Loading...
PC MINS 19950523 111 APPROVED 411 6/13/95 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 23, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Mowlds at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Ferraro. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Wang, Vice Chair Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds. ABSENT: Commissioner Whiteneck (excused) Also present were Planning Administrator Petru, Associate Planners Silverman and Jerex, Assistant Planner de Freitas, and Recording Secretary Drasco. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Mowlds suggested that Item 3 be moved to the end of the agenda because of the late correspondence received from the applicant's attorney. Approved, (6-0) . COMMUNICATIONS Staff: Planning Administrator Petru announced that there was a packet of late letters regarding Item 3 (including one from the prospective buyer, one from the applicant's attorney and two from residents) and two late letters regarding Item 6 (one from the applicant and one from a resident) . All these were distributed to the Commission, along with an amended agenda indicating the Public Hearing items. Commission: NONE APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR (NO ITEMS) CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS) ; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Chairman Mowlds said that this continued Public Hearing would be devoted to two separate topics; Affordable Housing and Large Domestic Animals Overlay District. Senior Planner Rojas provided a brief overview regarding Affordable Housing. He said this was a new chapter created by Staff with help from the City's Housing Consultant, Sandra Genis. The Planning Commission had previously conceptually approved the draft language. However, while reviewing the Chapter, the City Attorney felt that it was important that the issues were presented to the Commission in a manner that described exactly what reqtfirements of the Chapter were State law and which ones were optional. Therefore, Ms. Genis has described all the issues of the Chapter in a separate memorandum attached to the Staff Report. In addition, Mr. Rojas pointed out that there was a new Section, beginning on Circle Page 9, which addressed affordable housing requirements for non-residential projects, such as the Salvation Army project or the Long Point Hotel. Even though these types of projects did not include any residential components, Staff and the City Attorney felt that the Planning Commission or the City Council might want to consider adding affordable housing requirements since these types of projects resulting in increased employment opportunities in the City. If the Commission or Council wanted to pursue this concept, Staff would need to conduct a study to determine the appropriate requirements for the Chapter. There were no speakers on this subject. Chairman Mowlds asked if any member of the Commission had any substantive changes (not merely punctuation or grammar, etc.) to this Chapter. No changes were mentioned. Chairman Mowlds asked that punctuation or grammar correction be submitted to the Secretary. commissioner Alberio moved to accept the Affordable Housing Chapter, as written, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Hearing no objection to the motion, Chairman Mowlds stated that this chapter would be forwarded to the City Council for their review. Chairman Mowlds stated that the next portion of the Code to be discussed was Chapter 17.46, the Large Domestic Animal Overlay Control District. Senior Planner Rojas gave a brief overview stating that, as the Commission was well aware, had been several public hearings and much public testimony concerning this Chapter. The Chapter was reviewed with the City Attorney, who made some clarifications to the existing language, but no major revisions to the concepts last approved by the Planning Commission. The only significant new language is a section addressing multiple parcel ownership. Due to enforcement issues created by not allowing a landowner to use their multiple parcels as a single property, the City Attorney suggested that additional development standards, such as increased setbacks, apply to these situations. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 2 • 6 Chairman Mowlds noted that this was a continued public hearing and called for the first speaker. Mr. Robert Maxwell, 7 East Pomegranate Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Maxwell summarized results from the Portuguese Bend Community Association's survey on this subject. He stated that it was determined that most Association members did not want boarding of more than four horses; boarding of more than one horse which did not belong to the landowner; or, commercial boarding of any type. He noted that the final draft of the Development Code Chapter allowed commercial boarding and seemed to allow more horses belonging to non-residents. He stated that there were currently illegal commercial boarding operations and the Community Association had not complained to the City because it has been believed this illegal activity would be stopped at some point. However, Mr. Maxwell felt that the proposed Code Amendment would not stop commercial boarding but assumed that, if the motivation for commercial boarding was removed and the number of horses allowed was limited to three or four horses (regardless of the total acreage owned), the Code would be acceptable to most residents. Mr. Maxwell urged the Commission to protect property values in Portuguese Bend by heeding the results of their Association's survey. Mrs. Kay Bara (representing the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horseman's Association) I