Loading...
PC MINS 19980526CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 26, 1998 CALL TO ORDER APPROVED 06/09/98 dr2— The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P M by Vice Chairman Cartwright at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard Vice Chairman Cartwright welcomed Les Evans, Public Works Director, and Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager to the Planning Commission meeting that evening and then congratulated Mr. Evans on his promotion to City Manager FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Public Works Director Evans ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberto, Lyon, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, and Vice Chairman Cartwright Absent Chairman Clark (excused). Also present were Acting Director/Secretary Rous, Senior Planner Snow, Associate Planners Pfost and Fox, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi Vice Chairman Cartwright introduced the Planning Commission and Staff to the public. Commissioner Alberio moved to consider the Agenda Items in the following order: 1, 2, 8, 9, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 11. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff Acting Director/Secretary Rojas informed the Commission of the Council's discussion regarding reimbursement for travel expenses for the Commission at the Budget Workshop. Staff had put a place holder in the budget for this item. Acting Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the budget had not yet been approved, and announced that the final consideration of the budget would be held June 3, 1998. Vice Chairman Cartwright stated that he was under the impression that the Commission voted for him and Commissioner Alberio to draft a recommendation. After the memorandum was reviewed by the Commission, the recommendation would be submitted to the Council for consideration. Commissioner Alberio stated that he and Vice Chairman Cartwright would discuss the draft recommendation prepared by him that evening and let the Commission review the recommendation before it is submitted to the City Council. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked why this item was brought up for discussion the Council at the workshop when it should have been considered before the Commission first. Acting Director/Secretary Rojas recalled that the Commiss voted to include this item as part of the budget, therefore the issue was brow up during the budget process. Commissioner Alberio stated that there might have been a misunderstanding between the Commission and Staff regarding this issue and explained that a subcommittee was appointed to draft a recommendation for the Council's consideration. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if the draft recommendation could still be submitted to Council and Commissioner Alberio stated that the recommendati should still be submitted to the Council for consideration. Acting Director/Secretary Rojas distributed an item of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 2 (Marriott Project - Resolutions), and hand-outs pertaining to the new changes in the Ralph M. Brown Act. Planning Commission Minu May 26, T El Commission: Vice Chairman Cartwright shared two articles from the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; one article was dated May 14, 1998 with a headline reading, "RPV Planning narrowly approves the Marriott Project"; and, the second article from Commission Vannorsdall regarding the comments of the Commissioners on the proposed project at that meeting. Vice Chairman Cartwright stated that both articles were very interesting especially one comment that a Commissioner made as quoted in the newspaper by Commissioner Paris, "...Marriott representatives have been putting contemptuous pressure on the Commission Members', he said, "and I am opposed to all these alternatives.". Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Commissioner Paris if the comments from the article were true since he could not recall him using the word, "contemptuous". Commissioner Paris stated that the second part of the sentence in the newspaper article was true. He clarified that there was no intention to imply that any communications took place between the Commission and the Marrriott representatives outside of the public meetings held on this project. Commissioner Paris made a statement regarding the approved Minutes of April 14, 1998 with respect to his intention to oppose Conditional Use Permit No. 158 - Revision 'B' (Subregion 1) for six modifications, and the confusion of the voting process for the overall project. Mr. Paris recalled that the Commission voted on the six modifications one -by -one. Commissioner Paris stated that when the Commission voted on the overall project a call for comments was made, and being none, the overall project was deemed approved. He stated that Chairman Clark asked the Commission if they desired to discuss the motion and there was no discussion. Therefore, the motion was deemed carried as a 6-4 vote. Commissioner Paris stated that he thoroughly intended to state his opposition on the overall vote for the project and that he would have voted 'no' if there was a specific call for a vote. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if the April 14, 1998 Minutes were approved and Staff replied that they had been approved. Commissioner Paris stated that the Chairman's intention to hold an overall vote was confusing, and that he did not hear it as such. With respect to reconsideration of the minutes, Mr. Paris stated that he wanted his opposition represented in the record. However, he felt it was not necessary to bring back the Minutes of April 14, 1998 to the Commission and stated that it would not change the outcome of the decision. Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 3 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of May 12, 1998 Commissioner Vannorsdall requested that on page 12, paragraph 7, line 2 the words, 'tot' and 'he' be modified to read as, 'to' and 'the'. On page 15, paragraph 4, line 1, the word 'staetd' be modified to read as, 'stated' and on lane 4 the word 'er' be deleted Commissioner Paris requested an insertion be made on page 12, paragraph 8, to read as, ' .he did not object to the proposed project as a whole, with the exception of the lot lay -out and spacing of the subject property ', and another insertion be made on page 13, paragraph 1 to read as, ' based on 30% to 35% landscaping it is in fact that one acre would be sold back to Palos Verdes Land Holding Company leaving only 10% to 16% landscaping' Vice Chairman Cartwright requested that on page 10, paragraph 7, line 3, the word, 'Madhouse' be modified to read as, 'Mathys', and an Insertion be made on page 12, paragraph 8, line 3 after the word, 'Commission' to read as,' for a 'yes' or'no' vote' Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the Minutes of May 12, 1998 as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed, (6-0). 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 195. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24665, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1903, SIGN PERMIT 842, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 7942, and SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 27 - RESOLUTIONS: Marriott Senior Living- Services-North ivingServices-North and west of the intersection of Crestridae Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. At the meeting of May 12, 1998 Associate Planner Pfost stated that the Commission approved the proposed project with minor modifications to the conditions of approval. After the Commission closed the Public Hearing Staff was directed to return with the resolutions indicating the modifications Mr Pfost stated that a letter was submitted by Mr Sant requesting modifications to the mitigated measures in one of the conditions Staff pointed out at the last meeting that the vote on the proposed project was 4-3. Based on the presence of six Commissioners to vote on the resolutions, Staff recommended continuance of the proposed project to the meeting of June 9, 1998 for all Commissioners to be present Commissioner Alberto moved to continue this item to the meeting of June 9, 1998. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris. Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 4 Vice Chairman Cartwright expressed his desire to hold discussion of the modifications to the conditions of approval, as requested by the applicant Commissioner Alberio felt uncomfortable about the discussion of this item and expressed his desire to continue this item for the meeting of June 9, 1998 The motion failed, (1-5) with Commissioners Lyon, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, and Vice Chairman Cartwright dissenting. Associate Planner Pfost summarized the requested modifications, and indicated on page three that a new condition was added (Condition No. 22) pertaining to the abandoned military structure which may be located at the subject site Mr Pfost mentioned earlier that a letter had been submitted by Mr. Sant addressing two issues. 1) the mitigation measure (6 1 2) dealing with the storm drain system, and, 2) the applicant requested two modifications in Condition No 20 In regards to the first concern, Mr Sant requested the Storm Drain System issue be deleted. Staff reported that the Director of Public Works was consulted, and that he recommended modification in that condition to read, ' if it is determined necessary by the Director of Public Works the storm drain system will be enlarged and connected further to the Indian Peak System '. Mr. Pfost stated that he discussed this issue with the applicant and that the applicant agreed with this modification In regards to the second concern, the applicant requested two modifications in Condition No 20 Mr Sant requested that the staffing level limitation of 35 to 39 be deleted from the condition since staffing level may possibly increase due to changes in management. Associate Planner Pfost stated that Staff was concerned and felt that the proposed modification was not in keeping previous information submitted to the City and used for analysis for the project Therefore, Staff recommended Condition No 20 to remain as it is with respect to employee levels As for the use of the facility for the guest and visitors the applicant requested this be eliminated from the conditions and proposed a modification to read as, ' accessory services such as, food services, health services, and transportation shall not be sold commercially to non-residents.' Staff had no objections with the modifications Staff recommended adoption of both resolutions for certification of the EIR and approval of the project Commissioner Lyon recalled that Condition No 22 was not part of the motion from the meeting of May 12, 1998 He felt that it was unreasonable and would impose an undue burden on the developer. Commissioner Lyon favored rephrasing Condition No 20 to allow the employee staffing level to be left up to the judgement of the facility operator with no further City approvals required Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 5 Commissioner Paris felt that the proposed language for Condition No 20, limiting employees to 39 without further approvals, was reasonable and that it should remain as drafted. Vice Chairman Cartwright recalled that the Commission agreed to allow the applicant 10% flexibility for staff level approval without having to return to the Commission for approval. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if there was a condition addressing the noise level of the cooling equipment and Associate Planner Pfost replied that there was a mitigation measure which indicated if the block wall around the equipment did not reduce noise levels at the property lines to a maximum of 55 decibels, the applicant shall make the modifications to keep within the noise level Commissioner Slayden concurred with Commissioner Lyon's comment regarding Condition No. 20, and believed that Condition No 22 should be eliminated from the conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Cartwright also concurred with Commissioner Lyon's comment regarding Condition No. 20. Commissioner Alberio stated that the Commission approved projects in the past with a standard condition pertaining to potential historic resources found during construction. Mr. Albeno felt that this project was no different from others and suggested that the standard condition be included. Senior Planner Snow stated that the standard condition was contained in the proposed mitigation monitoring program as Item No. 6 10.1. Mr. Anthony Segretto 5677 Mistridge Drive, distributed a hand-out to the Commission regarding the parking issues and stated his opposition of the Commissions recent approval for the proposed project He strongly felt that the applicant could have sought other alternatives to satisfy the needs and address the concerns of the community Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road stated that according to the General Plan the topography of the City should not change, and she believed that the Commissions determination did not conform with the City's General Plan. Mr. Wayne Sant 3130 Harbor Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA agreed with the conditions as recommended by Staff with the exception that Condition No 20 (staffing level) be Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 6 modified Mr Sant felt that the flexible increase of 10% for staffing levels was not adequate and was an undue operational restriction given other conditions that address impacts such as parking Commissioner Vannorsdall requested that the applicant participate in a parking agreement with the neighboring religious institutions such as the Ner Tamid Congregation. Acting Director/Secretary Rojas replied that the City's Traffic Engineer concluded that there were no potential significant traffic issues at the subject site Vice Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission comments on this item and there were none Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Condition No. 20 with modifications to include a maximum of fifty employees without further approval from the City. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed by a roll -call vote, (4-2) with Commissioners Alberio and Paris dissenting. Commissioner Lyon moved to delete Condition No. 22 (consultant conducting a survey to determine whether or not an abandoned military structure was located at the subject site). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (6-0) by a unanimous roll -call vote. Discussion of the motion focused on the conclusion that Mitigation Measure No 6 10 1 adequately addressed the issue, and that the condition was not necessary in addition to the mitigation measure Commissioner Lyon moved to approve Mitigation Measure No. 6.1.2 with modifications regarding Public Works approval of the Storm Drainage System. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed, (6-0) by vote of acclamation. Commissioner Slayden moved to adopt P.C. Resolution Nos. 98-16 and 98-17; thereby certifying Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 27, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 195, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24655, Grading Permit No. 1903, Sign Permit No. 842, Site Plan Review No. 7942, and Supplement to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 27, subject to conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed by a roll -call vote, (5-1) with Commissioner Paris dissenting. Vice Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 7 NEW BUSINESS 8. OCEAN TRAILS PROJECT; Ocean Trails, L.P., a 261 acre golf course and single family residential development located seaward of Palos Verdes Drive South, between the Portuguese Bend Club on the west and Shoreline Park on the east. Assistant City Manager Petru presented the Staff Report and stated that the rough grading of the golfcourse began in January 1998 and that approximately 40% was completed at that time Ms Petru indicated that the item was before the Commission for it's determination that the final golf course routing is consistent with that previously approved by the Commission. She stated that Staff had compared the designs prepared by ESCO Engineering Service Corporation in June 1996 and by Dye Designs prepared in April 1998 and felt that the findings for the lay -out, direction, length, location of the greens, fairways, and tees were consistent between the two plans. Commissioner Paris asked if he should recuse himself from participation of this item due to the fact that he was not in the Commission when this item was first presented to the Commission back in 1991. Ms. Petru replied that it was not necessary since Staff's recommended approval by the Commission the final layout of the golf course by Minute Order, that she would provide a brief background of this item, and that the issue to be decided was only comparison between concept and final routing plans. Ms Petru stated that the Dye Design plan was further refined and included the location of the two on -course restroom facilities whereas the design prepared by ESCO Engineering did not However, the restroom locations were not a part of the issue to be considered by the Commission, and that the facilities would undergo separate review She indicated the locations of the various holes of the golf course,noted that three lakes, and the locations of two on -course restroom facilities included in the current plans Assistant City Manager stated that Staff found the layout of the golf course prepared by Dye Designs in conformance with the plans approved by the City in 1996 for the site plan for Conditional Use Permit Amended Map No 2. Therefore, Staff recommended approval by Minute Order the final golf course plans prepared by Dye Designs to satisfy Conditional Use Permit No 163 F 1 However, since the final location and design of the two on -course restroom facilities needs further review, Staff suggested that the Commission either, 1) review the final location and design of the two structures as part of the Commission's future final approval of the golf course clubhouse design, or 2) authorize Staff to review and approve the final location design of these structures. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 8 Commissioner Vannorsdall inquired about the Maintenance Facility and the noise issues and Assistant City Manager Petru replied that neither was part of the plan and discussion that evening, but that project conditions of approval require final review and approval which will occur in the future Commissioner Paris asked if there was a buffer or modifications at Hole No. 10 to prevent the public from being striked by golf balls and Assistant City Manager replied that a buffer would be placed in that location Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed. Mr. Ken Zuckerman 3850 Paseo Del Mar, introduced the project development team, and stated that he prefer Staff level approval for the restroom facilities to make begin and move forward with the proposed project In regards to Commissioner Paris' comment pertaining to modifications at Hole No 10, Mr. Zuckerman replied that Hole No 10 was moved slightly inland after Coastal Commission reviewed the plans Commissioner Paris inquired as to why the Maintenance Facility issue was not addressed since this would have the most impact on the proposed project and Mr Zuckerman replied the reason was that the Maintenance Facility required geology review by the City's geologist before it is brought to the Commission for consideration. Mr. Zuckerman stated that the restrooms, clubhouse issue were not being held for geology review Vice Chairman Cartwright inquired if there was a change with the architect of the golf course and Mr Zuckerman replied that the designer of the golf course, Pete Dye Designs has been the designer since 1991 and that Mr Dye had provided the routing and preliminary design to the Civil Engineer who translated that information into a grading plan From there, construction would take place and Dye Designs would insert the details in the grading plans such as, the shapes of the greens, fairways, the final shapes of the lakes, irrigation, etc.. Mr David Pallinger. (Project Manager) 32700 Coast Site Drive requested that the Commission approve the proposed project. Mr. John Przybyszewski, (Construction Superintendent) 3850 Paseo Del Mar stated that he was present to answer questions for the Commission and also requested the Commissions approval for the proposed project Mr. Perry Dye, (Designer) 5500 E Yale Avenue, Denver, CO stated that he had been working on the proposed project for approximately nine years As mentioned earlier by Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 9 Mr Zuckerman, the insertion of the details was all that was left for completion and he too requested the Commissions approval to continue on with the proposed project Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission discussion and there was none Commissioner Lyon moved to accept Staffs recommendation, Alternative No. 1; approved by minute order the final layout of the golf course entitled "Ocean Trails golf Course, Rancho Palos Verdes, Calirfonia" prepared by Dye Designs in 1998, and directed Staff to review and approve the final location and design of the two on -course restroom facilities prior to issuing the building permits for these structures. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed, (6-0) by a unanimous roll -call vote. Vice Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8 40 P M there was a brief recess until the meeting reconvened at 8.50 P.M 9. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide Public Works Director Evans presented the Staff Report and stated that the 5 -year Capital Improvement Plan was actually a six year program since it included projects carried over the Fiscal Year 1997-98 Budget The program represented the period 1998 through 2003 and included the proposed expenditures for 1) Asphalt Pavement Overlay Projects, 2) Arterial Street Improvements; 3) Drainage Improvements, 4) Median/Parkway Landscape Improvements, 5) Park Improvements, and 6) Other Improvement Projects Mr. Evans stated that the General Plan identified maintenance and that the proposed reconstruction and overlay project conformed and were consistent with the General Plan. He also stated that the proposed drainage system, landscape median improvement, and the park improvement program all conformed to the goals of the General Plan. Therefore Staff recommended the Commission's adoption of the P C Resolution, thereby determining the City's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Program (1998- 2003) to be consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 10 Commissioner Slayden asked if the were improvement plans for the City Hall property and Public Works Director Evans replied that the Council would discuss this issue from time to time and concluded by saying that City Hall was potentially part of another project, and therefore significant improvements to the property were on hold. Commissioner Paris asked if he would have to recuse himself from discussion of this item since he lived within 250 feet of Hesse Park and Senior Planner Snow replied that the item discussed was an all inclusive program Capital Improvement Program and that the action sought was a finding