Loading...
PC MINS 19970114CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 14, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Approved 2/11/97 Q�) The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P M by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Whiteneck. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Ng, Whiteneck, and Vice Chairman Vannorsdall Absent: Chairman Clark (excused) Also present were Director/Secretary Petru, Senior Planner Snow, Associate Planner Pfost, Assistant Planner Fox, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Alberio made a motion to consider Item No. 3 as the first item of discussion on the Agenda, since the Chairman of the Traffic Committee was present to provide information on this particular item. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck, and there being no objection, Vice Chairman Vannorsdall so ordered the agenda approved as amended, (5-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS At this time Agenda Item No 3 was considered. 3 Conditional Use Permit No. 17 - Revision 'A', Variance No. 408, Grading Permit No. 1874 and Environmental Assessment Na. 683, Congregation Ner Tamid, 5721 Crestridge Drive. Associate Planner Pfost informed the Commission that the Traffic Committee had discussed this item at its January 13, 1997 meeting and that the Committee had taken two actions regarding the project 1) approved the traffic and parking analysis prepared by the applicant; and, 2) recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission, with the condition that an annual review be conducted regarding the parking and usage of the facility The Traffic Committee had also requested the City Attorney's opinion to determine whether approval of this project would constitute a precedent that may apply to similar projects in the future Associate Planner Pfost stated that the City Attorney had been consulted on this issue and her opinion was that the City would have the flexibility to consider each case on its own merits through the Conditional Use Permit process and would not be bound by previous determinations that were based on unique sets of circumstances related to a specific property Commissioner Alberio asked if there had been any change in the Staffs recommendation or proposed conditions of approval for the project since this project was last considered by the Planning Commission Associate Planner Pfost replied that Staffs recommendations and proposed conditions of approval were unchanged Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Chairman of the Traffic Committee, who was present at the meeting, to address the Planning Commission Traffic Committee Chairman James Moore stated that the Committee had carefully reviewed the traffic study prepared by the applicant's consultant, as well as the review of that report prepared by the City's Traffic Consultant. He noted that the Traffic Committee had conducted a site visit to the property on December 21, 1996 to further analyze the traffic on the streets and the parking facilities involved for the proposed project. The results of the site visit indicated that the existing parking facilities on the site were adequate to accommodate the proposed expansion and that there would be no adverse impact to traffic movement or safety on Crestridge Road He also noted that there were 200 parking spaces available on Crestridge Road, even if the off-site parking facilities were full or unavailable for some reason Mr Moore concluded his remarks by stating that, based upon these findings, the Committee recommended approval of the project, subject to the condition that the City monitor the level of use of the parking facilities on an annual basis Commissioner Ng noted that the on -street parking mentioned by Chairman Moore included the entire length of Crestridge Road, not just the area in front of the subject property Therefore, if all of the on -street parking were needed, the members of the congregation would be parking far down the street and walking a long distance to the site PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 1997 Page 2 0 41 Chairman Moore stated that he only wanted to point out this fact to show that there was an excessive on -street parking available, even though the congregation would most likely not need to use it. Commissioner Ng noted that the applicant was proposing to remove 18 parking spaces and asked if this would impose any significant impact. Chairman Moore replied that the Committee felt that the removal of these existing parking spaces would not cause any significant Impact. Commissioner Ng inquired as to the day of the week that the December 21, 1996 site visit was conducted, and if the congregation was holding a service at that time. Chairman Moore replied that it was a Saturday and also stated that there was a church activity occurring during the site visit Mr Moore also stated that the submitted traffic report calculated the required parking based on the Code standard, which was a ratio of one parking space for every 44 square feet of sanctuary area Commissioner Cartwright asked Chairman Moore to discuss a "worst-case scenario" regarding parking at the synagogue and the other churches in the area Chairman Moore replied that, besides the two major holidays each year, the traffic study analyzed the parking situation during a large wedding, which could be considered as a "worst-case scenario " The event in question generated 135 cars, where 92 were parked on-site and the remaining 43 cars were either parked on the street or at of the other facilities' parking lots He recalled that