Loading...
PC MINS 199602131� APPROVED -V 3/12/96 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 7,06 P M by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Cartwright. PRESENT- Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Franklin, Ng, Whiteneck, Vice Chair Vannorsdall, and Chairman Clark. ABSENT NONE Also present were Planning Administrator Petru, Assistant Planner de Freitas, and Recording Secretary Drasco ya 0 �. Commissioner Cartwright moved to accept the agenda, as presented. Approved, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Planning Administrator Petru explained that Director/Secretary Bernard was not present at the meeting due to other City commitments She also noted that a letter received by the applicant for Agenda Item No. 2 was hand delivered to the Commissioners the day before the meeting Vice Chair Vannorsdall provided a summary of the monthly Mayor's Breakfast he attended on behalf of Chairman Clark Chairman Clark reported that he had organized a breakfast meeting with Planning Commission Chairs from the other three Peninsula Cities to be held approximately every other month. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES OF JANUARY 9. 1996 Chairman Clark suggested changes in the last paragraph on Page 4; the ninth paragraph on Page 8, the fifth, sixth, and ninth paragraphs on Page 9; and, the second paragraph on Page 11. Commissioner Alberio moved to accept the Minutes of January 9, 1996, as amended. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2 HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 814 -APPEAL, Kevin Rehm (applicant), 5925 Clint Place, Danny Lajeunesse (appellant), 5924 Clint Place (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report, stating that the Commission had directed the appellant and the applicant to review issues raised at the last meeting in order to reach a compromise The two parties met on January 28, 1996 at the applicant's house, with some other neighbors present Although agreements were made on some issues, none resulted in significant modifications, so there were no revised plans Staff felt that the criteria in the Code had been met and recommended that the Commission deny the Appeal and approve the Height Variation, with the additional conditions prepared by Staff. A discussion between Commissioner Alberto, Chairman Clark, and Assistant Planner de Freitas revealed that Staff was not present at the meeting between the appellant and the applicant. Vice Chair Vannorsdall raised the issue of the neighbors' concerns that the addition could take a long time to complete because Mr Rehm would be doing a lot of the work himself and asked Staff if there were time limits. Planning Administrator Petru replied that a Height Variation Permit was valid for 180 days and that the applicant had to submit to Plan Check during that period After a Building Permit was issued, the applicant need only call for an inspection every 180 days to keep the Permit active She added that a proposal might be brought to the City Council within the next year to place a maximum time limit for construction Assistant Planner de Freitas noted that the applicant seemed to be anxious to complete the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13,1996 PAGE 2 Since this was a continued public hearing, Chairman Clark called for any speakers. Ms Charlotte Dean, 5916 Clint Place, Rancho Palos Verdes, opposed the addition because she felt the remodeled home would be incompatible with the nearby homes. She explained that she had asked Mr. Lajeunesse to act on her behalf at the meeting on January 28, 1996 with Mr. Rehm because she had been unable to attend She asked why the height of the addition was 26' and not 16'. Chairman Clark explained that the Code allowed construction up to 16' in height and that the purpose of a Height Variation Permit was to request additional height, up to 26' Commissioner Alberio expressed disappointment that more neighbors did not attend the meeting and that the results did not meet his expectations of reaching a compromise Commissioner Ng asked Ms Dean if she had spoken to Mr. Rehm after the meeting Ms Dean said that she had not spoken to him at all Mr. Danny Lajeunesse (appellant), 5924 Clint Place, Rancho Palos Verdes, explained that a number of neighbors met on Friday, January 26, 1996, before the meeting with Mr. Rehm on Sunday, January 28, 1996 and discussed the following subjects. 