Peppertree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Bara declared her opposition to a requirement for a business license for horse keeping, listing reasons as there being too much government interference and not enough revenue to be gained by the City. She also objected to reducing ownership from six to three horses without a business license because she felt this violated property rights. Mrs. Bara urged the Commission not to change the Code at all and stated that the group she represented felt the changes were mean spirited and designed to reduce number of horses in the Portuguese Bend area to prepare for Barry Hon's proposed development of 44 homes and golf course at Peacock Flats. Vice Chair Hayes asked Mrs. Bara how many horses she owned and how many members of her family rode them. Mrs. Bara replied that she owned six horses and that three members of her family rode. Commissioner Ferraro asked how many parcels she owned and how many horses were on each parcel. Mrs. Bara answered that she owned two parcels and that all six horses were kept on one ten -acre parcel. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 3 Mr. Richard Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Bara said that he was opposed to the requirement for a business license for keeping more than three horses, and the requirement that anyone who had more than six horses had to have an additional setback from their neighbor. Mr. Bara said that he did not see the logic in the additional setback requirement, especially when 5' was to be added for each horse. He believed that possibly six horses was the maximum that could be allowed without a business license. Mr. Bara observed at the various Planning Commission hearings that the Commission had often considered a maximum of four horses. He believed that four was a logical number (rather than the three being proposed) because a family of four, two couples, or two children with two friends could ride together. However, Mr. Bara preferred that the present Code remain as currently written. Commissioner Alberio submitted to Mr. Bara the concept that a business license should be required, regardless of the number of horses, depending upon whether a profit was being realized from boarding by the landowner. Mr. Bara agreed and said that the present Code stated just that. Ms. Toni Deeble, 3 East Pomegranate Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Deeble was pleased with the concept that owning any more than three horses would be considered a commercial business. She listed the problems she perceived in the Portuguese Bend such as illegal commercial boarding; increased flies, traffic, and odor; and decreased security and property values. She believed that the Portuguese Bend Community Association's survey results indicated that commercial boarding was a detriment in that area, but she felt it might not be detrimental in the other equestrian zones in the City. Therefore, she felt that, if the new Code were to allow commercial boarding, it should be permitted in the City's other equestrian zones, but not in the Portuguese Bend equestrian zone. Ms. Sharon Hegetschweiler (President of the Portuguese Bend Community Association) 6 Clovetree Place, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Hegetschweiler noted that the Portuguese Bend Community Association survey indicated that the residents were in favor of horses and the rural ambiance, but wanted to restrict the number of horses allowed. The members also believed it should be permissible for a friend's horse to be boarded and ridden in Portuguese Bend, but they were opposed to commercial boarding, wherein people who were not friends of the landowner would stable and ride their horses in Portuguese Bend. Mrs. Hegetschweiler asked the Commission to avoid licensing, which, in her opinion, would change the residential zoning and might have ramifications not intended by the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 4 111 Commissioner Alberio asked the total members of the Portuguese Bend Community Association. Mrs. Hegetschweiler said there were 120 homes on the Narcissa and Peppertree sides, but that the homes on Vanderlip Drive were not included in the Association. Commissioner Alberio asked how the results of the survey reconcile with the Association's CC&R'S. Mrs. Hegetschweiler replied that the Association had not received complaints about horsekeeping issues until recently and then only from just a few residents. She believed it was unfortunate that this problem had been brought to the attention of the Association and the City and had hoped also that enforcement of the CC&R's would not be necessary, as it pitted neighbor against neighbor. Commissioner Alberio asked if enforcement of the CC&R's had resulted in a lawsuit in the past and Mrs. Hegetschweiler said that it had not, to her knowledge. Ms. Betty Strauss, 10 West Pomegranate, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Strauss, who said she had lived in the area for 38 years, summed up the current equestrian issue by stating that she felt the proposed draft language changes to the Code would change the zoning in the neighborhood to allow commercial boarding and that many of the horseowners boarding their horses commercially in the City do not live in the City or even on the Peninsula. She believed it was wrong for non-residents to ask the property owners to change the character of the neighborhood for their• convenience. Mrs. Strauss said that she had horses and felt that it would be difficult for a family to own and take care of more than three horses. She provided a copy of a petition signed by many of the Portuguese Bend neighborhood residents who agreed with her statements. She urged the Commission not to allow a zone change in her neighborhood. Mr. Dave Albert (Mayor of the City of Lomita) , 2055 240th Street, Lomita, CA 90717 . Mr. Albert stated that many horse owners in Rancho Palos patronized the feed stores and western wear stores in Lomita and that a change in the Rancho Palos Verdes Code would affect his City in reducing sales tax received from these business. Commissioner Ferraro asked Mr. Albert if he had horses. Mr. Albert said that he had two horses, two head of cattle, and 12 chickens. He explained that, in Lomita, the allowable livestock density was based on the amount of land. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 5 • Commissioner Ferraro asked how much land he owned. Mr. Albert said that he had one-half acre of land. He added that, for livestock, Lomita had a setback requirement of 351 from the adjacent property. He went on to state that the Lomita Planning Commission and City Council dealt with each property owner on a case by case basis, without heavy handed government regulations, but giving each resident an opportunity to maintain their property rights. He felt also that fellow horseowners should also regulate each other. Commissioner Alberio asked about the origin of the 351 setback. Mr. Albert said that it was from the County Health Department, but that a City could change this requirement. He said that he had determined in talking to the Health Department, that there were no human diseases associated with horsekeeping. Chairman Mowlds clarified that the Rancho Palos Verdes Code did include the 351 setback requirement. Ms. Jeanne Swift, 2216 Plant, Redondo Beach, CA 90278. Ms. Swift stated that she had recently began boarding one of her horses in Rancho Palos Verdes and she was hoping that the Code would not change because she like the ambiance and density as it currently existed. Mr. Ed Sutton, 1 Pomegranate Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Sutton said that he had four properties, two with houses and two vacant lots, and that he did not wish to see any changes in the Code which would prohibit his keeping all his horses on one of the lots. Chairman Mowlds declared the public hearing closed for Chapter 17.46 and explained that the section of the Code dealing with horses would not be included in the Commission's final review of the Development Code. Therefore, this was the last chance for the Commission to make any recommendations on this particular Chapter. Vice Chair Hayes stated that there did not have to be a profit for an activity to be considered a business. She felt that the three -horse maximum before a license would be required should be maintained, since she believed that it would discourage commercial boarding. Commissioner Ferraro disagreed with Vice Chairman Hayes and believed that it would encourage commercial boarding because it would legalize illegal commercial boarding in existence now. She PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 6 0 also felt that reducing the number of horses allowed from six to three violated property rights. Commissioner Alberio remarked that the Homeowners Association had the mechanism to enforce their CC&R's to settle disputes. He believed too that nuisance problems could be handled by the City's Code Enforcement Department or handled between the property owners themselves. Chairman Mowlds announced that, not hearing any suggestions for substantive changes, he believed the Commission was ready to send its recommendations on this Chapter of the Development Code to the City Council. Commissioner Wang asked Staff if, as some of the speakers had mentioned, the proposed changes to the Code would change the zoning in the area. Senior Planner Rojas said that the proposed changes to the Development Code would not change the zoning in these areas and that the underlaying zoning designation in the Large Domestic Animal Overlay Control Districts would remain as single family residential. Commissioner Ferraro commented that she still believed that the minimum number of horses allowed before a license was required should be four, instead of three, because it was a more logical number for riding groups. Chairman asked for a motion to adopt the P.C. Resolution to accept the changes, as proposed by the staff, as recommendations to the City Council. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to recommend adoption of Chapter 17.46 to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wang. The P.C. Resolution No. 95-15 was adopted (5-1) with the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS ALBERIO, VANNORSDALL, WANG, VICE CHAIR HAYES, AND CHAIRMAN MOWLDS. NO ES: COMMISSIONER FERRARO Commissioner Mowlds re -stated that there would be no more Planning Commission public hearings regarding Chapter 17.46. The next time these issues would be discussed would be before the City Council. He also noted that, per the Staff's PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 7 recommendation, the public hearing regarding the remainder of the Development Code was continued to July 11, 1995. 2. APPEAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23912 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 661, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1727, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1743; Mr. Ducharme, 6324 Via Colinita. (KK) Based on the Staff's recommendation, Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to continue this item to the next regular meeting on June 13, 1995, seconded by Vice Chair Hayes. Approved, (6-0). (Item 3 was moved to the end of the agenda) PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 187 ET. AL.; New York Food Company (Louise Talbot), 6610 Palos Verdes Drive, South. (FF) Commissioner Alberio moved to waive the reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6-0). The public hearing was opened and closed by Chairman Mowlds, because there were no speakers wishing to give testimony on this item. Vice Chair Hayes moved to accept the Staff's recommendation to approve the Variance and Conditional Use Permit, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (6-0). Chairman Mowlds noted that there was a 15 -day appeal period before the decision was final. 