PC MINS 19950509•
APPROVED ,$
6 6/13/95 *7
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
May 9, 1995
The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairman Mowlds
at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Vice Chair Hayes.
PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck,
Vice Chair Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds.
ABSENT: Commissioner Ferraro (excused).
Also present were Planning Administrator Petru, Assistant
Planners de Freitas and Klopfenstein, and Recording Secretary
Drasco.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairman Mowlds requested that Item 2 be moved to the end of the
agenda. Approved, as re -ordered, (6-0).
COMMUNICATIONS
Staff:
Planning Administrator Petru noted that there were two pieces of
late correspondence for Item 5, a letter from the applicant's
attorney requesting that the Commission hear the item that
evening and a letter from a neighborhood resident in opposition
to the request.
Commission: NONE
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of April 25, 1995
0
Approved, as written, (7-0).
CONTINUED BUSINESS (NO ITEMS)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(Item 2 was moved to the end of the agenda)
NEW BUSINESS
a
3. MISCELLANEOUS HEARING; Mr. Greg Gawlik, 16 Seacove Drive.
(FF) .
Commissioner Alberio moved to waive reading of the Staff Report,
seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6-0).
Chairman Mowlds asked for comments from the Commission and there
were none.
Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the request as recommended
by Staff, seconded by Vice Chair Hayes. Approved, (6-0).
4. SIGN PERMIT NO. 736; Olde Discount Brokers, 450 Silver Spur
Road. (KK)
Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to waive reading of the Staff
Report, seconded by commissioner Wang. Approved, (6-0).
q
Chairman Mowlds asked Staff to clarify the option of lit and
unlit signs.
Assistant Planner Klopfenstein explained that the applicant was
requesting approval for illuminated wall signs, with channel
letters mounted on metal raceways, as depicted on the photo
board.
Planning Administrator Petru added that Staff was recommending
non -illuminated wall signs, which would eliminate the raceways
and make a better looking sign. In addition, non -illuminated
wall signs would be consistent with the other wall signs approved
for office buildings on the north side of Silver Spur Road. She
noted that the illuminated monument sign would provide
identification at night.
Vice Chair Hayes questioned the need for wall signs on both
elevations of the building.
Chairman Mowlds believed that this configuration would be
acceptable as the signs would be unlit and with no raceways. He
asked the other Commissioners if they had any objections.
Vice Chair Hayes said she would not oppose that concept, if the
other Commissioners were in favor of the proposed design.
Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept the Staff's
recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved by
Minute order, (6-0).
5. EXTENSION REQUEST ON APPROVALS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 131, VARIANCE NO. 182, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1066;
Marriott Corporation Senior Lifecare Facility, northwest
corner of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. (DJ)
Chairman Mowlds pointed out that the applicant had recently
submitted a letter requesting a continuance of this item.
However, that evening the Commission had received a letter from
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 2
the applicant's attorney requesting that the item not be
continued, but heard that evening. He felt the second letter was
received too late for the Commission to digest its contents, and
that'the Commission had not studied the request over the weekend
because of the prior continuation request. Mr. Mowlds asked the
other commissioners to comment.
Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed that the Commission had not had
time to study the letter from the applicant's attorney.
Commissioner Alberio concurred, but wondered if the applicant's
attorney might be able to explain the contents of the letter and
that possibly a decision could be made that evening.
Chairman Mowlds indicated that he would not be willing to vote
because of the last minute decision on the applicant's part to
hear the item rather than continue it to the next meeting.
A discussion ensued between the Commissioners as to whether or
not the speakers should be heard. It was the consensus of the
Commission that, regardless of the continuance, public testimony
would be heard that evening.
Vice Chair Hayes moved to continue the item to May 23, 1995,
seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6-0).