1) privacy for the adjacent properties from the rear balcony and east windows, 2) landscaping and aesthetics regarding the large garage; 3) elimination or reduction of the deck over garage for privacy, and, 4) reduction of the bonus room to preserve views over the garage He stated that the agreements reached at the meeting with Mr Rehm included installation of translucent glass on both sides of the addition, window coverings in the bedroom, and a 4' reduction of the two corners of the rear balcony Mr. Lajeunesse stated that Mr. Rehm said that the Planning Commission had no right to dictate whether or not his deck could have furniture on it and that he did not want to reduce the bonus room or the six -car garage, or eliminate the basement Mr Lajeunesse believed that a reduction of the bonus room would help maintain a portion of the views from the homes at 5906, 5910 and 5916 Clint Place. He reported that the homeowners at those three addresses had given him their proxy to represent them at the meeting with Mr. Rehm on January 28, 1996, and at this hearing He explained that the neighbors did not object to the solar panels on the rooftop deck, but did not wish to have this area be a viewing deck, and especially with furniture and umbrellas, since it would provide a potential party location Mr Lajeunesse was concerned that an approval of the Height Variation would not adequately control exactly what Mr Rehm could build, especially because two of the decks discussed at the meetings were not even included on his plans He was also worried that the construction would be very PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13,1996 PAGE 3 lengthy since Mr Rehm would performing much of the work himself. He concluded by stating that he would like to see further compromise Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr Lajeunesse if he refused to sign Mr. Rehm's letter at the January 28, 1996 meeting because he disagreed with its content Mr Lajeunesse said that he understood it was prepared before the meeting on January 28, 1996, and that he had seen no other letter since the meeting Chairman Clark asked Staff if it was true that the rooftop deck and the rear balcony were not included in the submitted plans Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that the rooftop deck was not shown on the plans at all In addition, he stated that, although the rear balcony could have been identified more clearly, the plan for the first floor did indicate a covered deck at the rear of the residence Commissioner Alberio said that he found the submitted pians difficult to read and that he was concemed that the second story could become a second living unit because there was no internal stairway indicated. Assistant Planner de Freitas offered to go over the plans posted on the wall with the Commission. Chairman Clark said that he was confused also and asked how the original plans had been modified Assistant Planner de Freitas said that the original plans had not been modified and, referring to the plans on the wall, explained that there were interior stairs identified on the plan, on the first and second floors. Mr Lajeunesse said that his wife did bring home a copy of the letter Mr Rehm had composed, stating that he (Mr. Lajeunesse) had left the meeting after three hours Mr Lajeunesse noted that the reason he would not sign the letter was because he believed the deck furniture was an outstanding issue Commissioner Alberio asked if Mr Lajeunesse believed the meeting on January 28, 1996 was a waste of time Mr Lajeunesse said that it was not a complete waste of time because some compromises were made PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13,1996 PAGE 4 Chairman Clark suggested that Staff and the Commission review the plans on the wall after all the public testimony had been given Mr Kevin Rehm (applicant), 5925 Clint Place, Rancho Palos Verdes, said that there were many issues to discuss and that were some additional ones since the last Planning Commission hearing on January 23, 1996 Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Rehm to elaborate on the compromise with the neighbors on January 28, 1996, because he believed this was the crucial issue at the last Planning Commission hearing Mr. Rehm explained that he had invited all the neighbors to come to his house at 9.00 A M on Sunday, January 28, 1996. At 9:15 A M , when there were only two neighbors present, he made contact with some of the other neighbors, including Ms Dean, who told him Mr. Lajeunesse was representing her, and another neighbor who agreed to come to the meeting, but did not. Mr. Rehm informed the Commission that, although he had not mentioned it at the previous hearing, he was a licensed contractor and worked in that capacity before he became a Captain with the EI Segundo Fire Department He added that he did not intend to do all the construction work himself, but would be overseeing the project, and that he was anxious to have it completed as quickly as possible Mr. Rehm said that he allowed Mr Lajeunesse to preside over the meeting on January 28, 1996, and the less controversial issues were discussed first Mr Rehm said that furniture of the front deck would not be visible and that he had agreed not to have an umbrella He also agreed to reduce the size of the rear deck which increased the amount of open space on the lot, as well as protecting the neighbors' privacy Mr Rehm said that he had typed ten versions of an agreement letter before the meeting, in an attempt to be prepared for various compromises. He said that friends had suggested that he submit an original plan showing the addition completely over the garage so that he had a negotiating tool with the neighbors, but he felt that this was wrong and did not wish to be dishonest