5. VARIANCE NO. 393 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 188; Coco's Restaurant, 28300 Western Avenue. (FF) Commissioner Alberio moved to waive the staff Report, seconded by Vice Chair Hayes. Approved (6-0). The public hearing was opened and closed because there were no speakers wishing to give testimony. Chairman Mowlds asked the applicant's representative, Mr. Jeffrey Clark, if he understood and accepted the conditions of approval. Mr. Clarke said that he did. Vice Chair Hayes moved to accept the Staff recommendation to approve the Conditional Use Permit, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved, (6-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 8 E • Chairman Mowlds noted that there was a 15 -day appeal period before the decision was final. Commissioner Ferraro suggested to Mr. Clarke that the ladies room door should open in the opposite direction than was indicated on the submitted plans, so that the door would not hit people using the wash basin. Mr. Clarke agreed and said that the change would be made. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 181; Mr. and Mrs. Roger Wolff, 5333 Ironwood Street. (TS) Commissioner Alberio moved to waive reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6-0). Chairman Mowlds asked Associate Planner Silverman to explain how this Conditional Use Permit application related to the language regarding second units in the proposed Development Code Revisions, which had not yet been reviewed by the City Council. Associate Planner Silverman replied that Staff had conducted a preliminary review of how this project would relate to the requirements of the proposed Second Unit Ordinance. She indicated that the proposed second unit would not meet all the requirements, since it did not include an enclosed parking space on the property. However, she noted that the City's Senior Planner believed that this parking requirement may be too strict and that the provisions of the proposed Code were still subject to modification. Ms. Silverman concluded by stating that the present Code prohibits exterior stairs from the first level to the second story, but the submitted plan provided exterior access to the first level of the residence. Chairman Mowlds clarified that the Planning commission was not considering the second story addition itself, as it was approved at Staff level (and not appealed) by Height Variation No. 799. The commission was reviewing only the second dwelling unit in accordance with the proposed new Code. Planning Administrator Petru added that the Commission should consider the existing State law in reference to second units. Chairman Mowlds Opened the Public Hearing. Mrs. Diana Wolff, (landowner) 5333 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Wolff informed the Commission that she and her husband, Roger, had lived in their home for over 22 years and that they had been active in the community, supporting the local schools, the Neighborhood Watch Program, and participated in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 9 incorporation of the City. She stressed that they had been good citizens and neighbors and wanted to build the second story addition with a kitchen to enable their daughter, a teacher, to live with the family, yet maintain her privacy as an adult. Mrs. Wolff believed that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would want to make this possible to validate the extended family concept in the City. She believed that granting their request would not be a detriment to the community because the second unit would be used by a family member only and they did not intend to ever sell their home. She added that, because of the interior access to their own home, they would never consider renting to a stranger. Mrs. Wolff further remarked that there would be no increase in population or cars, since their daughter currently lived with them. Ms. Marcia Weiss, 5312 Ironwood, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Weiss indicated that she had lived in the subject neighborhood since 1971 and that she was in favor of the project to help preserve a family unit. Mr. Dennis Lotspeich, 29027 Trailriders Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Lotspeich reported that he had lived in his home for over 23 years. He said that he and his wife had both written statements in opposition to the proposed second unit and he read from both of them as his wife was not able to attend. Mr. Lotspeich advised that, because his wife owned the home at 26446 Birchfield, which was adjacent to the subject property, she would be financially affected by the proposed project. He believed that because a kitchen was being added, the home became a duplex, which would be incompatible with the neighborhood and constituted a zone change. He was also concerned that the unit would become a rental, by either the current or future owners, and that there would be insufficient garage space if the renters or the new owners had additional cars. Mr. Allen Boothe, 5327 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Boothe said that he lived next door, to the east of the applicant, and opposed the project because the neighborhood had always been composed of single family homes and he was concerned about a zoning