Loading...
PC MINS 19970909J Approved ll/2s1g7 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7.04 P.M by Chairman Vannorsdall at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Cartwright ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberto, Cartwright, Clark, Ng, Slayden, Vice Chairman Whiteneck, and Chairman Vannorsdall Absent None Also present were Director/Secretary Petru, Associate Planner Pfost, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Alberio moved to consider Agenda Item No. 4 (Conditional Use Permit No. 162 - Revision 'D') and Agenda Item No. 5 (Time Extension Request for Conditional Use Permit No. 136, Grading Permit No. 1246 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 38) at the beginning of the agenda. With no objections from the Commission, it was so ordered by Chairman Vannorsdall, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Director/Secretary Petru distributed two late letters from William R. Griffin and D.E. Clark regarding Agenda Item No. 3 (Conditional Use Permit No. 185, Variance No. 388, Grading Permit No. 1793, and Environmental Assessment No. 676) and a Planning Commission Minutes September 9,1997 Page 1 Resolution and an Exhibit'A' regarding Agenda Item No. 4 (Conditional Use Permit No. 162 - Revision 'D'). Commission At this time Agenda Item No. 4 was considered. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 162 - Revision "D": Zuckerman Buildin Company and Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 (Ocean Trails Project) located seaward of Palos Verdes Drive South at the intersection with Palos Verdes Drive East, between Los Angeles County Shoreline Park on the east and the Ocean Terraces Condominium complex on the west Director/Secretary Petru presented the Staff Report and stated that the Ocean Trails project was originally approved by the City in 1992 She indicated that the project had gone through four amendments since that time and the developer was presently working on obtaining a grading permit for the project However, while reviewing some of the details for the grading permit with the Los Angeles County Fire Department, it was noted that four lots in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 did not meet the minimum 100 foot setback requirement between the residences and an area of high fuel potential (i a coastal sage scrub ) These plant species were located at the East Bluff Preserve area Ms Petru informed the Commission that Staff had included an exhibit in the Staff Report of the preliminary landscape plan which indicates the location of a fuel modification zone (Lot'H'), a common area open space lot which was created between the residential lots and the habitat area to provide a fire buffer Ms Petru stated that Lot H was only 50 feet wide in some locations and, as a result, there were four lots (Lot Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9) that were unable to meet the minimum 100 foot buffer In order to provide the minimum setback requirement, the developer was proposing to enhance existing stands of cactus in the East Bluff Preserve area, which is a fire retardant plant, and to increase the rear yard setbacks of the four subject lots from 25 feet to a maximum of 50 feet. She concluded by recommending that the Planning Commission approve an amendment to Condition No. P.2 for the Residential Planned Development to modify the rear yard setback requirement for Lot Nos 6 through 9 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 50667 in order to conform with Los Angeles County Fire Department's fuel modification zone requirements Chairman Vannosdall asked if they were any speakers for this item. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1997 Page 2 Ms. Barbara Dye. (representing Zuckerman Building Company), 7035 Hartcrest Drive, stated that she had reviewed the revised language and concurred with Staffs recommendation She also stated that in the portion of the East Bluff Preserve abutting Lot No 8 had no existing habitat, therefore, the developer could re -vegetate this area with fire retardant plants As a result, the 100 foot fuel modification zone on Lot No. 8 could be met by using part of the adjacent bluff preserve Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commission if they desired to discuss this item Commissioner Ng stated that she had no problem with the changes, but felt that the legend on Exhibit 'A' should be consistent with the language contained in the revised conditions of approval She felt that the previous and revised rear yard setback lines should be clearly labeled for consistency and to avoid confusion in the future. Commissioner Clark concurred with Commissioner Ng's comment and stated that the revised rear yard setback line should be labeled on the exhibit Director/Secretary Petru agreed with Commissioner Ng's suggestion and indicated that Staff modify Exhibit 'A' so that the double dot/dash line would be labeled as the "previous rear yard setback line" and the solid line would be labeled as the "revised rear yard setback line, (except for Lot 8, as noted)" Chairman Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing, and with no objections from the Commission it was so ordered by the Chairman. Commissioner Slayden moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-44, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 162 - Revision 'D' to amend Condition No. P2 regarding the rear yard setback requirements for Lot Nos. 6 through 9 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed, (7-0) by a roll call vote. Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period At this time Agenda Item No. 5 was considered NEW BUSING 5. Time Extension Request for Conditional Use Permit No. 136, Grading Permit No. 1246 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 38; York Lona Point Associates, 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South (DS) Planning Commission Minutes September 9,1997 Page 3 • i Director/Secretary presented the Staff Report for Senior Planner Snow who was unable to attend the meeting that evening She stated the Commission had previously granted York Long Point Associates a one year extension for the approved project in September 1996, setting the new expiration date for September 11, 1997 Ms. Petru stated that the applicant requested an extension, since he was working on modifying the project to include a master plan for the entire Point Vicente area. She explained that the current request represent the sixth Time Extension Request made sine the original permit was issue in 1991 The York Long Point Associates has taken steps to improve the property since taking possession of the property in 1995 Ms Petru concluded her presentation by stating that Staff recommended approval of the requested extension to September 11, 1998 Chairman Vannosdall asked if there were speakers for this item. Mr. Jim York. (property owner) 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South, stated that he was there to answer any questions for the Commission Commissioner Clark asked Mr York of the status of the master plan project. Mr York replied that he received a letter from the City Manager in August 1997, granting them permission to included property that was owned and leased by the City in the master plan application He stated that he plans to file an application for the expansion of the golf course from a 9 -hole to an 18 -hole and a request to commence the environmental impact report in the near future Commissioner Clark asked if Subregion 1 was going to be part of the master plan. Mr York replied that the project analyzed in the EIR would include a golf course on the City Hall and Point Vicente Interpretive Center properties Including golf on the Subregion 1 would be addressed in the EIR as an alternative Commissioner Slayden asked Mr York how his negotiations with J M. Peters (the owner of Subregion 1) were going. Mr York replied that he received a court ordered settlement conference with J M Peters in the next several weeks Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, opposed the Long Point project and strongly urged the Commission to deny Mr York's time extension request. She felt that he had been granted several extensions in the past before and had ample time to submit revised plans to the City Planning Commission Minutes September 9,1997 Page 4 Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commission if they desired to discuss this item Commissioner Ng asked Director/Secretary Petru if the City had a policy on the number of time extensions that could be granted to an applicant Director/Secretary replied that there was no set policy on how many times an applicant could request and the City could grant time extensions on a conditional use permit. Vice Chairman Whiteneck stated that it did not matter how many times an applicant requested for a time extension, since the City had the flexibility to consider each request on its own merits and specific circumstances Commissioner Clark stated that he and Commissioner Albeno had followed this project from its beginning stages Mr. Clark mentioned that, after the Pre -Screening Workshop with the City Council regarding the proposed master plan, members of the public have asked him about that status of the project He explained that this was why he had asked Mr York for an update on the project Commissioner Cartwright wanted to make sure that the public understood that the time extension was for the 1991 approval for a 450 room resort hotel and 9 hole golf course and did not have any direct bearing on the proposed master plan Director/Secretary Petru replied that Mr Cartwright's statement was correct. Commissioner Albeno added to Mr Clarks statements by saying that the applicant was seeking an extension to the existing permits in order to have the opportunity to explore the possibility of expanding this project Chairman Vannorsdall added that the reason the City granted only one year extensions was to provide an opportunity for the City to review if any circumstances had changed and obtain an update on the project. Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Stafrs recommendation to extend Conditional Use Permit No. 136 and related applications for one year (until September 11, 1998). Vice Chairman Whiteneck seconded the motion and it was passed, (7-0) by a roll call vote. At this time Agenda Item No 1 was considered. Planning Commission Minutes September 9,1997 Page 5 COMMUNICATIONS 1. Modification of Permitted Hours of Operation (as specified in Conditional Use Permit No. 178); Steve Saporito, Hilltop Automotive, 28732 Highridge Road Director/Secretary Petru stated that at the August 26, 1997 meeting, the Commission adopted a resolution for the sixth month review of the project At that meeting, the applicant requested that the Commission change the hours of operation so that the shop could stay open until 6.00 P M, instead of 5,00 P M Ms Petru stated that Staff had reviewed the conditions of approval and found that Condition No 17 required that any modifications to the hours of operation would be subject to amendment to the conditional permit, which was not the application that was before the Commission Ms. Petru stated that, as a result of Staffs determination, the change in the hours of operation had not been made to the resolution. She indicated that a copy of the corrected resolution was attached for the Commission's information and that Staff had already informed the applicant of the situation Ms Petru stated that this was only an informational item for the Commission. Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speakers for this item Director/Secretary Petru replied that there were none Commissioner Clark if the applicant were to requested what the Commission had already approved, could it be handled as an administrative action by the Staff Director/Secretary replied that it could not be handled by Staff, but would need to come back for Public Hearing before the Commission, since the public did not have an opportunity to comment on that specific change to the conditions of approval Chairman Vannorsdall reiterated that this item was informational only and that no action by the Commission was required At this time Agenda Item No 2 was considered CONTINUED BUSINESS 2 Heiaht Variation No. 826 • Appeal and Gradina Permit No. 1886: applicants: Mr. & Mrs. Leslie Kispal, 7460 Alida Place. appellants: Jane C. Botello, 7400 Alida place, Avery Knapp, 7435 Alida Place, Michael Tjong, 7440 Alida Place and Jimmy Naumovski, 7420 Alida Place Planning Commission Minutes September 9,1997 Page 6 9 0 Associate Planner Pfost presented the Staff Report and stated that in July, 1996 the applicant submitted applications for Height Variation No 826 and Grading Permit No 1856 for a proposed two-story residence on the existing vacant parcel The applications were deemed complete in April 1997. Mr. Pfost indicated that, due to several discrepancies in the plans and the temporary silhouette, it took several months before the project was deemed complete. Ms. Pfost stated that in June 1997, the project was conditionally approved by the Director and that an appeal of the height variation was submitted to the City within the fifteen day appeal period Mr Pfost stated that the applicants had previously requested that the hearing for this item be continued for another date, since they would be out of the country At the August 12, 1996 meeting, the Commission decided to continue the hearing to September 9, 1997. Mr Pfost stated that the grading application would be reviewed under the old Development Code, and required review by the Commission since the applicants were seeking to amend specific requirement that the Commission had placed on the development following the original tract grading in 1990 Associate Planner Pfost reviewed the findings for the height variation and grading permit, as indicated in the Staff Report, and stated that Staff believed that the height variation and grading requests were consistent with these findings Therefore, Staff recommended denial the appeal, thereby approving the height variation, as well as approval of the grading request, subject to conditions Chairman Vannorsall asked if there were any speakers for this item Mr. Russ Barto (applicant's architect) 3 Malaga Cove Plaza, Palos Verdes Estates, complimented Staff for a very thorough Staff Report on this project Mr Barto stated that the proposed project complied with City's Code and stated that the proposed project was very similar in size, scale, and overall height with the other existing homes on Alida Place. Therefore, he felt that the new residence would be compatible with the neighborhood Ms. Magda Kispal (applicant) 30153 Cartier Drive, stated that she purchased the subject site in 1991 because of the unobstructed view. Ms. Kispal was disappointed with the reactions of the neighbors regarding the proposed project. She thanked the City Staff and the Commission for giving her the opportunity to apply for the new residence and to bring her case to the Commission that evening. Ms. Kispal stated that she looked forward to the Commission making a decision on the project, as well as getting along with her neighbors Mr. Rich Wright. (applicant's contractor) 213 N. Juanita Avenue, Redondo Beach, stated that he would like the opportunity to address the Commission in rebuttal after the appellants speak Planning Commission Minutes September 9,1997 Page 7 T.P. Shield. (appellant's attorney) 1 World Trade Center, Long Beach, stated that he represented Mrs. Botello who resided at 7400 Alida Place Mr Shield stated that Mrs. Botello opposed the proposed project because its excessive height impaired the view from her property. Ms. Alexandra Knapp. (appellant) 7435 Alida Place, stated that her residence was across the street from the subject site. Ms Knapp felt that the proposed project was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and therefore opposed the applicant's request Mr Michael Tionp. (appellant) 7440 Alida Place, was not in favor of the proposed project and stated that the Staff Report was very one-sided. He stated that if the Commission were to grant the request of the height variance it would deny his light, air, and privacy Mr Tjong stated that the proposed project would be the largest home on Alida Place and felt that it was not compatible with the neighborhood Mr. Mike Boyd 1416 Granvia Altamira, was the real estate agent and the general contractor of