintenance facility in order to see the homes in Seacliff Hills. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he now felt comfortable with the rotation of the maintenance facility. Commissioner Hayes asked Planning Administrator Petru for her recommendation and Ms. Petru said that she thought it would be best to orient the building to the southwest to minimize noise impact and to face the narrow end of the building toward Palos Verdes Drive South. The Public Hearing was still open from the previous hearing on August 9, 1994. Mr. Michael A. Mohler, applicant, 25200 La Paz, Suite 210, Laguna Hills, CA. Mr. Mohler agreed that the noise impact and line of sight issues had been resolved and he did not believe that a portion of the clubhouse roof would interfere with the magnificent view of the ocean and Catalina Island from the homes in Sea Cliff PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 13 Hills. He stated his support of the additional CEQA findings being applied to all of the Resolutions. Mr. Mohler was also in agreement with the solution to provide a handicapped accessible trail east of Half Way Point Park and the 61 wide pedestrian trail along La Rotonda. Regarding Condition C.1 for Conditional Use Permit 163, he felt the inclusion of this condition was in order. He also stated that the rotation of the maintenance facility was satisfactory. Richard Bara, I Peppertree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Bara noted that, because the plans seem to be in constant change, he was not sure his comments were applicable. He objected to the narrow width of the bluff top corridor and urged the Planning Commission to widen these areas. The bluff top corridor west of Half Way Point Park was proposed to be 1001 wide and he felt it should be 3001. The east side was proposed to be only 251 wide. There were no paths there and he assumed the area was for plants and animals. He felt that area should be widened to at least 501 to provide for future cliff erosion. Mr. Bara also stated that he felt the entire plan was incomplete because of the possibility of acquiring the land owned by the Palos Verdes Unified School District. When this land was obtained (and he felt it would be), the whole project would have to be redesigned, so he urged the Planning Commission to deny the plan until this matter was resolved. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue wondered why the environmentalists who had attended the previous meeting were not present. She added that she had great respect for Mr. Frank Angel, an attorney experienced in these type of developments who had attended the last hearing, and felt that he was correct that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was required, rather than an Addendum. If a wall was needed around the maintenance facility, she strongly encouraged the Commissioners to make sure it was an attractive wall, hopefully of Palos Verdes stone, in keeping with the community. Mr. Mike Mohler (returning to the podium for rebuttal) emphasized that the buffers within the habitat area were created by the Coastal Commission and that he would not have volunteered over a half million dollars of Mr. Zuckerman or Mr. Hon's money on habitat improvements or to build trails through County parks if it hadn't been required, and the City Planning Staff can verify this fact. He added that they had no intention of building anything other than attractive walls within the entire project. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about negotiations on the School District property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 14 Chairman Alberio and Vice Chairman Mowlds both stated that this was not an appropriate subject for this hearing. Mr. Mohler said he didn't mind discussing the negotiation, but he did not feel that it was a foregone conclusion that the land would be obtained. He concluded by saying that, if land is obtained, they did realize they would have amend the project. Commissioner Hayes moved to Close the Public Hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Mowlds. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to accept the addition language proposed by the Staff as part of all subsequent approvals or recommendations for approval on the Ocean Trails project. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck and Approved (6-0). vice Chairman Mowlds moved to recommend approval of the draft Addendum No. 3 to EIR No. 36 to City Council, seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to recommend approval of the revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached in Exhibit "A", to City Council, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to recommend approval of the revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached in Exhibit "A", to City Council, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to approve the revised CUP No. 162, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached in Exhibit "A", seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to approve the revised CUP No. 163, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval attached in Exhibit "A", seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to approve the revision to the Grading Permit No. 1541, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached in Exhibit "A", seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved (6-0). Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to approve Variance 380, as revised by Staff, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (6-0). Planning Administrator Petru noted that these P.C. Resolutions were Adopted and the 15 -day appeal period would begin tomorrow. The developer has indicated that they will file an appeal the next day, so that the Council can consider the entire project. A public hearing had already been noticed for the City Council meeting of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 15 September 6, 1994. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the September 6, 1994 meeting. B. COMMISSION 1. On behalf of the Commission, Chairman Alberio expressed thanks to Mr. Quinn Barrow from the City Attorney's office for attending the meeting and providing assistance on the "Ocean Trails" project. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) - NONE ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Wang moved, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck, to adjourn at 9:17 P.M. to its regular meeting on September 13, 1994. Approved (6-0). (AID MMUTFS DISK #4 - MIN8 23) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 16