change. Mr. Boothe's other objections were potential parking problems, increased noise, and the fact that the second unit might become a rental at some time in the future. Mrs. Paula Boothe, 5327 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Boothe, also lived next door to the subject property, and was opposed to the project because the neighborhood was made up of single family residences. She believed the addition of a kitchen in the second story addition (which in itself she did not oppose) made it a separate residence. Mrs. Boothe explained that the stairwell faced their home (which was quite close) and she PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 10 did not like the appearance, the potential for noise (as it was directly across from her son Is bedroom), or the threat to privacy from the stairwell windows which would look directly into one of their bathrooms. Mrs. Boothe also was concerned about parking problems in the event the second unit might become a rental. She concluded by stating that she believed the project would decrease her property value. Commissioner Wang asked about the distance between the two homes. Mrs. Boothe replied that there was currently about 81 between the home and the side property line but, when the addition was complete, there would be the minimum 51 setback. Chairman Mowlds asked the applicant to come forward for rebuttal. Mrs. Diana Wolff returned to the podium and said that Mr. and Mrs. Boothe knew about the proposed addition when they moved in because the temporary frame for the proposed second story addition was in place. She also stated that the staircase to the second unit was completely inside the house. She did not feel that there would be increased noise or that her daughter would invade the Boothe's privacy by staring into their windows. Mrs. Wolff said that she understood the neighbor's concern that her house might be sold or they might one day decide to rent the second unit. She assured the Commission that her children would inherit the house and, if her daughter no longer needed the second unit, she had other relatives who would reside there, or her husband would use it for work space. Chairman Mowlds advised Mrs. Wolff that the City's present Development Code did not allow second units, but that State law pre-empted the City's Codes in this case. Therefore, the only restriction the City included was that their be no exterior stairs with access to the second unit. A discussion between commissioner Alberio, Vice Chair Hayes, Chairman Mowlds, and Associate Planner Silverman revealed that although the stairwell to the second unit was completely enclosed, there were seven steps up to the out6ide entrance and four steps down inside the house. In addition, it was noted that the second unit was limited by State law to 30% of the original house, although the City could allow it to be larger. Planning Administrator Petru advised that State law superseded the City's requirements, therefore a second unit could be allowed through a Conditional Use Permit if it complied with the State's minimum requirements. However, the City could relax any of the State's requirements, if it was found to be appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 11 0 Chairman Mowlds commented on the privacy issue, stating that often times obscured glass had been required in windows facing another home. He asked Staff if another enclosed garage space would be required for the second unit. Associate Planner Silverman said that the State law had no requirements for enclosed parking spaces, but that this requirement was included in current draft language in the Code. However, according to Joel Rojas, Senior Planner, that language is subject to revision by the Planning Commission if the requirement if found to be too restrictive. Mrs. Wolff agreed to use obscured glass on the side elevation of the addition for her neighbor's privacy. Vice Chair Hayes asked why the second unit could not be entered from the existing home's front door. Mrs. Wolff replied that they wanted to provide privacy for their daughter so that she did not have to come through the family home if she did not wish to. She added that her daughter would not be having a lot of parties or hordes of people visiting, so she did not feel there would be an imposition on anyone in the neighborhood. Commissioner Vannorsdall indicated that he would like to speak to the architect. Mr. Curt Sears came to the podium and said that he was not an architect, but that he had been hired to aesthetically blend the styles and building materials of the existing home and the second story addition. A discussion ensued between Mr. Sears, Commissioner Vannorsdall, Vice Chair Hayes, Chairman Mowlds, and Associate Planner Silverman regarding the steps that would be inside and outside of the existing house. It was determined that a minimum of two outside steps would be needed to provide access to the interior stairway to the second story unit. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6-0). More discussion among the members of the Commission led to the suggestion that additional time be allowed for the applicant to submit a revised design for the stairway with only two exterior stairs to the first level. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 12 171 commissioner Alberio moved to re -open and continue the public hearing to June 13, 1995, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6-0). The applicant agreed to provide the new design to Staff by Wednesday, May 31, 1995. RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 8:25 P.M. and reconvened at 8:37 P.M. CONTINUED BUSINESS (continued) (Item 3 was heard out of order) 3. 