the total number of off-site parking spaces combining the Mormon Church, Baptist Church and the Canterbury Retirement Home was 80 spaces. Mr Moore also noted that the demand for parking between these facilities had not overlapped in the past to the extent that it resulted in parking problems in the area. Commissioner Cartwright recalled that some of the Commission's concerns were regarding the agreement that the other facilities had with the synagogue While they were written agreements, they were not binding and could be terminated He then inquired if the Traffic Committee had considered other alternatives, such as on -street parking, to accommodate additional vehicles Chairman Moore replied that alternatives were discussed and that the 'annual report' was recommended so that any changes with the parking activities could be monitored and addressed at that time He also stated that the congregation was required to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 1997 Page 3 include in the annual report the days that they would have more cars than would be able to parking on-site. Commissioner Whiteneck inquired if the parking on the street was parallel to the curb. Chairman Moore replied that the parking on Crestridge was parallel to the curb Vice Chairman Vannorsdall called for any speakers on this item Mr. Steven Spierer. 1637 Via Margarita, Palos Verdes Estates, stated that he, the applicant's traffic consultant and the project architect were present to answer questions for the Commission Commissioner Ng noted that the Traffic Committee had visited the site on Saturday, December 21, 1996 and inquired as to what type of function was held at the synagogue that day Mr Spierer replied that a bar mitzvah took place that morning and consisted of a large group Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Spierer to estimate how many guests would typically attend this type of event. Mr Spierer replied that attendance would range from 75 to 150 guests, but that the maximum would be approximately 300. He stated that since these types of celebrations, like weddings, were family events Therefore, most of the guests traveled in family groups, such as two to four people per car Therefore, if 150 people were attending the event, the number of required parking spaces would be about 60, which could all be accommodated in the on-site parking lot. Mr. Spierer went on to state that the congregation did not expect to utilize other off-site parking facilities except for the two high holidays per year, or an occasional large event like a wedding or bar mitzvah Commissioner Ng noted that according to the traffic analysis provided to the Commission, the special occasion cited in the report, a large wedding, resulted in the overflow of cars off-site. Mr Spierer replied that Mr. Richard Garland, Traffic Engineer would be able to make a statement regarding Commissioner Ng's comment. Mr. Richard Garland (applicant's traffic consultant), 16787 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA, stated that when he conducted the traffic studies for the congregation, he PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 1997 Page 4 replied that large crowds were anticipated when a bar mitzvah and wedding was held on a Saturday Mr Garland stated that during a bar mitzvah he counted 115 cars in the area and during a wedding he counted 125 cars. Both of these events had resulted in some parking overflow He stated that on a typical day, when afternoon services were conducted, a total of 20 cars were in the parking lot Mr. Garland also stated that during the week, an average of 25 cars were parking in the lot With no objection, Vice Chairman Vannorsdall declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall complemented Mr Garland for the detailed traffic report he had prepared on this project. Commissioner Ng referred to the chart that she had asked the Staff to prepare for that evening's meeting and stated that the parking provided at the Baptist Church was 76% of that required by Code, while the Canterbury was 95% and the Mormon Church was 86%, respectively. She pointed out that Congregation Ner Tamid would only be providing 20% of the parking spaces required by the Code. She felt the parking provided on the site was inadequate, especially compared to other institutional uses in the area, and felt that the Variance for reduced parking should not be approved for the project. Commissioner Cartwright recalled the Staff Report recommended that this item be continued to January 28, 1997, Since Staff had recommended a continuance, he had not reviewed the previous materials on the project prior to the meeting Therefore, when it was suggested that the item be heard that evening, contrary to the agenda, he was not prepared to consider or vote on the project at that time. Commissioner Whiteneck stated that he had reviewed and considered this item many times before and felt prepared to vote on it that evening However, he stated that he would not oppose a continuance if there were other Commissioners who were not comfortable with voting on the item that evening. Commissioner Alberio stated that he agreed with the Traffic Committee's analysis of the project, as well as the City Attorney's input regarding precedents, and was ready to make a decision on the project that evening Vice Chairman Vannorsdall stated that he too agreed with Traffic Committee's findings on the project He felt that the Commission has promised the applicant that it would make a decision following the Traffic Committee's review of the project Therefore, he was prepared to make a decision on the project that evening PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14,1997 Page 5 Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Staffs Recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution Nos. 97-1, 92-2 and 97-3, thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 683 and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 17 - Revision "A" and Variance No. 408. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. The motion was passed by a roll call vote (3-0-2) with Commissioners Cartwright and Ng abstaining. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period from this date. Mr. Spierer inquired if the Congregation could submit its plans into Building Plan Check during the appeal period Commissioner Whiteneck replied that Mr. Spierer's request was not within the control of the Commission and that the applicant should approach the Director with that request. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8.15 P M. there was a brief recess until 8.25 P.M. when the meeting reconvened. C�Zi7i � i��;iC�7►t;� Staff Director/Secretary Petru distributed* 1) the 1997 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Schedule, 2) information for the upcoming League of California Cities'Planners Institute' Conference, 3) a letter of thanks from John Jordan regarding Minor Exception Permit No. 500 -Appeal, 4) a copy of the letter sent to Captain Dickenson regarding the Island View Project, 5) a letter from Kenneth Burrell regarding Variance No 414, and, 6) a Staff memorandum regarding site visitation and a revised chart requested by Commissioner Ng regarding Agenda Item No 3 Commissioner Cartwright Enquired if it would be appropriate to discuss the letter from Mr. Burrell regarding Variance No 414 Director/Secretary Petru replied that it would be appropriate to discuss the letter She stated that in order to obtain an after -the -fact building permit for the accessory structure the Commission recently approved, it must first be inspected by a City building inspector Depending on the outcome of that investigation, the building may need to be modified in order to obtain a building permit from the City PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14,1997 Page 6 Commissioner Cartwright asked if the property was located in the Landslide Moratorium Area Director/Secretary Petru replied that the property was in the Landslide Moratorium Area, and as such, there were additional requirements that would have to be satisfied before a building permit could be issued The Commission directed Staff to provide a response to Mr. Burrell's's letter. Commission None CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of November 26, 1996 Commissioner Ng requested that page 8, last paragraph, line 3 be modified to read as, "She stated that the adjacent neighbor did not complain about the accessory structure It would be a hardship for the owner to remove it.." and line 5 be modified to read as, "Therefore, she felt that no unnecessary construction should be done..." Commissioner Ng noted that on page 12, under Item No. 7, most of the discussion among the Commission was omitted from the minutes She felt that the it was extremely important to include the Commission's discussion leading to a motion Commissioner Whiteneck stated that on page 11, paragraph 4, he was referring to the protective walls around the above ground storage tank, and not the size of the tank itself Vice Chairman Vannorsdall agreed with Commissioner Ng and felt that the essence of the discussion should be included in the minutes. Commissioner Cartwright also agreed that it was important to include the essence of the discussion and requested that page 2, paragraph 9 be modified to read as, "that the word 'manned' should be included...". He stated that page 9, paragraph 2, line 3 should read, "there were no complaints..." Commissioner Cartwright moved to continue the November 26, 1996 Minutes to the January 28, 1997 meeting for additional revisions by Staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ng, and there being no objection it was so ordered by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Alberio abstaining as he was not present at this meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14,1997 Page 7 0 2. 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. Director/Secretary Petru briefly described the draft P C Resolutions that were being presented the Commission which would 1) approve a revision to the Conditional Use Permit to allow unmanned vehicle gates and tract wall extensions at Whitley Collins Drive and 2) deny the Encroachment Permit for a manned tract entrance observation booth at San Clemente Place Assistant Planner Fox noted that the Resolution for the Conditional Use Permit had been modified to allow the tract perimeter walls to only be modified at the Whaley Collins entrance, and not at San Clemente Place, since there would be not tract entrance observation booth at the main entrance to the tract. Commissioner Ng moved to adopt the P C Resolutions, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Assistant Planner Fox also noted that there was one speaker for this item. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that the City should not vacate Whitley Collins Drive to the Island View Homeowners Association since the ground under the roadway may be contaminated by hazardous materials from the former gas station site at the adjacent corner of Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road. Commissioner Cartwright noted that he did not agree with the second finding in the P.C. Resolution denying the Encroachment Permit, which stated that there was Insufficient space to accommodate the proposed tract entrance observation structure on private property. Mr Cartwright also felt that this finding was not discussed by the Commission and should be omitted. If the Commission agreed, Director/Secretary Petru indicated that the P.C. Resolution for the Encroachment Permit could be modified to remove the second finding. The Commission agreed that the P C Resolution for the denial of the Encroachment Permit should be so modified In addition, Commissioner Cartwright felt that the gate a Whitley Collins Drive should not require a card key or access code in order to exit the tract He felt instead, that the gate should open automatically to traffic leaving the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14,1997 Page 8 Director/Secretary Petru noted that the conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit required the Homeowners Association to install a turn around in front of the exit gate, so that if a vehicle did not have an access card or code, it could turn around and exit through the main entrance on San Clemente Place. Since a motion had been previously made and seconded, the Commission voted on the motion currently on the floor The motion failed, (0-5), with Commissioners Albeno, Cartwright, Ng, Whiteneck, and Vice Chairman Vannorsdall dissenting Commissioner Ng moved to adopt P.C. Resolution Nos. 97-4 and 97-5, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 82 - Revision "A", with a modified condition that the exit gate at Whitley Collins Drive be designed to open automatically without a card key or access code; and denying Encroachment Permit No. 26, with modified findings. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed (3-2), with Commissioners Alberio and Whiteneck dissenting. Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period. CONTINUED BUSINESS 4 General Plan Amendment No. 23, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment No. 6. Zone Change No. 25 and Environmental Assessment No. 686: Hasse/City, 6188, 6118. and 6124 Palos Verdes Drive South. Senior Planner Snow briefly presented the Staff Report and stated that Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, and Zone Change to the City Council. Since this was a continued public hearing, Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that she did not support the project Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck and approved by acclamation (5-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14,1997 Page 9 Commissioner Cartwright inquired about the ownership of the parking lot at the flower stand across the street. Senior Planner Snow stated that the City owned and controlled the parking lot Commissioner Cartwright inquired if a Landslide Moratorium Exception permit was required in conjunction with these applications. Director/Secretary Petru replied that a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit was not necessary, since the project area was located outside the boundaries of the Landslide Moratorium Area Vice Chairman Vannorsdall moved to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment and Zone Change to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Commissioner Ng noted that the Staff Report listed eight requirements for commercial properties, i.e., lot size, setback, coverage, parking, etc She stated that the Haase property did not comply to four of the eight requirements and that the Wayfarer property did not comply to any of the eight requirements Commissioner Ng noted that the commercial zoned lots were required to have 40,000 square feet. She stated that the Haase lot was 42% and the Wayfarer lot was only 16% of the Code requirement. Commissioner Ng noted that the Staff Report stated even if the two properties were combined it would still not equal 40,000 square feet She felt that no matter what non- conforming structure issues were addressed in the future, the lot areas would never comply Commissioner Ng related her concern and stated that this would probably create problems in the future should the new property owners try to improve the properties that were compatible with other commercial properties. She cited an example of a recent project which came before the Commission. Commissioner Ng recalled that a property owner of a 13,000 square foot property in an RS -1 zone, (RS -1, required a minimum 43,660 square foot lot) applied for a Conditional Use Permit for exceeding lot coverage so that his house would be compatible with the surrounding one acre properties She felt that the proposed land use change should not be approved. P.C. Resolution No. 97-6 was approved by roll -call vote, (4-1) with Commissioner Ng dissenting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14,1997 Page 10 0 0 5 Conditional Use Permit No. 192, Pacific Bell Mobile Services c/o Jerome Buckmelter Associates, 5837 Crest Road (California Water Service Facilitvl. Assistant Planner Fox briefly presented the Staff Report and stated that this item had been continued several times at the applicants request. The last continuance was requested in order for the applicant to work with an adjacent neighbor to address his concerns about the project Mr. Fox stated that the applicant proposed to remove an existing 54 -foot high monopole with a 12 -foot -high antenna on top and replacing it with a new 50 -foot high monopole carrying a platform for three personal communications system antennae at the 50 -foot level, one new and one existing 12 -foot high whip antenna at the 53 -foot and 65 -foot