Ms. Lisa Weinberc
a (applicant's attorney), Cox, Castle, Nicholson,
2049 Century Park East, #2800, Los Angeles, CA 90067. Ms.
Weinberg agreed that the Commission should wait to make a
decision on the time extension request. She then provided the
Commission with a brief history of the project approval and
subsequent litigation. Ms. Weinberg emphasized that the project
did not require a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, or a
Parcel Map. She believed the project conformed to the City's
requirements. Even though this had been a solid project, because
of litigation, it was held up until August of 1992.
Ms. Weinberg pointed out that, even though some cities do allow
for automatic renewals during litigation, the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes does not. Therefore, because the original approval
was valid for only two years, with additional one year approvals
allowed by the Planning Commission, Marriott had to come back
every year since 1991 for additional time extensions. By 1993,
the litigation was resolved but the market had changed and
financing was not available for the project. In addition,
Marriott began reorganizing, so extensions were requested and
approved in 1993 and 1994. Even though the Staff Report states
that five extensions have been granted, until the litigation was
resolved, no action could have been taken to move forward with
the project.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 3
Ms. Weinberg went on to explain that, in 1993, the State of
California recognized that the economy, and specifically real
estate development, were in dire straits and passed an emergency
statute in September 1993 automatically extending all tentative
maps for an extra two years. If this project had required a map,
an automatic extension would have been granted to 1996, but this
was not the case. Ms. Weinberg said that, in fact, the city had
informed Marriott that they were entitled to the extra two years,
but that Marriott informed the City that a parcel map application
had been withdrawn before the project was approved by the City
and that Marriott would need to ask for additional time
extensions.
Commissioner Alberio asked Ms. Weinberg if the letter the
Commission had received that evening contained the information
she had just related.
Ms. Weinberg replied that there was less detail in the letter
regarding the history of the project. However, there was
information in the letter that she had not discussed, such as the
fact that there had been no physical changes to the property or
surrounding areas, so that there were no new land use issues
requiring further review.
Commissioner Alberio asked, since the economy had improved, what
was the next action to be taken by Marriott. He also asked about
the apparent difficulty of Marriott's representatives to meet
with the City Staff to discuss the project.
Ms. Weinberg said that there were scheduling difficulties, but
that a meeting was finally held about a week before this
evening's meetings between representatives of Marriott, the City,
and Mr. Ashenbrenner, a potential buyer of the property. She
reported that Mr. Ashenbrenner was hoping to begin developing the
property in the next few months and she urged the Planning
Commission to approve the extension so that the facility could be
built.
Mr. Rick Ashenbrenner, Morningside Continuing Care Retirement
Community, 800 Morningside Drive, Fullerton, CA 92635. Mr.
Ashenbrenner explained that he and his partners have an option
agreement on this property with Marriott. He noted that Marriott
carefully screened his company's qualifications and history, and
even visited the Morningside facility in Fullerton. He invited
the Commissioners to also visit Morningside and indicated that he
had brought a slide presentation on the facility, if time
permitted. Mr. Ashenbrenner emphasized that he and his partners
had the financial ability to build this project, that they built
a high quality development, that they had experience working
closely with cities, and that they liked the property and the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 4
proposed facility. He reported that in addition to the group of
partners, their general and financial partner is Mr. Warren
Spieker, Jr., who is the Chairman and CEO of a public REIT on the
New York Stock Exchange that bears his name, with over a billion
dollars in assets and over 18 million square feet of property.
Mr. Ashenbrenner described the Morningside community as 30% to
40% larger than the proposed Marriott project and indicated that
it was financed in a recession with $35 million of partners' cash
and a $65 million construction loan, personally guaranteed to the
Bank of America, which he felt indicated that they are a group of
people who can get a job done. Mr. Ashenbrenner closed by
stressing the need for such a facility on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula.
Commissioner Alberio noted that he believed the reason a
controversial project such as this was approved originally was
because a large corporation like Marriott was involved. He felt
that, even with the qualifications Mr. Ashenbrenner listed,
Marriott was now potentially assigning the approval to a
different group and that there might be a need for further
review.