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) At Chairman Mowlds' suggestion, in lieu of a complete Staff Report reading, Associate Planner Jerex provided some brief comments. Ms. Jerex reported that a letter from the applicant's attorney, Lisa Weinberg, was received by fax the previous evening after City Hall closed in response to issues addressed in the Staff Report. This letter had just been read by the Commission. She emphasized that Staff's greatest concern was that the applicant be given a fair consideration of the extension request and preferred to avoid the adversarial nature of this letter and any subsequent responses. Therefore, while Staff felt that it was appropriate to respond to Ms. Weinberg's initial letter, Staff did not intend to respond to any allegations raised in the most recent letter, unless directed to do so by the Planning Commission. Ms. Jerex indicated that Staff's recommendation for denial of the extension request wasnotbased on the merits of the project. Rather, Staff's recommendation was based on concerns reflected in the Minutes of the last two Planning commission reviews of this extension request in 1993 and 1994 and on the fact that this project had received more outright extensions than any other project on record at City Hall. Staff was also concerned that sentiments for the project may have changed in last six years since it was approved and wished to make clear these concerns for the record. In addition, Staff requested that, if the Commission approved the extension request, the motion clearly indicate both the length of time that the extension will be valid, as well as PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 13 • 1] whether or not this additional extension request will be the final extension granted for the project. Chairman Mowlds stated that he understood why the Staff Report was written as it was and agreed that adversarial attitudes would interfere with the future of the project. The Chairman also clarified that, at this hearing, only the extension was being considered, not who owned the property or who would build the project. He emphasized that the permits that have been granted to date were not granted specifically to an individual, but to the land. The Commission was simply considering whether or not a one-year extension would be granted. Although this was not a public hearing, the Commission accepted testimony from speakers who were present. Ms. Jean Steiger, 29146 Oceanridge Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Steiger reported that she had submitted a letter with 26 signatures of residents who live on Oceanridge Drive, Seaside Heights, and Mistridge Drive, overlooking the subject property, who are united in their support of the Staff's recommendation to deny the extension. Ms. Steiger stated that, regardless of the reason for the delays and whether or not Marriott was to blame, in the six years since the original approval, there had been amendments to the California Environment Act which might require reconsideration of the project. Ms. Steiger also wondered whether a new geological study should performed to determine the stability of the site, especially in light of the earthquake in 1994. She also believed that it might be reasonable to assume that a new landowner might wish to make revisions to the original design, which could cause further delays. Ms. Steiger urged the Commission to deny the extension, to allow for another complete review of the project and listed some of her concerns, such as potential loss of views from the surrounding homes, the large size of the facility, the high cost of the units, increased traffic, problems regarding access from Crestridge in light of further development in the area since the original approval, and removal of the large quantity of dirt from the site to accommodate the proposed facility. Chairman Mowlds asked that Ms. Weinberg receive a copy of the petition from Ms. Steiger. Associate Planner Jerex indicated that both Ms. Weinberg and Mr. Ashenbrenner had received copies. Mr. Ray Mathys (President of the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association), 5738 Whitecliff Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Mathys reported that he had written a letter to the Commission expressing the overall opinion of Association members. There are PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 14 some members who favored a senior lifecare facility in this location, as well as those who are concerned about their views. Mr. Mathys believed that moving a quarter million cubic yards of dirt was inconceivable. He cited the Staff Report, reiterating that this venture had been in abeyance for six years and had received -more extensions than any other project approved by the City. Mr. Mathys described a personal, similar situation stating that he had processed an application for a single family residence through the City, received approvals for a Grading Permit and a Variance in 1992 and, because of a change in economic conditions, the sale of another home was necessary which caused a delay. He explained that he had received the normal one-year extension, but that was all the City would grant him, and he resented that fact that several extensions were granted for this facility. Mr. Mathys commended Staff on a good job on preparing the recommendation on this time extension request. He asked the Commission to deny the extension and to take a fresh look at the project to address the concerns of nearby residents. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue spoke against approving the extension and reminded the Commission that the City's General Plan did not permit removal of topography, as this project required. Ms. Larue agreed that adversarial attitudes should be avoided and referred to the disadvantage of fax technology which allowed Ms. Weinberg's letter to be instantly received by the City. She believed that the attorney's letter, which spoke against anger and passion, was filled with those very emotions. Ms. Larue commended the Planning Department for their recommendation and agreed with all the reasons given in the Staff Report. Mr. Rick Ashenbrenner (applicant's representative), 800 Morningside Drive, Fullerton, CA 92635. Mr. Ashenbrenner listed what he believed to be four questions to be considered by the Commission in evaluating this extension request: 1) Would his company be financially able and committed to complete the project; 2) would they be timely; 3) would they be good citizens; 4) was this a worthwhile project. Mr. Ashenbrenner asked the Commission to determine if these were appropriate topics at this hearing. Chairman Mowlds believed that the last point need not be discussed. Therefore, Mr. Ashenbrenner proceeded to elaborate on the first three subjects: 1) Financial Solvency and Commitment: Mr. Ashenbrenner indicated that two letters had been submitted to the Planning Commission regarding his company's financial stability and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 15 commitment to build the facility. One letter was from Mr. Ashenbrenner's partner, Warren Spieker, stating that a rapid return was being realized from the money invested in the Morningside facility in Fullerton and that Mr. Spieker was able and interested in duplicating the situation in Rancho Palos Verdes. The second letter, from Bank of America, confirmed the integrity of Mr. Ashenbrenner and Mr. Spieker's group and the bank's willingness to lend money on this type of project. 2) Timeliness: Mr. Ashenbrenner stated that his group was in the process of analyzing Marriott's plans, which were approximately 90% complete. He realized that if they made a lot of changes to the project, the existing entitlements would be at risk. They were not planning to make revisions unless they determined it to be necessary to address the concerns of the neighbors and, if so, they might return to the City. Mr. Ashenbrenner emphasized that, in any case, they were intending to pursue this project aggressively, except for the situations which they cannot control, and that they would work closely with the City. 3) Good Citizenship: Mr. Ashenbrenner reported that Morningside had been a valuable asset to the City of Fullerton and that he could provide letters to substantiate that claim from City officials. He stressed the fact that elderly parents could live near their family and that he believed the Palos Verdes Peninsula needed a facility to provide the same advantage. Mr. Ashenbrenner described the good relationship Morningside enjoyed with the Fullerton City government, including the fact that the Mayor Pro Tem of Fullerton was present at their groundbreaking ceremony one and a half years ago and is a member of an organization called the Friend of Morningside. Ms. Lisa Weinberg (Applicant's Attorney), 2049 Century Park East, #2800, Los Angeles, CA 90067. Ms. Weinberg said that she wished to reiterate the sentiments that Ms. Jerex had expressed to her before the hearing and as part of her oral Staff Report. She said that Host Marriott was grateful for the past support from the Commission and Staff. She acknowledge that there had been some severe differences of opinion regarding this extension, but Marriott agreed that there were core issues which needed to be discussed and hoped to maintain a good relationship with the City. Ms. Weinberg cited her most recent letter which stated that the only valid argument for not approving an extension would be if there were significant changes surrounding the property or discovery of new environmental impacts not already examined to justify a new look at the project. However, Ms. Weinberg said that she was not aware of any significant change nor had Staff communicating any such information to the Planning Commission. She believed that a complete review of the project would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 16 determine the same past conclusions and she felt that it was in the City's and applicant's best interest to grant this extension. Chairman Mowlds asked Ms. Weinberg about Ms. Larue's comments and Ms. Weinberg agreed that her passions had run high in her recent letter. Commissioner Wang asked if one last extension would be enough, and Ms. Weinberg said that it would. Commissioner Ferraro remembered that this same statement was made by the applicant's attorney last year. Vice Chair Hayes asked Ms. Weinberg if she was aware that neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council was not obligated to approve an extension. Ms. Weinberg agreed, but also stated that neither body could act arbitrarily or irrationally and must make decisions based on substantial evidence. Commissioner Alberio emphasized that the only decision before the Commission was the request for an extension. Issues regarding the project itself were reviewed by a previous Planning Commission and city Council. The merits of the project were also litigated in court. If this extension request was granted, Mr. Alberio felt that it would have to be the last one. Commissioner Vannorsdall admitted that his first thought was to deny the extension request because he believed that Marriott had been told that the last extension was the final one but the Commission did not clearly stipulate this. He did feel that the community needed another senior care facility and that there appeared to be financial support to build it. commissioner Vannorsdall closed by saying that he would be willing to give further consideration to the request if it appeared