Mrs. Botello Mr. Boyd stated that Mrs Botello was able to construct a two story residence on her property because it was at the highest location of that tract. However, the applicant's request to construct a two-story home, would significantly impair Mrs. Botello's view Mr. Rich Wright approached the podium and displayed a photoboard to the Commission which depicted the terracing of the tract. Otherwise, he had no rebuttal comments Commissioner Clark asked if the applicant could reduce the ridge height of the residence by lowering the level of the pad Mr Wright replied that the project already involved lowering the pad height by two feet He felt that it would be difficult to lower the pad height any further because of the slope of the driveway. Commissioner Slayden asked Mr. Wright if he felt that the proposed project was compatible with the other homes in the area Mr. Wright replied that he absolutely felt that the residence conformed to that specific tract Planning Commission Minutes September 9,1997 Page 8 Chairman Vannosdall moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. With no objections from the Commission, the Public Hearing was declared closed by the Chairman. Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commission if they desired to discuss this item Commissioner Albeno suggested that the public hearing be continued to allow the applicants and their architect work together with Staff to address the concerns of the neighbors Commissioner Clark felt that there was no significant view impairment from any of the adjacent neighbors, other than the next door neighbor However, the view from 7444 Alida Place was not protected by the Code He stated that there would be a privacy issue for the next door neighbor and that consideration should be given to addressing this issue Mr Clark saw no reason to continue the Public Hearing for this item Commissioner Cartwright echoed Commissioner Clark's comments He stated that the proposed project was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He felt that the findings were adequate and supported Staffs recommendation with the addition of additional consideration of the privacy of the next door neighbor. Mr. Cartwright also felt that there was no need to continue this item. Commissioner Ng felt that the size of the applicant's home was compatible with the adjacent homes and did not feel that there would be any significant view impairment As far as the privacy issue was concerned, she noted that there was approximately 25 to 33 feet between the applicant's property and the next door neighbor However, Commissioner Ng suggested that since the bedroom on the east side (over the kitchen) had three windows, that the east facing window be eliminated in order to protect the next door neighbors privacy She also felt that the approval should specify that the roof pitch was 3 in 12 Commissioner Slayden stated that the proposed project was certainly compatible with the area and would enhance the neighborhood. He stated that the only view impairment present was the next door neighbors Commissioner Slayden agreed with the comments of the last three Commissioners. Vice Chairman Whiteneck did not oppose the proposed project, but suggested that the building pad might be lowered by an additional three feet to improve the neighbor's views Chairman Vannorsdall did not feel that lowering the pad would do any substantial good in terms of the view, and would instead result in other problems, such as an overly Planning Commission Minutes September 9,1997 Page 9 steep driveway and lot drainage problems Chairman Vannorsdall concurred with his colleagues regarding neighborhood compatibility and views Commissioner Ng moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-45 approving Height Variation No. 826 subject to amended conditions to eliminate the east windows in the bedroom over the kitchen and to require the roof slope not to exceed a 3 in 12 pitch; and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 97-46 approving Grading Permit No. 1886, subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed, (6-1) by a roll call vote, with Commissioner Alberto dissenting. Chairman Vannorsdall noted the 15 -day appeal period RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9.13 P M there was a brief recess until 9 30 P.M. when the meeting reconvened 3 Conditional Use Permit No. 185, Variance No. 388, Grading Permit No. 1793, and Environmental Assessment No. 676: Waxfarers Chapel, 5755 Palos Verdes Drive South Associate Planner Pfost stated that this item was last before the Commission on August 26, 1997 Due to the lateness of the hour (11.59 P.M.), the Commission continued the public hearing to September 9, 1997, Mr. Pfost stated that based on direction from the Commission at the last meeting, Staff had modified some of the conditions of approval in the draft resolution (Condition Nos 7, 8 and 23) Mr Pfost reiterated the applicant's request to construct a new 2,065 square foot visitors center to replace a similar structure which was damaged by landslide activity and to make improvements to an existing amphitheater area on the property Mr Pfost briefly reiterated the findings that were included in the August 28, 1997 Staff Report He concluded his presentation by saying that Staff felt that the proposed project met all of the findings for the conditional use permit, variance, and grading permit He also stated that a mitigated negative declaration had been prepared for the protect and that all potential impacts associated with the protect had been addressed through the mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval for the project Therefore, Staff recommended approval of the project Chairman Vannorsdall asked if there were any speaker for this item Mr. Dean Andrews. (applicant's architect) 6118 Palos Verdes Drive South, indicated that he had not had a chance to speak with the members of the Chapel regarding the modifications to the conditions of approval However, regarding the suggestion that the Chapel be required to indemnify the adjacent property, he felt that this condition of approval was not appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes September 9,1997 Page 10 0 0 Ms. Jeanne Smolley. 