Commissioner whiteneck believed that if financing were available
and the project could be built soon, even by a new group, an
extension was reasonable. However, he was unwilling to see a new
landowner draw out the process for another five years.
Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Ashenbrenner when he
anticipated that construction of the project would begin.
Mr. Ashenbrenner explained that the State required that there be
a certain minimum number of pre -sales before construction could
begin, in order to protect the buyers. He added that, assuming
his company could purchase the property in approximately five
months, they would be in a position to pre -sell units in the next
five to eight months, with the hope that grading could begin in
the summer of 1996.
Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if a one-year extension would be
sufficient time to begin construction on the project.
Mr. Ashenbrenner replied that he hoped they would have a building
permit at about that same time next year.
A discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Ashenbrenner,
during which time it was determined that about 35 units would
need to be pre -sold (which would take about five to six months),
that bonds would not be involved, and that if the State's
requirements could not be met, the property would revert back to
Marriott.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 5
Planning Administrator Petru clarified that, as stated in the
Staff Report, if the applicant could put plans into plan check
before April 6, 1996, the permit would be kept active. Because
the plan check process might be lengthy, it was conceivable that
the project might not be built for two to three years. She added
that a building permit was issued for six months with one six
month extension.
Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Ashenbrenner if he was prepared to
follow through with what could be a lengthy process.
Mr. Ashenbrenner answered that he realized that there was a
formidable set of requirements to be met, and that his company
was willing to comply with the city's requirements.
Ms. Luella Wike, 29172 Oceanridge, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Wike
objected to the massive size of the project, the grading of
260,000 cubic yards (which she considered excessive), and
possible view impairment for the members of the Mesa Palos Verdes
Homeowners Association. She indicated that she had been present
at the original hearings and did not understand why the tallest
building, the hospital, was proposed to be built on the highest
elevation of the property. She noted that Rolling Hills Estates,
ordinance limited the number of truckloads of dirt which could
travel down Crenshaw Boulevard. Therefore, the trucks hauling
dirt from the property would have to be routed along Hawthorne
Boulevard, which would severely impact traffic. She urged the
Commission to deny the extension and stated that the automatic
two-year extension granted by the State did not apply because
there was no tentative map associated with the project.
Mr. Daniel Blatt, 29225 Stonecrest, Rolling Hills Estates,
Secretary of the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association. Mr.
Blatt objected to the size of the project, the blocking of views,
and excessive grading. He stated that he was only slightly
familiar with the Marriott re -organization, but did know that the
bond holders were bitter about how it had been handled. He
realized that the litigation had slowed the process, but felt
that changed economic conditions did not make the project
feasible, particularly since a similar facility, the Canterbury
was not fully occupied. Mr. Blatt also was concerned about the
dirt hauling, stating that the huge slow trucks traveling down
Hawthorne Boulevard would slow traffic considerably and that the
sharp curve from Hawthorne Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway
would be hard for the large trucks to maneuver, causing traffic
problems in that already congested intersection. He urged the
Commission to deny the extension.
Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms.
Larue, having attended the hearings in which the approval for
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 6
•
0
this project was granted, spoke in support of the members of the
Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association. She felt that the
severe alteration of the topography at this site was illegal and
unnecessary. She urged the Commission to deny the extension.
Commissioner Alberio pointed out that the only issue before the
Commission was whether or not to grant the one-year extension and
not the merits of the project. He -believed that this decision
could be made that night and noted that the Commission's decision
could be appealed to,the City Council.
The consensus of the other Commissioners was that more time was
required to study the situation.
Vice Chair Hayes moved to continue this
seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall.
Commissioner Alberio dissenting.