of consistency with the General Plan, not discussion of the other projects included in the Capital Improvement Program Commissioner Vannorsdall asked how much money was there for land purchases and Public Works Director Evans replied approximately four million dollars Vice Chairman Cartwrigt stated in regards to `unattractive and bland asphalt corridors' he noted that there was a major improvement in landscaping at the median along Crest Road and asked if there was a plan to continue this improvement over towards Crenshaw Boulevard and Public Works Director Evans replied that this was not included in the current program, but stated that the existing raised median landscaping could be included in the future Capital Improvement Programs Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any speakers for this request and Senior Planner Snow replied there were none Vice Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission discussion and there was none Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staff's recommendation determining the City's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Program to be consistent with the General Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed, (6-0) by a unanimous roll -call vote. Vice Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Interpretation Hearing; U.S. Dhurandhar, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. Associate Planner Fox presented the Staff report and stated that Mr Dhurandhar (requestor) had submitted a request in February 1998 to the Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 11 Department for an interpretation of the provisions of the Development Code in chapter 17 02 030(A), Table 02-A, Note relating to maximum structure size in other similar properties of the City Notice of the Director's determination was provided to Mr Dhurandhar and interested parties in March 1998 and also published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News as well Mr Fox stated that within the prescribed notification period, Mr. Dhurandhar requested an interpretation hearing on this item which was scheduled by Staff to be considered by the Commission On April 14, 1998 Mr Fox stated that due to the applicant's request for continuance and the cancellation of the April 28, 1998 meeting the item was scheduled for consideration at this meeting Associate Planner Fox stated that Mr. Dhurandhar had the intention of demolishing his existing 2,100 square foot home and constructing a new home of similar size (12,000 to 13,000) to the nearby residence (LaBarba) As noted in the report the maximum structure size regulations were adopted out of concern for neighborhood compatibility Mr. Fox stated that, in the case of Mr Durhandhar's property, there was a large difference between the maximum structure size permitted using the open space percentage formula, and the 100 -percent expansion of original structure formula and that for most other properties there would not be such a large difference Mr Fox then stated that the requestor and owners of similar properties had the option to apply for a variance if they felt that the interpretation of this code penalized their properties Mr Fox concluded his Staff report by saying that Staffs interpretation of Section 17 02 030(A), Table 02-A, Note 2 of the Code was based on the intent of the Code to protect neighborhood compatibility Staff also believed that relief from this interpretation could be made by requestor or owners of similar properties by applying for a Variance application provided the mandatory findings could be made Therefore Staff recommended adoption of the P C Resolution, affirming the Director's interpretation of this code section limiting rebuilding of demolished structures to a maximum of 100% expansion as defined by the Code Commissioner Alberio asked if the subject site was a planned community and Associate Planner Fox replied that the lot was not part of a recorded track Commissioner Slayden felt the code requirement was onerous and asked if Staff discussed the Variance application alternative with the requestor and Associate Planner Fox replied that Staff had informed the requestor of that option Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if the properties on the east side of the City had the significant variance between open space and the 100% expansion increase and Associate Planner Fox replied that the potential existed and that the adjacent homes on Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 12 Palos Verdes Drive west were of similar situations as Mr Dhurandhar's Mr Cartwright also asked if the interpretation dust applied to lots created prior to 1975 and Associate Planner Fox replied that this was correct, except in East View where it would apply to lots created prior to 1983 Vice Chairman Cartwright expressed concern as to the disparity between lots of the same size, but developed with different sized structures, in that the property with the larger existing home would be able to demolish and build a home twice as large, whereas the property with the smaller existing structure would not be able to build to the same size as the other. An example being existing homes of 1,000 square feet and 2,000 square feet and maximum allowed homes of 2,000 versus 4,000 square feet respectively. Commissioner Paris moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Cartwright and passed. Mr Cordell Ross (applicant's architect) 22882 Ocean Breeze Way, stated that his client's property was located on a one acre site above Lunada Bay and indicated that his client was proposing a structure of 12,000 square feet which he believed was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood Mr Ross stated disagreed with the 100 percent expansion formula since it would only allow his client a structure of 4200 square feet as well as the Variance option and then expressed his concern that the issue at hand was neighborhood compatibility, in that a 4,200 square foot structure would be less compatible with neighboring residences than would a 12,000 square foot structure. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the proposed structure was 12,000 square feet and Mr. Cordell replied that this was correct, but for his applicant to go through a Variance process it would result in more work and detailed drawings, not to mention the additional expenditure for his client Mr Cordell then stated that there was more than enough buildable area at the subject site to accommodate a structure of that size Commissioner Vannorsdall was concerned about slippage at the subject site and asked if a geotechnical analysis was conducted and Mr. Cordell replied that a geology report was completed. Mr Stan Denis (applicant's attorney), 2377 Crenshaw Boulevard, Torrance felt that this section of the code does not apply to this particular item, since the code focuses on 'remodel' whereas the proposal here is for razing of the existing structure Mr Denis stated that Staff's recommendation was inappropriate and requested a narrow interpretation limiting the section's applicability to remodels only Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 13 Vice Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission comments and discussion on this item. Commissioner Paris expressed concern over incentivizmg demolition of structures by allowing greater than 100% expansion if completely razed, but limiting it to 100% expansion if remodeled. Discussion ensued regarding the intent of the code provision which was to control overbuilding in existing developed neighborhoods Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (6-0). Commissioner Lyon stated that the spirit of the law would not be to be to restrict the size of the structure to 4,200 square feet He felt that the word `expansion' was not clear. He felt that this was an unfair restriction for this particular case and that the solution would be to grant an exception. Commissioner Lyon was not opposed to the Variance approach, but noted that the processing fee would be a downside of this approach. He further expressed a desire to clarify this section by cleaning up the code language Commissioners Slayden concurred with the comments of Commissioner Lyon Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that Staff had interpreted the Code correctly, and consistently with the intent and therefore supported Staff s recommendation. Commissioner Alberio felt that this was a self imposed hardship by the applicant and did not see why the applicant could not go through the Variance process Vice Chairman Cartwright concurred with Commissioner Lyons comment regarding room for interpretation to the 100% expansion formula. He stated that the Variance alternative may impose a risk for the applicant and felt that was not fair. He reiterated concerns regarding equity between property owners Commissioner Paris moved to accept Staffs recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 98-19; thereby affirming the Director's interpretation of Section 17.02.030(A), Table 02-A, Note 2 of the Development Code. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed by a roll -call vote, (5-1) with Vice Chairman Cartwright dissenting. Vice Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 14 • 9 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 8 - REVISION 'C', GRADING PERMIT NO. 1991 and ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 700 Mount Olive Lutheran Church, 5975 Armaga Springs Road. Associate Planner Pfost presented the Staff Report and stated that the applicant requested to allow the construction of anew 4,039 square feet assembly hall, and 385 cubic yards of grading activity with a maximum of 4 5 feet deep cut. Staff felt that the proposed project met the six findings for the approval of the Conditional Use and Grading Permits and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration could also be approved Therefore, Staff recommended approval of this item Commissioner Paris moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. Mr James Poerschke, (pastor) 5975 Armaga Springs, thanked the Commission for consideration of this item that evening and requested that the Commission approve his request. Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Poerschke if he objected in having the parking situation reviewed by the Commission since the church membership may increase in the future Mr. Poerschke introduced the architect to address the question Mr Daniel Young. (applicant's architect) 118 S Catalina Street, Redondo Beach, CA replied that he reviewed the conditions of approval. In regards to the parking issue, Mr Young stated his opinion that an annual parking review by the City was not necessary and proposed a parking study to provide Staff with further information. Associate Planner Pfost replied that the mitigation process would require the applicant to provide annually a parking plan from last year and the future year to ensure that parking conditions had been adhered to Mr. Young clarified that the kitchen for the proposed project was not commercial (no deep fry, charcoal broiler, etc) and that it included a residential type 30 inch range and that cooking odors would not be a problem since the structure would be a 100 feet away from residences Mr Young asked to work with Staff on this issue and Associate Planner Pfost replied that this was based on one of the conditions by the Ner Tamid Congregation since there was large amount of cooking for their church members Staff then replied that they would modify the language for this condition as requested by the Commission Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 15 :7 Vice Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission discussion and comments on this item Commissioner Paris stated that he would like to see additional parking spaces, but felt that the proposed project was adequate and therefore agreed with Staff's recommendation. Commissioners Alberio, Lyon, Slayden, Vannorsdall, and Vice Chairman Cartwright had no objections. The Commission discussed and concurred that the annual parking study would be required only for three (3) years. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staffs recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 98-20 and P.C. Resolution No. 98-21; thereby adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 8 - Revision `C' and Grading Permit No. 1991, with direction to Staff to work with the applicant on the ventilation issue in the kitchen. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (6-0) by a unanimous roll -call vote. Vice Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period RECESS AND RECONVENE At 10 40 P M there was a recess until the meeting reconvened at 10:50 P M Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to re -order the Agenda again to consider Agenda Item No. 10 after Agenda Item No. 5, followed by Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 7. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed, (6-0). 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 200, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 143. and GRADING PERMIT NO. 1993: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Pointe Vicente Interpretive Center, 31501 Palos Verdes Drive West. Vice Chairman Cartwright read aloud the applicant's request and Staffs recommendation for this item and asked Staff what the delay was for consideration of this item and Associate Planner replied that the geology was still being reviewed Staff was under the impression that the geotechnical consultant would complete this report by the next scheduled meeting of Mays 26, 1998 Unfortunately the current geologist is no longer working on the report and another geologist was hired to complete the report Therefore Staff recommended that this item be removed from the Agenda Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 16 Commissioner Slayden moved to accept Staffs recommendation to remove this item from the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed, (6-0) by a unanimous roll -call vote. NEW BUSINESS 10. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.171: Vessel Assist Association of America, Inc., 1012 Brioso Dr., Suite 101, Costa Mesa [applicant]; Eugene Muntean, 30057 Matisse Drive [property ownert Associate Planner Fox presented the Staff Report and stated that the applicant requested a 5 -year extension of Conditional Use Permit No 171 for an existing, 19 foot tall existing commercial antenna at 30057 Matisse Drive Staff believed that the necessary findings for a Conditional Use Permit could be made to allow the continued use of the commercial antennae by Vessel Assist Association Therefore, Staff recommended approval of this project, subject to conditions Commissioner Paris suggested that rather than granting a 5 -year extension to the applicant, a 10 -year extension be granted provided that no modifications to the service of the antennae without approval from the Commission Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Staff if granting the 10 -year extension was possible and Staff replied that the Commission had the authority to do so if they desired Vice Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission discussion on this item and Senior Planner Snow Intervened and stated that there was as speaker request slip for this Item. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked the applicant, Mr. David LaMontague if he wanted the project approved or if he desired to speak and the applicant replied that he was available for questions from the Commission Commissioner Paris moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 98-22; thereby granting a 10 -year extension of Conditional Use Permit No. 171. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and passed, (6-0) by a roll -call vote. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 17 CONTINUED BUSINESS 6. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF ATTENDANCE POLICIES; Commissioner Albeno distributed information pertaining the attendance policy of the Commission and suggested that 'unexcused' versus 'excused' be codified into rules Vice Chairman Cartwright asked how this discussion arose and Commissioner Paris stated that this happened at the meeting of March 28, 1998 when he and Commissioner Albeno were not present He stated that he informed Staff that he was unavailable for that meeting Mr Paris stated that Commissioner Alberlo's situation was the same. In any case, Chairman Clark was not informed by him or Commissioner Alberio of their unavailability for the meeting, and therefore were considered 'unexcused'. Acting Director/Secretary Rous suggested that since Chairman Clark was not present that evening that this item be continued to the next regular scheduled meeting. Commissioner Paris felt that unexcused absences should be abolished from the policy and procedures of the Commission Senior Planner Snow stated that the 'excused' versus 'unexcused' absences was codified in Section 2 20.030 of the Municipal Code as adopted by the Council and that this would require an ordinance amendment to modify these provisions Vice Chairman Cartwright asked what the Municipal Code stated and Senior Planner Snow replied in Chapter 2 20 of the Code reads, 'Absences from meetings. Notwith- standing any other provision from of this code, any Commissioner absent three consecutive meetings of a regular Planning Commission unless excused by consensus of the Commission expressed by action recorded in its minutes.'