Loading...
PC MINS 19961112CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 1996 APPROVED 12/10/96 QED The meeting was called to order at 7 05 P M by Chairman Clark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE The pledge of allegiance was led by Commissioner Cartwright ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Albeno, Cartwright, Franklin, Ng, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Vannorsdall, and Chairman Clark. Absent None. Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Petru, Associate Planner Pfost, Assistant Planner Fox, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. Chairman Clark moved to consider Agenda Item No. 7 prior to Agenda Item No. 4 with the exception that the speakers for this item would be given a total of twenty minutes to make their remarks to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Franklin, and there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Director/Secretary Petru noted that Commissioner Franklin distributed a memorandum regarding the Minutes of October 8, 1996 Director/Secretary Petru distributed the draft P.C. Resolutions for Item No. 4, and one item of late correspondence regarding Item No 8 Commission None CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of October 8, 1996 Prior to the Commission's discussion of the October 8, 1996 Minutes, Director/ Secretary Petru noted that an item of late correspondence from Mr Anthony Segreto regarding Item No 8 was just received and would be distributed to the Commission when that item was heard later in the meeting Commissioner Franklin requested that page 2, paragraph 7 have an insertion within the paragraph to read as "He asked the recording secretary to prepare a verbatim transcript of these two portions of the discussion regarding Minor Exception Permit No 500 -Appeal, so that he could review and edit them down to the most important points" On page 3, paragraph 6 Commissioner Franklin also requested that the last sentence be modified to read as "There are two portions of concern, so that he could edit them down to the most important points" Commissioner Cartwright requested that page 3, paragraph 3 be modified to read as " and that he believes in general it is important to summarize the essence of what occurs at the Planning Commission Meetings and not prepare verbatim Minutes" Commissioner Ng noted a typographical error on page 5, paragraph 10 and requested that it be corrected to read as " wall would be located on the property line and would not encroach into the public -right-of-way" Commissioner Franklin requested that page 8, paragraph 1, last sentence be divided and begin as a new paragraph to read as " voiced his preference to require landscaping to screen the wall, such as landscaping which would cost less than stucco" Commissioner Ng requested that page 9, paragraph 13 be modified to read as " shall be screened with landscaping such that it covers the wall" Commissioner Franklin requested that page 21, paragraph 3, be modified to read as " such a situation is handled every day" Also paragraph 11 be modified to read as • He agreed that acceptable and agreeable alternative locations should be investigated, " PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12, 1996 Page 2 Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the Minutes of October 8, 1996, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (7-0). 2. Conditional Use Permit No 130 - Revision V; Tract No 45667 (Tramonto-by-the-Sea) located on the inland side of Palos Verdes Drive South at Tramonto Drive. Commissioner Franklin noted that in Exhibit 'A' Conditions of Approval No 1, there were strike -outs under the Setback column where it read, ". setback for lots 7-4339 (lots 12, 13, 17 amd 43 deleted) ", but that there was no explanation indicating when this change was made Assistant Planner Fox explained that the changes noted in sub -section 1 under the requirements for Rear Setbacks were clean-up items from previous revisions to the conditional use permit. Mr Fox further explained that, while making other changes to the conditional use permit, he had made changes this sub -section as well. Commissioner Franklin stated that he had no objections to the changes being made to the conditional use permit, but that Staff should have indicated these modifications to the conditions of approval by the use of a change bar to the right of the document indicating that these items were old and no longer applicable Using this method would call attention to the changes and differential changes that were made at different times from one another. Chairman Clark stated that he agreed with Commissioner Franklin's suggestion and directed Staff to pursue clarification in this sub -section Director/Secretary Petru noted that the Front Setback where it read, "... (except Lot 18) " should be underlined Commissioner Ng inquired if the plans for the home proposed on the subject lot was the same as had been previously built in the tract, or if the new landowner had designed new models Assistant Planner Fox replied that he believed all the homes were re -designed by the applicant Commissioner Ng inquired if the plans were re -designed, why did the applicant not consider the required setbacks PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12, 1996 Page 3 Director/Secretary Petru explained that the applicant may wish to address that question more thoroughly, but mentioned that the developer designed these models to fit on a standard lot and although they chose the model that would fit best, it still encroached into the front yard setback area, thus necessitating the Conditional Use Permit Revision request Commissioner Ng inquired about the building elevations and floor plans for the proposed home She asked if the proposed stairway must comply with the front yard setback requirements She also inquired why the plot plans were not included in the package and that the attached grading plan did not provide dimension or setback information Commissioner Ng requested Staff to provide appropriate information Director/Secretary Petru replied that the applicant had not provided Staff with copies of the building elevations and floor plans She went on to explain that the stairway was subject to the front setback requirement, since it is over 42 inches in height and is attached to the building (making it a part of the structure). Commissioner Ng asked why the request for a reduced setback for Wayfarers Chapel was considered through a Variance application and the proposed item being considered through a Conditional Use Permit Revision. Director/Secretary Petru explained that this particular tract was a Residential Planned Development (RPD) and that the City established the development standards for an RPD, such as height, setbacks, lots coverage, etc, through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit Since Wayfarers Chapel was not an RPD, a reduction in a setback required a Variance application. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 50 foot rear yard setback requirement and inquired if the applicant had considered moving the home into this setback rather than into the front yard setback Director/Secretary Petru stated that the rear yard setback also served as a fire break between the residences and the coastal sage scrub habitat on the property She noted that the U S Fish and Wildlife Services and the Department of Fish and Game had taken a keen Interest in the property due to the number of gnatcatchers in the area. She went to say that if the homes were moved closer to the rear property line, the fire break would have to be extended into the existing habitat area, which would probably not be approved by the resource agencies. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12,1996 Page 4 Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Staffs recommendation, seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall. As there was no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). 3 Minor Exception Permit No. 500 - Appeal; Peter Von Hagen (applicant) 30763 Tarapaca Road, Rosalyn Stewart, et.al. (appellant). Commissioner Ng asked for a clarification in Section 3c of the P C Resolution regarding the location of the antenna This clarification was provided by Staff Commissioner Franklin moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 96-39, as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded by Commission Ng and, there being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). Chairman Clark noted the 15 -day appeal period from this date PUBLIC HEARINGS Agenda Item No 7 was considered at this time 7 Conditional Use Permit No. 17 - Revision W et.al.; Congregation Ner Tamid, 5721 Crestridge Drive. Associate Planner Pfost presented a brief Staff Report and stated that the application was submitted to the City in March 1996, but was not deemed complete until November 5, 1996 Mr Pfost mentioned that the applicant had indicated to Staff that they were working on a very tight time line and that if the construction was not completed by October 1997, they would risk losing their funding for the proposed project. He stated that if the Commission was in favor of the proposed project, then a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration would need to be prepared, reviewed and approved before taking action on other planning permit applications Mr Pfost also stated that if the Commission was so favorably inclined, Staff recommended that the Public Hearing be continued to December 10, 1996 to allow Staff sufficient time to prepare the necessary environmental documentation Mr Pfost ended his presentation by noting to the Commission of other additional options that were available, as indicated in the Staff Report. Commissioner Alberio stated that the parking was essential issue and inquired if there was a condition of approval that had been prepared to address this issue PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12, 1996 Page 5 Associate Planner Pfost replied that Staff had not yet prepared any conditions of approval for the project. Commissioner Cartwright stated that when the project was approved in 1976 to build a sanctuary, a variance was approved to allow for a reduced number of parking spaces, a reduced side yard setback area and to exceed the maximum height allowance. He noted that the original permit granted in 1976 included a social hall as a second phase and inquired if the current proposal was significantly different from what had been considered 20 years earlier. He