NEW BUSINESS (continued)
(item 2 was heard out of order)
item to May 23, 1995,
Approved (5-1) with
2. HEIGHT VARIATION 806 - APPEAL; Gus and Kimberly Mantikas, 60
Avenida Corona. (KK)
Commissioner Wang recused herself from considering this item and
left the dais.
Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report and
stated that Staff was recommending that the Director's decision
to deny the project be upheld and that the appeal be denied.
Even though the project has been redesigned, Staff felt that the
second story was still not adequately articulated. The applicant
and architect had rejected the articulation suggested by Staff
because it would significantly alter the proposed architectural
style of the residence. Additionally, the proposed design may
impair views of surrounding residents, even though currently
views are obstructed by mature pine trees on the property.
Commissioner Vannorsdall asked how long the home down the street
at 8 La Vista Verde had been under construction, stating that he
had been told it was begun about two years ago. He believed this
structure was not well articulated and wondered if this Planning
Commission had approved it.
Assistant Planner Klopfenstein replied that she was not sure of
the project history at that address, but that the addition had
been approved after the passage of Proposition M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 7
Commissioner Vannorsdall also inquired about the home across the
street at 10 La Vista Verde.
Assistant Planner Klopfenstein answered that this project was
approved by Staff in 1990, after Proposition M was passed, and
that it was determined, at that time, to be compatible with the
existing neighborhood character.
Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that the homes across the street
were at a higher elevation than the subject property.
Planning Administrator Petru offered to research the history of 8
La Vista Verde if the commission wished, but she echoed the
comments made by Assistant Planner Klopfenstein that many of the
second story additions approved shortly after the passage of
Proposition M were not articulated to the degree that this
particular Planning Commission has requested. At the time, Staff
placed a greater emphasis on the square footage rather than
articulation.
Commissioner Whiteneck asked why, specifically, the architect
objected to providing more facade articulation.
Assistant Planner Klopfenstein deferred to the architect, who was
present at the meeting.
Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded
by commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (5-0-1), with Commissioner
Wang abstaining as she recused herself from hearing this item.
Mr. Juan Kivotos (applicant's architect), 1323 N. Niagara Street,
Burbank, CA 91505. Mr. Kivotos was concerned that the proposed
architectural style be preserved and felt that articulation of
the second story front facade would destroy the Georgian style of
this home, although he agreed that articulation was normally
desirable and possible with most architectural styles. Mr.
Kivotos distributed photographs of two homes of similar size,
which he felt were "hybrid" styles and, even though he did not
consider himself a "purist", he did not want to create an
unattractive home.
Chairman Mowlds commented on the two homes illustrated in the
photographs and stated that he was familiar with both houses and
they were designed (in modified Jeffersonian and Williamsburg
styles) to comply with City requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 8
Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that the house above the subject
property would have a view blocked by the proposed second story.
In addition, Mr. Vannorsdall believed that similar view blockage
would be created by second story additions to the houses all the
way down the street, resulting in a cumulative view problem.
Mr. Kivotos questioned how much of the view would be blocked
since the homes across the street were at a much higher elevation
and the main view was to the northeast, which would be on the
right side of the subject property. Mr. Kivotos also noted that
a second story might not necessarily block someone's view, due to
the existing mature foliage on the property.
Assistant Planner Klopfenstein explained that, pursuant to the
requirements of the Development Code, view impairment had to be
examined regardless of the existing foliage. She added that a
landowner was allowed to build up to 161 regardless of view
impairment and, above that height, potential view impacts must be
considered.
Mr. Howard Johnson, 59 Avenida Corona, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr.
Johnson stated that he lived down the street (to the north) from
the subject property). He indicated that he and his wife had
written letters in opposition to the proposal and was concerned
by the loss of privacy, blockage of sunlight and added that he
preferred low profile houses. If the project was approved, there
were certain issues he wanted the Commission to address. Mr.