Therefore, his original plan indicated that his addition was already moved back to maintain views Mr Rehm said that he did not believe loss of privacy was an issue regarding the front deck because he would merely be looking at other neighbors' front yards He explained that the rooftop deck was a idea which had occurred to him after the original plans were drawn and that it was originally planned only to screen the solar panels. However, a friend had suggested to him that there would be a good view from this upper deck and so he was considering it. Commissioner Franklin asked his current position on this upper deck Mr. Rehm said that he would like to include it, if the Code would allow Commissioner Alberio asked if the neighbors agreed to the present side articulation PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13,1996 PAGE 5 Mr. Rehm said that they did. He explained that his plans were conceptual and, although sufficient for a Height Variation application, the final plans for Budding Plan Check would have more detail He stated that he did not believe he should be denied an additional view from the upper deck just because he had views from other locations of his home Mr. Rehm also said that he realized that a second living unit was not allowed He also stated that he had lived in his home for ten years and did not have loud parties Vice Chair Vannorsdall asked if there would be a fire escape from the upper deck to the ground. Mr. Rehm said that he would comply with the Building Code requirements but was planning to ask for a spiral staircase from the deck to the ground He added that, according to Fire Department requirements, only one exit would be needed because of the small size of the proposed deck and the fact that there would be less then ten occupants on the second floor A discussion ensued between Commissioner Ng and Mr Rehm regarding interior ceiling heights, which revealed that Mr. Rehm had intended to maintain the high ceilings on the first floor. Chairman Clark asked Mr Rehm if he could reduce the overall height of the structure by 3' if the high ceiling was eliminated on the ground floor. Mr Rehm said he could, but it would mean that the entire roof would have to removed, and he had hoped to remove only one small section Additional discussion between Commissioners Alberio and Franklin and Mr. Rehm revealed that, if the existing roof was eliminated, interior beams would be needed to support the second story because there were currently no bearing walls on the ground floor After further detailed discussion between Commissioner Ng and Mr Rehm regarding the lack of detail on the conceptual drawings, Chairman Clark asked Staff how much detail was required for plans when applying for a Height Variation Permit. Planning Administrator Petru said that conceptual plans need only include the site plan (drawn to scale) showing the existing and proposed construction, floor plans, and elevations indicating overall height and mass of the structure. However, she said that, if the Commission felt it was important to have more detail, they could request it before approving the Height Variation Permit She added that the applicant's plans had complied with the minimum requirements for a Height Variation Permit application PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13,1996 PAGE 6 Commissioner Alberio raised the issue of the Gantz case on Bendigo Drive, in which the Planning Commission approved conceptual plans, but the actual construction was quite different. Commissioner Cartwright did not feel there would be a problem because the Commission's function was not to determine the internal structure of the addition, but only to determine whether the project met the criteria for a Height Variation, which included view impairment and neighborhood compatibility He felt it was unfair to ask the applicant to incur the expense of preparing detailed plans before the Height Variation Permit was approved. Chairman Clark stated that, if the interior design could affect the exterior height and mass of the structure, the Commission should consider this information. Commissioner Cartwright felt that the Commission could approve the Height Variation Permit with the proviso that the exterior could not exceed the dimensions of the conceptual plan. Commissioner Whiteneck maintained that the concerns of the Commission were regarding the exterior, not interior, of the proposed structure Commissioner Alberio again expressed concern regarding the problem with the house on Bendigo Drive, which had progressed to a court case because what was built was not what the Planning Commission had approved. Commissioner Franklin asked Mr Rehm if he would agree to be constrained by the outside dimensions indicated on his conceptual plans Mr Rehm said that he would agree to that. Planning Administrator Petru explained that the Gantz case on Bendigo Drive was the case that resulted in the City adding a standard condition to all discretionary permits requiring substantial compliance with the approved set of plans, and that Mr Rehm could be held to the dimensions on his