56 Limetree Lane, read a letter to the Commission regarding the concerns of the Portuguese Bend Club Association. The concerns of the neighbors focused on the proposed construction of a new structure in the landslide area The Association felt that there was a lack of adequate information provided by the project's geotechnical engineers Mr. John Beringer, (representing the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners) 3412 Seaglen Drive, stated that the Rancho Palos Verdes Council Homeowners Association requested that an environmental impact report, which included extensive geologic studies, be prepared prior to the City granting any approvals for the proposed project The Council of Homeowners felt that sufficient studies had not yet been prepared and therefore opposed the project Mr. Bill Griffin} 5 Gingeroot Lane, stated that the Abalone Cove Landslide was still moving He felt that the evidence submitted to date did not prove that the site had a safety factor greater than 1 5 Mr Griffin felt that it was not appropriate to build a new structure of this type in the landslide area Therefore, he did not support the project Lois Larue. 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that the geotechnical firm of Leighton and Associates was not capable of providing adequate information regarding the soils conditions on the site, since they were studying the adjacent Point View property owned by Jim York and not the subject site itself Ms Corinne Gerrard stated that her property was located only 62 feet from the proposed visitors center She did not feel comfortable with the idea of a new structure on the property, since it would be located in a landslide area Chairman Vannorsdall asked the Commission if they desired to discuss this item. Chairman Vannorsdall stated that in the past, the neighbors had expressed concern about providing additional security on the site to prevent people from coming onto the property after hours Chairman Vannosdall suggested that a fence should be installed around the perimeter of the property Commissioner Slayden felt that a fence or gate should be installed along the back of the property, as well as at the entrance of the site. Commissioners Ng, Clark, Cartwright concurred with their colleagues Vice Chairman Whiteneck had no comment Planning Commission Minutes September 9,1997 Page 11 Commissioner Alberto stated that even if a fence or gate was installed, this would not completely prevent the possibilities of trespassing on the property Director/Secretary Petru suggested that the Commission condition the project to require the applicant to submit a fencing plan for review by the Director, which would give Staff an opportunity to visit the site and determine if the proposed fencing would be adequate The Commission agreed with Director/Secretary Petru's suggestions and had no objections to Staff including a fencing plan in the conditions of approval for the project. Chairman Vannorsdall stated that the second concern of the neighbors was regarding indemnification of their properties against damage caused by the construction Commissioner Slayden was not sure about the extent of the indemnity that would be required of the applicant Commissioner Alberio stated that the contractor must supply insurance and bonds before the construction began, in order to protect the applicant from liability and damage claims in the future Commissioner Clark and Vice Chairman Whiteneck concurred with Commissioner Alberio's comments, but did not recollect discussion of this issue with the Chapel representatives Commissioner Cartwright had no comments on this issue. Commissioner Ng stated that she did not support this idea of requiring the applicant to provide indemnification Chairman Vannorsdall stated the third concern raised by the neighbors was that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for the project Director/Secretary Petru stated that the City had prepared a Negative Declaration for the project two years ago since Staff felt that there may be some potential for the project to result in some adverse impacts to the environment However, through the course of preparing the environmental documentation, Staff determined that the impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance Therefore, Ms Petru did not feel that it was necessary to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the project, unless directed by the Commission to do so Planning Commission Minutes September 9,1997 Page 12 Commissioners Ng and Alberio felt that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for the project, since there was active land movement in the area around the subject site Commissioners Cartwight, Clark, Slayden, and Vice Chairman Whiteneck felt that an Environmental Impact