that the project could move forward. Commissioner Wang asked Staff if the present extension had expired and, if granted, when would the new extension end. Planning Administrator Petru advised that the current extension expired on April 18, 1995, but since the extension requested was submitted before this date, it was held in abeyance until a decision was reached on the extension request. She added that the new extension, if one was granted by the Commission, would expire on April 18, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 17 E • Commissioner Wang indicated that she would favor granting the request, if the approval could be conditioned to stipulate that it would be the final extension. Planning Administrator Petru confirmed that this was within the Commission's ability. Commissioner Ferraro said that she believed the extension last year was going to be the last and she perceived no significant progress in moving forward with the project since that time. Mrs. Ferraro was not in favor of granting the additional extension, because she felt six years was more than enough time to begin a project. Even though she believed there was a need for this type of facility and the project itself was not an issue, she believed that the plan for the facility could be improved. Vice Chair Hayes said that she believed in the concept of the facility and, therefore, had approved previous extensions, although she believed the last one was to be the final extension. At this time, she felt that the project should be stopped and, if it was truly a viable project, it could come before the Commission again. Chairman Mowlds concurred that there was a need for a senior care facility in the community because nursing homes were not always the best solution for the elderly and their families. He hoped the project could be completed. Commissioner Alberio moved to extend the approval for one more year with the condition that this would be the last extension and that the applicant must obtain building permits within six months. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked, before seconding the motion, if the Commission could tie the approval to Mr. Ashenbrenner's group. Mr. Vannorsdall was informed by Chairman Mowlds and Commissioner Alberio that this was not possible because the approval was attached to the land, not the landowner. At this point, Commissioner Vannorsdall seconded the motion. Chairman Mowlds was not sure that building permits could be issued in six months. He suggested that the applicant could be required to submit working drawings within the first six months, even though it was indicated that the possible new owner would be' conducting due diligence for the next five months. However, Mr. Mowlds believed that new plans could be drawn up concurrently within the due diligence period. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 18 Commissioner Alberio believed that ready quickly if Mr. Ashenbrenner's Marriott plans. E the new drawings might be group merely revised the I Planning Administrator Petru said the six-month deadline could be established for submittal of plans but cautioned the Commission that, if they set a secondary deadline which the applicant did not meet, the approval would expire. Vice Chair Hayes believed that would be more preferable to the applicant than simply have the Commission deny the extension. Planning Administrator Petru asked what requiring the applicant to submit working drawings to the City would accomplish, since the applicant did not need to initiate building plan check until April 1996. V Chairman Mowlds said that it would show good faith on the part of the prospective new owner. Commissioner Alberio felt that it would eliminate the possibility of the applicant waiting until the last minute and then requesting another extension. Vice Chair Hayes speculated that it might be harder for the Commission to not allow another time extension after the applicant had invested more money in additional drawings. Planning Administrator Petru suggested that, if the Commission wished to have a six-month time period for submittal of plans, since she was not sure that there would be sufficient time for plans, and plan check, she suggested that the plans need only be conceptual. Chairman Mowlds stressed that another request to extend the approval beyond April 1996 would not even be considered by the Commission. The motion was amended, with the permission of the maker and the seconder, to approve the extension with two conditions 1) that this shall be the last extension request to be considered; and, 2) that conceptual plans shall submitted to the City within six months of this action. The motion passed (4-2), on the following roll call: AYES: commissioners Alberio, Vannorsdall, Wang, and Chairman Mowlds NOES: commissioner Ferraro and Vice Chair Hayes PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 19 • • Planning Administrator Petru noted that the decision was appealable to the City Council within the next 15 days. NEW BUSINESS: (NO ITEMS) ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS• Staff• 7. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, June 13, 1995. Commission: Commissioner Alberio reported that the L.A. Harbor Tour for all Council, Commission, and Committee members was scheduled for Saturday, June 24, 1995, and that more details would be forthcoming. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items): (None) ADJOURNMENT• Commissioner Wang moved to adjourn, seconded by Vice Chair Hayes. The motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:14 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be on June 13, 1995. (A JDMIN#9 - MIN5 23) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1995 PAGE 20