wondered if the social hall might not already be approved and would not require another action by the Planning Commission. Director/Secretary Petru replied that Staff had carefully reviewed the records from the 1976 approval and that Staff had concluded that, even though the social hall might have been considered in 1976, it was not specifically named as part of that approval. In addition, Staff felt that a new application was appropriate since over 20 years had past since the facility was first reviewed and the surrounding environment had changed substantially in that time Chairman Clark called for any speakers on the item Rabbi Ron Saulman, 5721 Crestridge Road, representing Congregation Ner Tamid stated that the congregation was looking forward in building a larger sanctuary and that their overriding purpose for the proposed project was to ensure that their holidays could be celebrated comfortably in their own facilities. Rabbi Saulman also stated that the congregation's most important and largest events would occur Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah Mr. Steven Spierer. 1637 Via Margarita, Palos Verdes Estates, CA, 90274 Chairman of Congregation Ner Tamid, stated that there was a need for the proposed social hall since they were presently utilizing the sanctuary for their services, as well as their social events He explained to the Commission that the congregation would 1) worship in the sanctuary and exit when finished, 2) re-enter the same sanctuary for refreshments and exit again then; and 3) re-enter the sanctuary once more for the second half of the event Mr Spierer explained that the social hall was needed so that once a ceremony concluded in the sanctuary, the group assembled could then move immediately into the social hall without any delay. He also mentioned that there was no need for increased parking, since the same number of people would be attending the events as before, they would just be more comfortably accommodated He also stated that during Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, the congregation would utilize the parking facilities of the Mormon and Baptist churches, as well as the Art Center, and would walk to the synagogue He addressed the letter from Mr Anthony Segreto, indicating that this PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12,1996 Page 6 neighbor was generally supportive of the proposed project, but that Mr Segreto felt that the Commission may wish to consider other issues, such as view obstruction and structure location Mr. Richard Landry, 11333 Iowa Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90025, representing the Landry Design Group, Inc, presented to the Commission floor plans of the proposed project, indicating the location of the existing sanctuary He pointed out the classroom building and mentioned that the addition to this building would be a minimum of 5 feet from the side property line He indicated that the social hall and the sanctuary would not have a second story Mr. Landry stated that the variance for height discussed previously was no longer needed, since they had been able to lower the height of the building to a maximum of 30 feet, which could be allowed through just the Conditional Use Permit. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall inquired if 6 to 7 parking spaces would be removed from the site by the construction of the proposed classrooms Mr. Landry replied that was correct Vice Chairman Vannorsdall inquired if the congregation considered purchasing more land to increase the parking area Mr. Spierer replied that the land to the east of their property was not for sale and that even if it were, the congregation was not in a financial position to purchase more land. Commissioner Cartwright inquired if the congregation had joint use agreements to use the off-site parking facilities from both churches and the Art Center Mr. Spierer replied that the congregation had documentation and that they had a mutually cooperative relationship and excellent communications with the neighboring churches, as well as the Art Center He mentioned that on occasion the congregation had utilized the Mormon and Baptist Church parking facilities, and in turn Ner Tamid would make their parking lot available to them Vice Chairman Vannorsdall inquired how many times a year the on-site parking was inadequate Mr Spierer replied that their on-site parking was inadequate exactly two times a year and that the two holidays were Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12, 1996 Page 7 Commissioner Franklin inquired if the congregation allows the public to utilize their facilities Rabbi Saulman replied that the facility would be available to community service organizations, but that no other religious ceremonies could take place in their sanctuary. Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the public hearing in order to conduct a site visit. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, inquired if churches were required to pay property taxes, since they were operating a business by charging fees for registering students for the various seminars conducted at this facility. Director/Secretary replied that, if directed to do so by the Commission, Staff would need to conduct research to provide an answer to Ms Larue's question. The motion was denied by a roll call vote, (3-4), with Commissioners Cartwright, Whiteneck, Franklin, and Vice Chairman Vannorsdall dissenting. Chairman Clark moved to accept Staffs recommendation to continue the public hearing to December 10, 1996. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed by a unanimous roll call vote, (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8 45 P M there was a brief recess until 8.55 P.M. when the meeting reconvened CONTINUED BUSINESS Prior to discussion of Agenda Item No 4, Director/Secretary Petru stated that the applicant of Agenda Item No. 5 had approached her during recess and requested a continuance of this public hearing to December 10, 1996. Due to this request, she suggested that the Commission may wish to discuss this item before moving on with the agenda. Chairman Clark agreed with Staffs suggestion and stated that the Commission would now consider Item No. 5. 5. Conditional Use Permit No. 192; Pacific Bell Mobile Services c/o Jerome Buckmelter Associates, 5837 Crest Road (California Water Service FaciliUL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12, 1996 Page 8 Chairman Clark asked the Commission for any questions of Staff regarding this item Commissioner Ng noted that in the Staff Report the proposed project was referred to as the concrete monopole, but the new plans that were submitted indicated that the pole would be constructed from 16" diameter steel. Commissioner Ng also stated that this information was included in the draft resolution. Director/Secretary Petru replied that Staff will research this item to confirm the type of construction proposed for the monopole. Chairman Clark asked the representative from Pacific Bell Mobile Services to speak. Mr. Jerome Buckmelter, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, 5959 Century Boulevard #201, Los Angeles, CA, 90025, stated that they had met with some of the neighbors and agreed to meet before the next meeting to work out any concerns regarding the design of the proposed project. Mr. Buckmelter then requested a continuance of the public hearing to December 10, 1996 Commissioner Whiteneck moved to continue the public hearing to December 10, 1996. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). Chairman Clark indicated that the Commission would now consider Item No. 4. 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 185. Variance No. 388, Grading Permit No. 1793, and Environmental Assessment No. 676; Wayfarers Chapel, 5575 Palos Verdes Drive South. Associate Planner Pfost presented the Staff Report and stated that all applications for the proposed project with the exception of the Environmental Assessment application were submitted to the City on February 8, 1995, and that they were deemed complete for processing by the City in April 1995 Mr Pfost also stated that the Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration was prepared and made available to the public for review for 21 days He stated that the Commission considered this item at a public hearing which was held in July 1995 and since then the project had been heard and continued before the Commission thirteen times Mr. Pfost stated that in April 1996 the Commission continued the public hearing to September 1996, in order to allow adequate time for the applicant to provide revised plans for the project. Unfortunately, the applicant was not able to obtain all the necessary information within this time and, therefore, had requested that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12,1996 Page 9 Commission continue this item to October 22, 1996 The applicant was still not prepared with the revised plans and once again requested another extension date of November 12, 1996 Mr Pfost noted that on October 17, 1996, the applicant submitted revised plans for the proposed project. He also addressed the geotechnical issues associated with the project and stated that the City Council had previously approved Landslide Moratorium Exception No 10 to allow the Wayfarers Chapel to proceed with the application process for the proposed Visitor's Center to replace a similar structure that was damaged due to land movement. Mr Pfost stated that the reasons the Landslide Moratorium Exception request was considered by the Council (rather than reviewed by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement) were 1) the proposed structure was to be relocated in another area of the site, 2) the replacement structure was larger and taller than the previous existing structure, and, 3) the Moratorium Ordinance only referred to residential structures as being allowed to be replaced if damaged by land movement. Mr Pfost stated that the Council found that the project was an exception to the Moratorium, and the landowner was allowed to proceed in submitting the necessary applications With regards to the geologic review of the project, Associate Planner Pfost stated that in Municipal Code Section 15 20 040 read as follows " prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation " Mr Pfost stated that the applicant hired a license geotechnical engineer to prepare studies for the proposed project and that the City's consultant had reviewed the report and concluded that no other findings were necessary Therefore, Staff concluded that the requirements of the Code regarding geology had been satisfied Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and, there being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). Chairman Clark called for speakers regarding this item Mr. Eric Wright. 