Johnson requested that the property lines at 60 Avenida Corona be
surveyed, as his own property had been when he added on to his
home in the past. His other concerns were: the long period of
time the construction may take to be completed; the cost and
responsibility for repairing roads damaged by construction
vehicles; construction vehicles turning around in his driveway;
and, construction workers using his yard for a rest room.
Commissioner Alberio asked if there was a Homeowners Association
for the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said that there had been one,
but that it was now inactive.
Commissioner Vannorsdall said that, while visiting the property,
he had met a neighbor who said that she would forward a copy of
the CC&Rfs to the City.
Commissioner Alberio was also interested in the CC&Rfs, stating
that they might provide restrictions regarding the subject
proposal. Mr. Alberio believed that the roads were private in
this area and, therefore, the homeowners would be responsible to
pay for any road damage.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 9
•
•
When Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the CC&Rfs had been
delivered to the City. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein said that
she was not aware of any such document being delivered, but that
she could check the files.
Mr. Paul Mathews, 57 Avenida Corona, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr.
Mathews advised that he lived across the street and two houses
away from the subject property. He stated that he and his wife
were opposed the project because of view impairment (although
their own view would not be significantly obscured) and blockage
of the skyline. Mr. Mathews stated that his home was built in
1957 under the control of Truman Browny Enterprises and that
there was an art jury in place at that time. The homes were
intended to be single -story ranch -style homes with a country
ambiance in the neighborhood. As time passed, enforcement of the
CC&Rls was relaxed, the art jury was eliminated and the County
Codes were lenient. When the City was incorporated, there was
greater control with respect for views, but there were still two-
story homes being allowed. Mr. Mathews noted that his neighbor
Dr. Jason Hung had not been able to attend the meeting, but that
he had written a letter regarding view impairment from his home
if the project was approved. Mr. Mathews closed by stating that
he felt the country atmosphere in the neighborhood was being
destroyed by two-story homes.
Commissioner Alberio asked if the CC&Rls were no longer
enforceable and Mr. Mathews said that another speaker, Mr.
Nordhagen, would be better able to answer that question.
Chairman Mowlds believed that, since there were so many two-story
homes and homes of various styles (some of which were very
modern), the homogeneity of the neighborhood was already a thing
of the past.
Mr. Mathews did not see that a reason for approving more two-
story homes.
Chairman Mowlds emphasized that he had not said that. However,
he did feel that times had changed significantly since the
original homes were built and that homeowners' needs were
different today.
Mr. A. B. (Arnold) Nordhagen, 2 La Vista Verde, Rancho Palos
Verdes. Mr. Nordhagen stated that he opposed the project, along
with his wife, Ruth. He related the history of the neighborhood
since they had moved there in 1951, stating that originally there
were only one -acre parcels, then one -half -acre parcels were sold.
Mr. Nordhagen read from the original public report issued when
the area was subdivided by Truman Browny, quoting that "no
building or construction shall be erected or maintained thereon
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 10
of more than one story in height without written approval of said
grantor, Truman Browny." He closed by saying that his objection
to the project was the blockage of the sky and he urged the
Commission to deny the appeal.
Commissioner Vannorsdall asked where Mr. Nordhagen's home was in
relation to the subject property.
Mr. Nordhagen said that his house was the second from the gate
house on La Vista Verde, overlooking Mr. Johnson's home. He
emphasized that he did not believe the proposed house was
compatible with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Alberio speculated that Mr. Nordhagen's view would
not be not impacted by the proposed second story addition.
Mr. Nordhagen said he would still have his view, but he would
also see a huge house, if the project was approved by the City.
Commissioner Alberio asked if the CC&R's had expired and, if so,
had they ever been renewed.
Mr. Nordhagen replied that the CC&R's were in effect for 25
years, expiring in 1978, and that they were never renewed, to his
knowledge.
Ms. Jo Boeam, 6 La Vista Verde, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Boeam
advised that she was in favor of the proposed construction. She
believed that Mr. and Mrs. Mantikas had a large lot and that the
house would occupy only a small portion of the property. She
felt that the house at 10 La Vista Verde was unattractive,
because it was so close to the front of the property, unlike the
subject project.
Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded
by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (5-0-1), with Commissioner
Wang abstaining.
Commissioner Vannorsdall believed that the key issue was view
blockage and that there was a potential for a cumulative view
problem, especially down the street on the lower side. He felt
that articulation was important, but not as important as
protecting the views in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Whiteneck said that, when he visited the site, he
spoke with one of the neighbors, Dr. Hung. It appeared to Mr.
Whiteneck that the view from Dr. Hung's balcony would still be
intact, but a person would have to move back slightly on the
balcony to see it. Mr. Whiteneck wondered if the trees blocking
the view were going to be removed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 11
0 0 "
Chairman Mowlds and Commissioner Alberio stated that the trees
were going to be removed, due to the construction of a new
driveway.
Vice Chair Hayes expressed her opinion that the wide building,
with only 51 setbacks on each side, made the structure look
bigger and bulkier than it actually was.
Commissioner Alberio said that he would like to see articulation
regardless of the architectural style of the residence and
believed that the roofline could be softened. He believed that
the country atmosphere was still apparent in the neighborhood.
Mr. Alberio stressed that property rights were important and the
concerns of the neighbors were important also, although he did
not feel that invasion of privacy appeared to be a problem in
this case. If it was, he suggested that the landowner, architect
and Staff work together, possibly using obscured glass in some of
the windows.
Chairman Mowlds summarized that the issues were as follows:
Cumulative view impact, possible foliage removal, setbacks,
articulation, size, and privacy. He emphasized that a large
house looked smaller with increased setbacks from the property
boundaries. He believed that a denial was not appropriate but
that more time was needed for the applicant and the architect to
meet with Staff to resolve the problems identified above.
Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the item to provide time
for the applicant to redesign the project.
Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. Kivotos, the applicant's architect, how
much time he would need to redesign the project and he said 30
days.
Planning Administrator Petru indicated that, with the time needed
for Staff review and preparation of the Staff Report, the item
should be continued to July 11, 1995.
The architect asked what his deadline would be to continue the
item to an earlier meeting.
Planning Administrator Petru replied that if Staff received the
redesigned plans by May 26, 1995, they would have sufficient time
to prepare the Staff Report for the June 27, 1995 meeting.
Mr. Kivotos agreed to submit the revised drawing to Staff by May
26, 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 12
The motion was modified, with the approval of the maker, to
continue the item to a date certain, June 27, 1995, and seconded
by vice chair Hayes. Approved (5-0-1), with commissioner Wang
abstaining.
At the request of an audience member, Vice Chair Hayes moved to
hear additional public testimony that evening, seconded by
Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (5-0-1), with Commissioner
Wang abstaining.
Mr. Howard Johnson returned to the speaker's podium to ask if
the City could assist him in determining the legal setbacks from
the current house to his property, because he believed there was
an existing violation.
Planning Administrator Petru responded that, if there was a non-
conformity, since the current house was being demolished, a
condition could be added that, before the building inspection was
signed off for the new foundation, a survey could be required to
verify that the new residence complied with the minimum setback
requirements.
Chairman Mowlds noted that the public hearing had been continued
to a date certain, pursuant to a previous motion.
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:
Staf f :
6. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of
Tuesday, May 23, 1995.
Commission:
There were no requests to place specific items on a future agenda
from any of the Commission members.
COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items):
Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr.
Larue explained the situation regarding a resident, Mr. Harold
Herman (8 La Vista Verde), who had asked for her help in
resolving a dispute he has with the City regarding a second story
addition (Height Variation No. 771).
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 13
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Whiteneck moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner
Wang. The motion carried (7-0) and the meeting was duly
adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be on
May 23, 1995.
(A.JDMIN#9 - MIN5.9)
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
PAGE 14