Loading...
PC MINS 19990727n • CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 1999 CALL TO ORDER Approved Au St 10, 1999 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7 03 p m at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Principal Planner Snow led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Alberio, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Lyon and Chairman Cartwright Absent: Commissioner Clark was excused Also present were Principal Planner Snow, Associate Planner Mihranian, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Alberio moved to consider Item No. 5 of the agenda ahead of Item No. 3, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner Snow informed the Commission that they had been provided with excerpts of the minutes from the City Council meeting of July 6 as well as one item of late correspondence relating to item No 5, a petition opposing the Variance Chairman Cartwright asked for an update on the City Council action regarding the lot split on Rolling Ridge Road Associate Planner Mihranian responded by stating that at the adjourned meeting of Thursday, July 15 the City Council felt there were still some unresolved issues as to where the lot configuration would end up, therefore the item was continued with the anticipation that the applicant would either reconfigure the lot or submit a covenant that would be recorded against the property that would state the larger lot would not be further subdivided. The potential moratorium item was also continued to allow further analysis to be completed Commissioner Slayden reported on his tour of the Ocean Trails area. CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES OF JULY 13, 1999 Commissioner Paris noted on page 4, paragraph 3 of the minutes he would like it clarified that he was asked about the hardscape in the front of the building, and nothing to do with the walkway in the rear of the building. He felt the architect's answer in the minutes did not reflect what the architect said and requested the tape of the meeting be checked to verify the response. Chairman Cartwright questioned the proposed changes to the prior meeting minutes as shown on page 2 He felt the changes requested may have been inadequately reflected in the minutes and asked the tape be reviewed for clarity He provided staff with notes to help clarify the issues Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Vannorsdail abstaining since he was not in attendance at that meeting. .- a .... • s11,1111111mg Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the Resolution as presented, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Resolution 99-25 was approved (5-0-1) with Commissioner Vannorsdall abstaining as he was not in attendance at the meeting when the item was considered. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. VARIANCE NO 52 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8663. Chaparral Lane Homeowners Association (KF) The Commission took several minutes to review the late correspondence regarding this item Principal Planner Snow presented the staff report. He explained that the Homeowners Association had received a city beautification grant in June 1998 The walls requested vary in height from 6 feet 6 inches to 11 feet tall. Included are fixed, non-operable, decorative gates that will be attached to the walls on each side of the street as well as four low pilasters that flank the roadway No signs or lighting are proposed and all improvements would be located on public property Staff felt that all four findings for Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 2 granting of a variance had been met. The pilasters could be granted under a Site Plan Review and staff felt the pilasters met the code requirements with respect to height and setbacks In regards to the petition opposing the proposal submitted by three property owners on the opposite side of Cayuse Lane, Mr Snow believed that the conditions of approval addressed a number of the items The other concerns were more of a policy issue with the exception of item 9 Item 9 asserts that there is a view impact however being familiar with the topography staff did not feel there would be a view impact If the Commission desired, staff could do further research on the view impact. Commissioner Alberio asked staff if the Traffic Committee was consulted on this project Principal Planner Snow responded that this project did not go to the Traffic Committee, in part because the public works department, in their review of the beautification grant, felt that the project was appropriate. Commissioner Albeno felt the application should have gone to the Traffic Committee He also wondered if the fire department had approved the project. Principal Planner Snow answered that there was a condition of approval requiring the applicant to get approval from the fire department before building permits could be issued Commissioner Paris asked if this project was pure decoration and served no form or function other than decoration Principal Planner Snow stated that from staff's perspective that was correct Commissioner Paris asked if it would be possible to add a condition that hinges not be installed on the gates so that the gates could truly not operate Principal Planner Snow stated that the condition of approval reads that the gates shall be decorative, non -closing, and fixed in the fully open position He stated staff could clarify the condition further by stating there could be no hinges if that was the desire of the Commission. Commissioner Paris moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Miles Pntzkat 404 Avenue G Redondo Beach, the architect for the project, stated that he was available to answer any questions Commissioner Alberto felt the 11 foot was rather high and questioned whether the wall will have engineered footings and also wondered if he would object if the Commission recommended lowering the height of the wall. Planning commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 