24680 Piumos Road, Malibu, CA, 91456, (consulting architect for the project) stated that he had worked with his father (Lloyd Wright, the original project architect) when the first Visitor's Center was designed, but was later taken down He mentioned that he was now working with Mr Dean Andrews to design a new Visitor's PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12, 1996 Page 10 Center that was in keeping with the original center's design, while taking the geologic conditions on the site into account. Mr. Wright then described the proposed building design and location, and responded to inquiries from the Commission Mr. Dean Andrews, 6118 Palos Verdes Drive South, stated that he was the architect for the proposed project and mentioned that the geologist who conducted the geotechnical studies on the site was present in the audience to answer any inquiries from the Commission regarding the stability of the site He also congratulated Staff for its work in preparing the Staff Report presented to the Commission that evening Mr. David Longstreth, 2414 Grant Avenue, Redondo Beach, CA, 90277 (geologist for the Wayfarers Chapel) stated that he had conducted the geologic studies for the proposed project and stated that he would answer inquiries from the Commission Mr Longstreth also stated that the factor of safety is the number applied to the evaluation of the stability of the slope located behind the proposed building and that the analysis he conducted concluded that slope exceeded a 1.5 safety factor. Mr. Paul Christensen 6317 Tarragon Road, representing the Abalone Cove Homeowners Association, stated that he was not in favor of the proposed project and expressed his concerns regarding geologic stability in the area. He also stated that he hoped the Commission would consider strict limitations for the subject property, if the project were approved Ms. Corrine Gerrard, 22 Narcissa Drive, read three letters from neighboring residents who opposed the project Ms Gerrard also stated her reasons for opposing the project and was very concerned with the safety issues in the area where the proposed project would be constructed Ms Muriel Titzler, 3 Gingerroot Lane, stated that she was very concerned with any earth movement that would occur as a result of the project and was not supportive of the proposed project for that same reason Mr. Bill Griffin, 5 Gingerroot Lane, stated that he did not support the project due to the fact that the structure would be adding more weight on top of the landslide and was, therefore, concerned for the safety of his home and other homes in the area Ms. Maureen Griffin, 5 Gingerroot Lane, stated that the proposed project would increase the risk of land movement in the area and was concerned about the effect this would have on all the neighboring homes PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12, 1996 Page 11 Mr William R. Muller, 24 Narcissa Drive, expressed his concerns regarding the proposed project, but stated that he had no objections if the geology studies were substantiated. Any recommendations made by the geologists should be incorporated into the approval if the request was granted He also felt that adequate insurance should be required and maintained by the applicant. Ms. Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road, agreed with the majority of speaker who opposed the project and stated that she too was not in favor of constructing a new Visitors Center on the site, due to the landslide activity in the area. Mr Charlie Batel, 35 Narcissa Drive, stated that he resides within the area of the proposed project and mentioned that the Commission should seriously consider the request, due to the occasional land movement in the area Ms. Joan Wright. 20 Fruit Tree Road, stressed to the Commission that she was in opposition of the proposed project because of the land movement in the area. Ms. Wright also stated that her home was an investment and did not want to loose it She asked the Commission to base its decision on facts, and not beliefs. Commissioner Whiteneck moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ng and, there being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). Commissioner Alberio expressed his concerns regarding the adequacy of the geology studies and the safety factors. He stated that additional information should be provided by the applicant Vice Chairman Vannorsdall stated that he wanted to review the proposed conditions of approval more carefully and to re -check all the new information provided on the geotechnical studies. Commissioner Cartwright inquired if Staff had any recent data concerning the rate of land movement in the area, since several of the speakers had mentioned that movement had accelerated in recent months. Director/Petru stated that the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department was not involved in the monitoring of landslide activity, but that the Public Works Department would have recent data. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12, 1996 Page 12 Commissioner Cartwright stated that the design of the proposed project looked better than the previous proposal He also noted that is was smaller in height and size Mr Cartwright stated that he was aiming to support Staffs recommendation. Commissioner Whiteneck stated that he would be interested in reviewing the proposed foundation design of the building. Commissioner Ng expressed her concern regarding the location of the proposed Visitor Center, since it was supposed to be secondary to the primary use on the property, which was the Chapel building. She commented that by placing the replacement building in the northwest corner of the property, it would be seen first by visitors to the site, instead of the Chapel. Commissioner Franklin stated that he favored the new design of the building over the previous proposal. However, he was still deeply concerned about the stability and suitability of the site for this type of project He did not feel that the geology studies prepared to that date were adequate and was very concerned about the minimum safety factors on the site and in the surrounding area.. Chairman Clark stated that he felt additional information and geology studies from the applicant were necessary in order for the Commission to complete its analysis of the project He then asked the applicant if he would grant a time extension to the City and provide the Staff with this requested additional information Mr. Andrews replied in order for the project to be approved, he would be willing to grant a time extension and provide the Information requested by the Commission Commissioner Alberio made a motion to continue this item at a date uncertain in order for the applicant to provide the additional geology studies to the City. The motion failed due to a lack of a second. Commissioner Franklin moved to re -open the public hearing, continue it to a date uncertain, with the applicant's concurrence, to allow a qualified third party selected by the applicant to determine what additional information and/or studies were necessary to determine the nature and stability of the deep, ancient landslide under the project site. The applicant will present the third party's recommendations to the Commission prior to implementation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12, 1996 Page 113 The motion passed by a roll call vote, (6-1), with Commissioner Cartwright dissenting. 6. Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -Revision 'A' and Encroachment Permit No 26; The Island View Homeowners Association, c/o Trish Malin, 43 Santa Catalina Drive. Chairman Clark asked the Commission if, due to the lateness of the hour, this item should be continued to a later date Commissioner Ng stated that, since the applicants had waited the entire meeting, she felt that she would be willing to hear the item Commissioner Whiteneck agreed with Commissioner Ng. Commissioner Cartwright suggested that this item was complex and that it should be postponed to another time. Commissioner Albeno agreed with Commissioner Cartwright Chairman Clark asked that the representative of the homeowners association approach the podium to address the issue of a continuance Mr. John Hellow. 15 San Clemente, stated that most of their representatives would not be available for the next regular Planning Commission and an adjourned meeting be conducted before that time Ms. Trish Malin, 43 Santa Catalina Drive, concurred with Mr Hellow that all of the representatives from the Association would be out of town, due to the upcoming holidays Ms Malin requested a hearing before the next regular meeting. Commissioner Cartwright moved to continue the public hearing to Adjourned Meeting on Saturday, November 16, 1996 at 4:00 P.M. in the Community Room at City Hall. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and, there being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 8 Variance No 414; Beth Zaccaro 4338 Exultant Drive. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12, 1996 Page 14 Director/Secretary Petru explained Staffs recommendation to continue the public hearing to November 26, 1996, as requested by the applicant Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the public hearing to November 26, 1996, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck and, there being no objection it was so ordered by Chairman Clark, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 9 Pre -Agenda for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting o Tuesday, November 26, 1996 Commission After Commissioner Franklin excused himself from the dias, Commissioner Ng read a letter of resignation from him. The letter extended Commissioner Franklin's gratitude towards the Commission and Staff during his tenure and that the effective date of his resignation was December 1, 1996. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ADJOURNMENT At 12:40 A.M. Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn the meeting to an Adjourned Meeting on Saturday, November 16,1996. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng and was passed, (6-1) with Commissioner Franklin excused. N \GROUPTLANNINGTWINWINI 1 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12, 1996 Page 15