conceptual plans Mr. Al Mashouf, 5901 Clint Place, Rancho Palos Verdes, indicated that he had attended the neighbors' meeting on January 28, 1996, and that his wife had taken minutes He reported that he had lived on Clint Place for 20 years and hoped to facilitate a compromise between the neighbors He acknowledged that not all of issues were resolved at the meeting on January 28, 1996, but he hoped that the two sides could agree at this hearing and that the Commission would approve the first phase of the project, so that the applicant could move on to next step in the process PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13,1996 PAGE 7 Commissioner Alberio asked if Mr. Mashouf had been inside the houses across the street and looked at project from that perspective, Mr Mashouf said that he had been in the homes in the past but had not been inside them recently, specifically for the purpose of viewing the proposed project. Commissioner Alberio asked if Mr. Mashouf would object to Mr Rehm's proposed addition if he lived across the street from Mr Rehm Mr. Mashouf said that he would make sure Mr Rehm met all the Code requirements Mr. Jim Rahman, 26949 Grayslake Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, applauded Commissioners Cartwright and Franklin and believed that they were focusing on the true issues. He urged the Commission to deny the Appeal, and, although he understood the need to attempt a compromise, he believed that this had failed Mr. Rahman did not feel Mr Rehm should have to reduce the bonus room because it provided the articulation and avoided the look of an unattractive "popup" addition Commissioner Alberio asked how Mr Rahman would be affected by Mr. Rehm's proposed addition Mr Rahman said he would see Mr. Rehm's garage from his front yard Commissioner Alberio asked if Mr Rahman would feel differently if he lived directly across the street from Mr Rehm. Mr Rahman said that he understood the concerns of the neighbors across the street from Mr. Rehm, but he believed that they did not have much of a view anyway Mr. Kevin Dunbar, 29604 Grayslake Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, said that he lived down the hill and to the left of Mr Rehm's property He believed the addition would improve the neighborhood because he felt the additions which were merely boxes over garages were unattractive He urged the Commission to deny the Appeal and approve the project, because it complied with the Code Chairman Clark reminded the Commission that they should study the plans on the wall during the break with Staff and all interested parties RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed from 8.55 P M to 9.10 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13,1996 PAGE 8 Ll • Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). Chairman Clark asked Staff for comments. Planning Administrator Petru stated that Staff had no additional comments at that time. Assistant Planner de Freitas confirmed that the plans on the wall were identical to the original plans submitted to the City and that there had been no changes Chairman Clark stated that the applicant must realize that he might not be able to have a basement if the excavation encountered bedrock He asked Staff what the City required with regard to geology on the property Planning Administrator Petru replied that the City's Geotechnical Consultant would look at the site and would require a Geology or Soils Report, if he felt it was warranted Chairman Clark asked for summary comments from the Commission. Commissioner Franklin believed that the applicant had met requirements of the Code, and that the neighbors' compromise meeting had not been intended to be coercive, but to be an opportunity to discuss issues and was a good faith effort. Commissioner Franklin believed that the applicant would be restrained by the dimensions specified in the conceptual drawings and that he would rule in favor of the applicant Commissioner Ng agreed that the project met the criteria of the Code, that Mr Rehm had tried to work with the neighbors, and that the project did not impair any protected views She believed it was an advantage to have Mr Rehm's vehicles parked inside the garage and that the bonus room did provide articulation to the front facade of the structure. She said that she would rule in favor of the applicant. Commissioner Whiteneck felt that the conceptual drawings were sufficient to indicate that the project was compatible with the neighborhood and that the remodel would improve the neighborhood Commissioner Cartwright believed it was unfortunate that not all of the parties involved could be satisfied, but he felt confident that the process was followed as well as it could be. He believed that the Code criteria had been met, that there were adequate checks and balances to make sure that the structure was built to Code and he thought that the Appeal should be denied PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13,1896 PAGE 9 Commissioner Alberio had hoped that there would be more compromise when the two parties met and did not like to see the neighborhood