Report was not necessary and that Staff had appropriately analyzed the impacts of the project through the Negative Declaration. Chairman Vannorsdall stated that the fourth concern of the neighbors was the noise that might be generated by the project. Chairman Vannorsdall stated that he felt that this issue had already been addressed through the conditions of approval for the project. Commissioner Clark was concerned that, based on the testimony from the neighbors, that the activities at the Chapel have increased recently and that they would continue to increase with the proposed improvements. Commissioner Cartwright understood from the applicant that the Chapel did not intend to install a public address system in the amphitheater Director/Secretary Petru suggested that the Commission may wish to modify Condition No 14, since the condition currently allowed amplified sounds to be used in the amphitheater Commissioner Clark was concerned about expanding the number of days of the week that the amphitheater could be used and suggested that it only be allowed on a basis to determine if it would cause a negative impact to the neighborhood Commission Alberio concurred with Commissioner Clark's comment. Commissioner Cartwright understood from testimonies that the noise issue was really related to people trespassing on the property after hours and that this issue could be resolved by increasing security on the property Commissioner Clark stated that the visitors center would create additional activity on the site and that this increase in activity may affect the noise levels in the area. Therefore, Mr Clark supported granting the weekends and holidays usage as proposed, but requiring that the conditional use permit be reviewed by the Commission six months after the visitors center and amphitheater are completed to assess the noise Planning Commission Minutes September 9,1997 Page 13 impacts, if any The Commission would then have the ability to adjust the hours of operation, based on actual experience, rather than conjecture Commissioner Cartwright suggested that amplified sound would be appropriate and necessary for special occasions and holidays Commissioner Cartwright suggested that the hours of operation include seven days a week, but agreed with Commissioner Clark that the conditional use permit should be reviewed by the Commission in six months Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Slayden, and Chairman Vannorsdall concurred with the previous two Commissioner's comments Chairman Vannorsdall stated that the fifth concern of the neighbors was the geological stability of the subject site Commissioner Slayden stated that he accepted the geological information provided by the three geologist regarding the suitability of the land for construction Commissioner Ng was concerned about the factor of safety of the subject site She stated that the City required a minimum 1 5 safety factor for new construction and felt that there was inadequate evidence since Leighton and Associates did not provide its opinion of the stability of the property writing. Therefore, she was not prepared to vote on the project until this issue was addressed further Commissioner Clark was disappointed with the geologic information that had been provided to the Commission by the applicant. Mr Clark stated that without the applicant's geologist being present at the meeting to answer questions, he was not yet convinced that the subject area was safe to build on. Commissioners Alberio and Whiteneck and Chairman Vannosdall concurred with the previous two Commissioners comments Commissioner Cartwright felt that the applicant had proven to the City's geotechnical experts that the property was stable Therefore, he was prepared to vote on the project that evening. Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve the project, subject to amended conditions as discussed by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and failed (2-5) with Chairman Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Whiteneck, Commissioners Alberto, Clark, and Ng dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes September 9,1997 Page 14 Commissioner Alberio moved continue the Public Hearing to November 11, 1997 and to direct the applicant to have their geologist conduct an additional boring within the proposed building footprint, subject to the review and approval of the City's geotechnical consultant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed, (5-1-1) with Commissioner Cartwright dissenting and Vice Chairman Whiteneck abstaining. NEW BUSINESS 6 Planning, Commission Rules and Procedures Due to the late hour (11 55 P.M ), it was the desire of the Commission to continue this item to the meeting of September 23, 1997 With no objections from the Commission, it was so ordered by Chairman Vannorsdall, (7-0) ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff: 7. Pre -agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 1997 Commission: I COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Lois Larue. 3136 Barkentine Road discussed her opposition to Mr. York's proposal for the Long Point property and her objection to the new cross at St. Paul's Church on Palos Verdes Drive West ADJOURNMENT At 12:12 P.M. Commissioner Clark moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Whiteneck. There being no objection, the meeting was duly adjourned by the Chairman. NAGROMPLANNINGIPCMINIAN09 09 Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1997 Page 15