levels, respectively, for an overall height of 77 feet. Since this was a continued public hearing, Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item Mr. Jerome Buckmelter (applicant), 23534 Aetna Street, Woodland Hills, CA, stated that Pacific Bell was taking down one pole, which was 54 -feet high, and replacing it with a 50 -foot pole. However, two antennae would be placed on top of the pole, since the Water Company was requiring an additional antenna for its remote sensing system, which monitored water pressure. Mr. Buckmelter stated that if the proposed antenna at St Peter's Church was also approved, Pacific Bell would have complete coverage of the south side of the Peninsula He then displayed a map which showed the service coverage and indicated the signal pattern for the antenna proposed at the California Water Service Company site Mr Buckmelter stated that cellular technology had been around for sometime and still provided inadequate services, but that Pacific Bell Mobile Services would be able to provide higher quality service to the customers on the Peninsula with its PCS antennas. He also stated that the reason Pacific Bell selected this location was because it already has an existing communications pole on the site. Mr. Brian Agnew. 25 Seaview Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, CA, stated that he was the Vice President of the Seaview Homeowner's Association. He noted to the Commission that the homeowners were not opposed to the pole, but requested that the Commission consider whether its approval would set a precedent in the area that would encourage more poles to be located there Mr Agnew stated that the antenna that was currently on the site only served the California Water Service He also wondered that, since the Water Service was allowing Pacific Bell expanding to located on its property, how many other communication companies would want to utilize the same location in the future Commissioner Whiteneck moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio and approved by acclamation (5-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14,1997 Page 11 Commissioner Whiteneck stated that supported the proposed project and did not foresee the type of impacts expressed by the neighbors Commissioner Alberio stated that he agreed with Commissioner Whiteneck's statements about the impacts of the project and that he also supported the proposed project. Commissioner Cartwright stated that he did not anticipate any problem resulting from the relocation and reconfiguration of the existing pole He stated that the increased height was due to the addition of a second whip antenna to accommodate the needs of the California Water Company He felt that the new location of the tower would minimize impacts to the surrounding neighbors Commissioner Cartwright also stated that since there were no other viable alternatives for the proposed project, he supported the Staffs recommendation Commissioner Ng stated that the proposed project would look better if it were one pole, as proposed by the applicant, rather than installing a second monopole on the site Therefore, she felt that the proposal minimized impacts to the surrounding neighbors Chairman Vannorsdall stated that he too supported Staffs recommendation for the same reasons as mentioned by the other Commissioners Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve Staffs recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Ng. There being no objection, P.C. Resolution No. 97-7 was approved unanimously, (5-0). Vice Chairman noted the 15 -day appeal period 6 Conditional Use Permit No. 172 - Revision 'B'; California Water Service Company, 5837 Crest Road. Assistant Planner Fox presented the Staff Report and stated that applicant requested to replace a 2,000 -gallon underground gasoline storage tank with a new 2,000 -gallon above -ground gasoline storage tank. At the last meeting on this item, the Planning Commission had asked Staff to investigate several additional items, which were addressed in the Staff Report. As before, Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions of approval Commissioner Alberio inquired about the dimensions of the tanks PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 1997 Page 12 Assistant Planner Fox that he was not aware of the specific dimensions of the tank, but noted that the applicant was in the audience and may be able to answer that question Commissioner Ng asked how much the containment basin would have to be increased in size to accommodate all the fuel in the tank Assistant Planner stated that if the area between the two sheds where the tank was to be placed was paved (an area about 20 feet by 25 feet in size) and the height of the curb around this area raised by about one inch, the containment basin would be able to accommodate all of the fuel that would be stored in the tank. Commissioner Ng inquired about the valve that was shown on the containment basin. Assistant Planner Fox replied that the intent of the valve was to drain -out rain water that may accumulate in the containment basin If there was a fuel spillage, the valve could not be used and the Water Company would need arrange for a firm that handled toxic materials to come out and clean up the spill Since this was a continued public hearing, Vice Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item. Mr. Kent Adney (applicant), 5837 Crest Road, stated that removal of the existing underground tank was most economical and environmentally sensitive He stated that underground tanks did not come with guaranteed leak protection and could not be visually inspected, whereas an above -ground tank would be easier to visually inspect. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall inquired if the underground tanks were more earthquake - proof than above -ground tanks. Mr. Adney replied that Mr Don Jensen would be able to respond to the question Mr. Don Jensen (applicant) 5837 Crest Road, replied that the proposed above -ground tank would meet all the earthquake -safety requirements. Commissioner Whiteneck asked about the design of the tank Mr Adney replied that it would be a double-wall steel tank with a 6-3/8" layer of concrete encased between the two layers of steel Commissioner Alberio inquired if the tank was sealed to prevent corrosion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14,1997 Page 13 protection or lining that he was not aware of that could be used to extend the life of the tank Commissioner Cartwright stated that a most of his concerns regarding the proposed tank were answered in the Staff Report. Mr. Brian Aanew* 25 Seaview Drive North, Rolling Hills Estates, stated that he was concerned about the tank due to its weight and placement at the top of a slope above his condominium complex Mr. Sid Wielin. 16 Seaview Drive South, Rolling Hills Estates, stated that he was not supportive of the project due to concerns about the tank creating a safety hazard Commissioner Whiteneck moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio and approved by acclamation (5-0). Commissioner Ng stated that her telephone conversation with the South Coast Air Quality Management District revealed that refueling five to eight cars per day caused toxic compound emission of bensine and was under the threshold of one part per million She stated that the odor would be a concern to the neighbors, but that it was subjective depending on the wind direction and the time of day of refueling She also stated that since the tank itself had a second wall for containment, the outside lining would provide extra protection in case of leakage problems Commissioner Cartwright stated that he saw no problem with the proposed above- ground tank. He stated that there were other facilities such as this in the community and agreed with the applicant that an above -ground tank would be much easier to inspect and repair if there was a leak Commissioner Whiteneck stated that while it was difficult to design a tank that could withstand a major earthquake, he was satisfied that the tank was designed to operate sufficiently under normal circumstances Commissioner Alberio stated that he believed that the proposed tank would cause a variety of safety hazards to the surrounding area and, therefore, did not support the proposed project. Chairman Vannorsdall stated that he too was concerned with the vapors that may escape from the tank and the direction of flow of the fuel if a disaster should occur PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14,1997 Page 14 However, he felt that the conditions of approval would be adequate to address these concerns. Commissioner Whiteneck moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97 $, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 172 - Revision "B", with a modification to Condition No. 12 to require that the containment basin be increased in size to accommodate all of the fuel in the tank plus 25% capacity to accommodate the rain water. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cartwright and passed (4-1), with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. Vice Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. NEW BUSINESS 7 Hazardous Materials Sites Assistant Planner Fox stated that this was an informational item requested by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. The report provided information regarding hazardous materials sites in the City, and described existing City regulations and policies regarding these sites. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission either receive and file the report, or to direct Staff for future action, as deemed appropriate by the Commission After some discussion, the Commission determined that the existing City regulations and procedures regarding hazardous materials sites were adequate, since these types of site were primarily the jurisdiction and responsibility of other governmental agencies Commissioner Alberio moved to receive and file the report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck, and there being no objection it was so ordered by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Director/Secretary Petru presented the Pre -Agenda for the regular meeting of January 28, 1997, and noted the removal of Conditional Use Permit No 17 - Revision 'A', due to the Commission's action on that item earlier that evening PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14,1997 Page 15 Commission The Commission requested that Staff agendize the cancellation of the March 11, 1997 Regular Meeting due to the Commission attendance at the Planner's Institute Conference in Monterey and to provide an alternative date to re -schedule this meeting, if feasible COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Ms. Lois Larue. 3136 Barkentine Road, objected to the three Commissioners not being in agreement with the two who favored a continuance of Agenda Item No 3 to the next regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 11:30 P.M. Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck and, there being no objection, it was so ordered by Vice Chairman Vannorsdall, (6-0). N 1GROUPTLANNINGTWINWIN01 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14,1997 Page 16