divided over this project. He believed that the articulation could be modified to preserve more views, but agreed that the addition would probably improve the neighborhood. Vice Chair Vannorsdall was in favor of project but suggested that the top of railing around the garage deck be no more than 12' higher than the present grade. He said he would have like to have seen the bonus room reduced to maintain more of the neighbors' views, but not eliminated because it added articulation to the front facade of the building He also suggested that the landscaping in the front yard be conditioned to be maintained no higher than 12". Planning Administrator Petru replied that Proposition M precluded the Commission from requiring landscaping to be kept at a height lower than 16' Vice Chair Vannorsdall noted that the flat roof on the garage, while not the same as pitched roofs on other houses in the neighborhood, was acceptable because it provided a lower height over which views would be preserved Chairman Clark believed that the opportunity for neighborhood compromise was positive, whether or not specific changes in the plans had occurred He felt that, on the whole, the addition would substantially improve the neighborhood and favored moving forward on the project He asked Staff to explain the latest set of conditions of approval on Page 5 of 6 of the February 13, 1996 Staff Report Planning Administrator Petru stated that, in response to Vice Chair Vannorsdall's suggestion regarding the maximum height of the garage, Staff had drafted some additional language to amend Condition A to add, between the first and second sentence, the following sentence- "The height of the garage, including any guard rail on the deck over the garage, shall not exceed a height of 12', as measured from the existing grade" She suggested also that the elevation call -out be included In answer to Commissioner Cartwright's question, Vice Chair Vannorsdall replied that this was not a change from the original drawings, but merely a clarification Planning Administrator Petru also suggested that a condition be added to maintain 47 5% minimum open space on the subject property PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13,1996 PAGE 10 In answer to concerns from the Commissioners, Planning Administrator Petru assured them that the plans submitted to Plan Check would be compared against the original conceptual plans to make sure they were consistent. She added that the Director could approve very minor changes but, if there were significant changes (regarding mass or volume), the project would be returned for further review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Franklin asked Staff to describe Condition F Planning Administrator Petru explained that, when voters passed Proposition M, one of the requirements was that when a property owner added on to their home, they had to trim all foliage that was impairing views In a later interpretation, the City Council added a trigger of a 120 square foot addition (or larger) and gave the applicant a choice, over the counter, to trim foliage or file a Covenant to Protect Views with the County If they chose to record the Covenant, it would be added to the deed of the property and run with the land, stating that the landowner would have to trim and maintain foliage if the City received a complaint Commissioner Franklin felt that the title of the form should be more specifically designated in the Conditions, such as including the form number Planning Administrator Petru replied that this was the exact title of the form, Covenant to Protect Views, and added that the City did not have a form numbering system Chairman Clark pointed out that this Covenant was a mechanism to bring the entire city into conformance with Proposition M. Commissioner Franklin still felt that the Condition language was too general Assistant Planner de Freitas explained that, although it was generally called a "Landscape Covenant", the actual title of the form was "Covenant to Protect Views" Chairman Clark and Commissioner Cartwright suggested that the words "City of Rancho Palos Verdes" be added before the title of the form, Covenant to Protect Views Commission Franklin asked that the name of the form be written with quotation marks to read "Rancho Palos Verdes Covenant to Protect Views" form Planning Administrator Petru agreed to incorporate the Commission's suggestions regarding the title of the form into the Conditions of Approval Chairman Clark pointed out that Condition J discussed privacy PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13,1996 PAGE 11 Commissioner Franklin asked what enforcement mechanism the City would use for this Condition Planning Administrator Petru said that the matter would be referred to the City's Code Enforcement Department, if someone complained that the landowner was in violation of the condition Chairman Clark confirmed that the Conditions reflected the compromise on the size of the rear yard deck requested by the neighbors Assistant Planner de Freitas confirmed that the compromise was reflected in the Conditions Chairman