. This section is the basis for why 'excused' versus 'unexcused' absences are notated in the minutes The second criteria would be for a total of five regular meetings within a six month period Commissioner Alberio moved to continue this item to the meeting of June 9, 1998. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed by the Commission without objections, (6-0). 7. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF APPLICANT INFORMATION; Senior Planner Snow briefly summarized this item and stated that these items of concern were brought up at the April 14, 1998 meeting were 1) Identification of individual parties associated with applicants that were Limited Liability Corporation Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 18 (LLC's) and Limited Liability Partnerships (LLP's) and other partnerships, 2) Imple- mentation of a requirement that applicant disclose local consultants retained for lobbying local decision makers, and, 3)lnstituting an additional bonding requirement for LLC's and LLP's Mr Snow pointed out that preliminary research was compiled with the assistance of the City Attorney and was included in the Staff Report. Staff recommended the Commission to discuss this issue and direct Staff for appropriate recommendation to the Council Since Commissioner Paris brought up these three concerns at the April 14, 1998 meeting, Vice Chairman Cartwright asked him if his intent for this concern was to address problems from the past or problems that are foreseen in the future Commissioner Paris replied that he believed that this would be helpful and that the Commission should know who they are dealing with in order to avoid undue influence based on the rumors or other unverified information Senior Planner Snow also noted in the Staff Report that the City Attorney stated when the Commission is conducting business and these types of questions are asked up front or in the course of deliberation, it could create an impression that the information (who the applicant is) was a partial basis for a decision This could open the City in claims of inappropriate considerations when the Commission makes a decision. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission discussion and comments on this item Commissioner Paris moved to refer this item to the Council. The motion died due to a lack of a second. Commissioners Alberio, Lyon, Slayden, Vannorsdall, and Vice Chairman Cartwright felt that requiring this information from the applicant could cause more problems than it would resolve Senior Planner Snow informed the Commission that there was a speaker request for this item Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road summarized various rumors regarding the Marriott Residential property, the York Long Pointe Associates projects, and a pending grading application concluding in her opinion that these applicant based issues should be taken into consideration. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 19 Commissioner Slayden moved to close the Public Heraing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Commissioner Alberio moved to received and file this report without any action. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (5-1) by a roll -call vote with Commissioner Paris dissenting. At this time, Commissioner Alberio distributed a memorandum to the Commission requesting the Council to authorize a monthly reimbursement of $75 00 to the Commission for travel expenses Acting Director/Secretary Rous Informed the Commission that if they desired to discuss this Item that evening, in order to provide input to the Council for the upcoming City Council consideration of the budget, a two-thirds vote was required by the Commission Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to include this item on the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed by a unanimous roll - call vote, (6-0). 10b. Planning Discussion of Reimbursement for Travel Expenses Vice Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission discussion on this Item and there was none Vice Chairman Cartwright informed Staff that Commissioner Alberio will draft a recommendation to the Council for the June 3, 1998 meeting Commissioner Alberio moved to forward a recommendation to the Council for a monthly reimbursement fee of $75.00 to the Commission for travel expenses and local meetings. The recommendation would include additional language indicating that the reason a fixed monthly amount was proposed was to avoid staff administration time for processing reimbursement claims through the Finance Department. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (6-0) by a roll -call vote. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 11. PRE -AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 9, 1998. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 20 Commission: Commissioner Alberio summarized the Sub -committee meeting held earlier that evening in the multi-purpose room. Present were the ham operators, Commissioners Vannorsdall and Lyon, and Acting Director/Secretary Rojas. Commissioner Alberio stated that the next scheduled meeting would be held on June 10, 1998 and another meeting on June 16, 1998. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road discussed landslide areas in the City. She expressed her disapproval of previous Commission decisions and then criticized the Commission for their recent approval for a new house on Tarapaca Road. Commissioner Paris stated his opinion that the Commission had given her many opportunities to express her opinions, but felt insults to the Commission were inappropriate and uncalled for Commissioner Paris requested that the speaker discontinue such behavior in the future and Lois Larue replied that she will continue to speak her opinion. ADJOURNMENT At 11:53 P.M. Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the meeting was duly adjourned by Vice Chairman Cartwright, (6-0). N:NGROU"LANNINGIPCMINIMIN06-26.09 Planning Commission Minutes May 26,1998 Page 21