Clark asked if Condition M included the fact that the rooftop area was not to be used for viewing, or recreational purposes Planning Administrator Petru clarified that, even though the applicant had commented that he had a right to have a rooftop deck, any construction over 16' in height was subject to the Commission's discretion, and the use of the roof top could be controlled through Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Alberio asked if the Commission had the ability to disapprove the deck over the rooftop Planning Administrator Petru clarified that, if the Commission felt this deck was an invasion to privacy, it could deny it, but only because it was over 16' If it was under 16, the City would have no authority to condition the deck since it would be a ministerial permit Commissioner Alberio said that he would like the rooftop deck removed Chairman Clark said that the Conditions would state that the deck could be used only for roof mounted equipment, such as solar panels, and not for recreational or viewing purposes Chairman Clark addressed the potential problem of the construction taking too long Chairman Clark stated that the applicant seemed to want to complete the project quickly and he encouraged this Commissioner Cartwright moved to deny the Appeal and to approve the project, with modified conditions of approval, seconded by Vice Chair Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13,1996 PAGE 12 Chairman Clark thanked the appellant and his supporters and the applicant and his supporters He stated that he would be signing P C Resolution No 96-7 that evening and that there was a 15 -day appeal period to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. .1.114 Lei 0.. 3 ZONE CHANGE NO. 24, Mr. and Mrs. Murthy, 27 Marguerite Drive (FF) Chairman Clark declared the public hearing open Assistant Planner de Freitas mentioned that the applicant had indicated verbally to Staff that he intended to withdraw the Zone Change application, although the letter had not been submitted Commissioner Ng moved to continue this item to March 12, 1996, seconded by Commissioner Franklin, in order to allow the applicant and Staff adequate time to prepare and notice a Coastal Permit application that was required to be process concurrently with the Zone Change request. Approved, (7-0). (►I 4. P.C. RULES AND PROCEDURES, P C RESOLUTION 92-37 (CP) Commissioner Ng moved to continue this item to March 12, 1996, seconded by Commissioner Franklin. Approved, (7-0). STAFF REPORTS. 5. FUTURE PROJECTS - ORAL REPORT (CP) Planning Administrator Petru provided a written list of future projects, described them, and answered questions from the Commission 6. HERMANN CASE - ORAL REPORT (BB) The Commission continued, (7-0), this item to the March 12, 1996 hearing since Director/Secretary Bernard was unable to be present at the hearing to make the presentation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13,1996 PAGE 13 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS' Staff: 7. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, February 27, 1996 The Commission canceled, (7-0), the meeting on February 27, 1996, as there were no items scheduled for review. 8 Joint Workshop with the View Restoration Commission and City Attorney on the Ralph M. Brown Act on February 15, 1996 at 7.00 P M at Hesse Park. All Commissioners confirmed their attendance at the Joint Workshop, except Commissioner Whiteneck, who would be unable to attend. 9 Schedule an adjourned meeting to complete the site visit to the properties surrounding the Wayfarers Chapel site The Commission decided, (7-0), to visit the site one at a time or in groups of three or less, rather than conduct an adjourned meeting. Planning Administrator Petru reminded the Commission of the Landslide Tour scheduled to begin at 100 P M on Friday, February 23, 1996, indicating that everyone would meet at the Planning Department at City Hall. All Commissioners, except Commissioner Alberio and Chairman Clark, indicated that they would be attending In reference to the League of California Cities Planners Institute being held in Long Beach from March 20-22, 1996, Planning Administrator Petru confirmed that all Commissioners would be attending, except Commissioner Franklin and possibly Chairman Clark Commission NONE COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, expressed her concern regarding potential development in the landslide area and discussed maps and information she had received from the City regarding earth movement in the landslide area as measured by the Global Positioning System (GPS) She was disappointed that the Commission would not be touring the properties around Wayfarers Chapel as a group PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 13,1996 PAGE 14 At 10:45 P.M., Chairman Clark declared the meeting adjourned to an Adjourned Meeting on February 15, 1996 for a Joint Workshop with the View Restoration Commission on the Brown Act, led by the City Attorney. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be on Tuesday, March 12, 1996 M \USERSUACKID\WPWIN60WINUTES\96PCMN213