3 Mr Pritzkat responded that the wall will be engineered. Further, having the eleven foot high wall would be visually beneficial since the wall would be set back from the intersection. Commissioner Alberio asked the applicant how many members were part of the homeowners association Sandy Watkins (applicant) 1 Chaparral Lane responded that there were seven members and seven homes in the association All seven members agreed to the wall and pilasters Chairman Cartwright asked if the homeowners at 14 and 22 Cayuse Lane were part of the homeowners association. Ms Watkins responded that 14 Cayuse Lane was not a member of the homeowners association as well as the owners of 22 Cayuse Lane. However, since the project would impact 22 Cayuse Lane the owners participated in the planning of the beautification project Chairman Cartwright asked Ms Watkins how she would respond to the comment that the wall would cause a view impairment Ms Watkins answered that she did not understand how there could be any view impairment Commissioner Paris asked if the gate was going to be pre -wired for future electrical uses Mr Pritzkat answered that the only wiring would be for low landscape lighting, but nothing in the pilaster itself Commissioner Paris felt that the gates could be spread out and lowered a little to look a little less dramatic and that might solve some concerns. Ms Watkins answered that she had looked at several designs over a period of time, and felt the one settled on was the most appropriate and met the desires of the homeowners on the street Commissioner Alberio felt it might be a good idea to put some type of lighting on the pilasters to make them more visible at night. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Planning commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 4 Chairman Cartwright did not feel a height of 11 feet was out of line and was not uncommon in the area Principal Planner Snow agreed stating that there are many entry statements throughout the city that vary in height and degree of ornamentation Staff felt that this proposal was consistent and compatible with the entry statements in other neighborhoods. Chairman Cartwright asked what the homeowners association would have to do if, at some point in the future they decided to make the entry gate operable Principal Planner Snow stated that it would probably require a conditional use permit and clearance through the Traffic Committee Commissioner Alberio felt it might be helpful if, in the future, staff could have some type of height pole at the site of a requested gate, so that the Commission could get a true feel for how high the structure would be Commissioner Paris felt the entrance way could be widened to improve safety The height of the project was also a concern and he felt it could be lowered to a height of approximately 8 feet without loosing the aesthetics Commissioner Slayden stated he could accept this project as presented Commissioner Vannorsdall felt the present design was very much in character with others in the area and recommended approval Commissioner Alberio agreed with Commissioner Paris in that the project could be scaled down He was concerned about safety Vice Chairman Lyon felt the request was quite reasonable It is a private road and it is what the homeowners want. Further he reminded the Commission that the street was a private street and the Traffic Committee had no jurisdiction Chairman Cartwright agreed with Vice Chairman Lyon He had no idea where any view impairment would occur and as long as the fire department approved the plans he was comfortable with the proposal He suggested the area be pre -wired now while the street was being torn up in case at some point in the future the homeowners association opted for some type of lighting Commissioner Slayden moved to accept staff recommendation, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 99-23 as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. Approved, (4-2) with Commissioners Alberio and Paris dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 5 11 3. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 884. Sergio Gonzalez, 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report stating the request was for a new single family residence on the vacant lot at the end of Ocean Terrace Drive He explained the property was slightly over an acre in size, however the majority of the property is in a restricted use area that was established through the approval of the tract in the 1970's. The developable portion is the flat pad at the top of the lot There is also a trail easement through the property The proposed two-story structure measures 6,696 square feet, which includes the attached four -car garage The overall height of the proposed structure is 26 feet. He explained that staff felt the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood, will not result in an infringement of privacy, and will not impair a view from a public property However the overall height of the structure will not be compatible with the height of the other structures in the neighborhood, which step down with the descending ridge along Ocean Terrace Drive Staff also felt the lot was a ridge and a promontory. Further, staff identified four properties in the Seabreeze Development where staff believed the new structure would create a significant view impairment of portions of Catalina Island. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny Height Variation 884. Vice Chairman Lyon asked staff at what point in the development of a tract does a view from a specific lot become a protected view. Assistant Planner Schonborn explained that once a lot is created there is a protected view from that lot Vice Chairman Lyon questioned how, on an undeveloped lot, a view could be protected from anywhere on the lot regardless of the height of the building and where the primary viewing area may be subsequently located Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that the Height Variation guidelines provided criteria on how to conduct a view analysis from a vacant lot. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about fire access to the canyon once this house was built Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that the Monaco Homeowners Association raised this issue Therefore, staff contacted the fire department which indicated that in the past the property had been used to access a fire in the canyon, however they had nearly lost a fire engine in doing so Therefore, they indicated they would run hose lines between structures as necessary to fight fires. Commissioner Vannorsdall requested the approval of the fire department in writing before allowing the structure to be built. He then asked if the fence that was currently in place roughly defined the area where walls would be built around the property If so, that made the trail too narrow to be used Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 6 10 i Principal Planner Snow clarified that the temporary construction fence in place did not accurately reflect the permanent fencing or the actual trail easement area The actual trail easement area was further down the slope and quite a ways from the fence line. The fence line follows the top of the slope, the trail travels at approximately mid -slope and wraps around and connects at the back of the property for the continuation of the easement along the top of the ridge The Public Works Department will be re- establishing the trail and it's actual easement alignment. Over the past number of years people have been wandering across the lot as it is a more direct route, and using that rather than the actual trail easement. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked how much higher the proposed house was than the neighboring houses. Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that It appears to be 3 to 4 feet higher than the adjacent neighbor to the east. Commissioner Slayden wondered if it would be possible to grade down and remove dirt to lower the height of the pad, thereby lowering the overall height of the structure. Assistant Planner answered that a grading application would have to be submitted and new findings made Principal Planner Snow added that with the restricted use area there would be the possibility of retaining walls and staff would have to look at a specific proposal before they could say if it was acceptable or not Commissioner Alberio also stated he would like to see the height of the structure lowered He would like to see the lot developed, but felt the proposed structure was too high. Chairman Cartwright commented that he had difficulty when out at the site determining view impairment, mainly due to the large number of trees on the neighboring property He felt a large portion of the proposed structure would be in a view corridor area that is already impacted by existing trees on the adjacent property. Further, regarding the lots at the Seabreeze Tract, he commented that if a 16 -foot high structure were to be built on the subject property approximately one quarter to one half of Catalina Island would be obstructed By going up another 10 feet then approximately three-quarters of the view of Catalina Assistant Planner Schonborn clarified that from of the lots at Seabreeze one is able to see the southern portion of Catalina Island. If a 16 foot structure were built, it would block approximately one half of the southern portion of Catalina, but one could still see the northern part of the island and the rest of the ocean. A 26 -foot high structure would block the entire southern portion of the island. Chairman Cartwright asked from how far away a view could be protected Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 7 0 0 Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that according to the guidelines, houses up to 1,000 feet away must be considered, which included the few lots at the Seabreeze Tract Vice Chairman Lyon moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Sergio Gonzalez (architect) 6 N. First Avenue, Arcadia stated he was available to answer any questions from the Commission He distributed a photo board showing the proposed structure in place on the lot Commissioner Paris asked how the architect came up with 26 feet in height He wondered if he asked for the maximum and was not willing to lower the height. Mr. Gonzalez answered that his clients want a two-story home He showed how portions of the roof are flat to lower the ridgeline as much as possible He also pointed out that their grading plan cuts approximately two feet from the ridgeline of the property. Commissioner Paris wondered if reducing the height of the 10 -foot ceilings would be a possibility to help lower the height of the structure Mr. Gonzalez responded that 8 -foot ceilings would create a very low feeling inside the house open areas. In the smaller rooms he could work with 8 -foot ceilings Chairman Cartwright asked if he had considered putting a 16 -foot high structure on the property Mr. Gonzalez answered that his clients did not feel a one story home would suit their needs. Sultan Ahamed (land owner) 10 Via Pergola explained that before he started to do anything with this lot he had met with planning staff and planned different possibilities for the design of the house He stated the land is 45,000 square feet, however the buildable area is 18,000 square feet and the planning staff suggested the best option would be a two-story residence After meetings with the Planning Department, he hired an architect to design the house. He felt that what was before the Commission was the best possible house that could fit on the lot He realized the house was high, however he felt the house was no higher than the residence next door He expressed frustration that the only way he could fit a reasonable size house on the lot was to build up to two stones, yet the City was telling him he could not go too high. He stated that when he first started this project, there were no houses on the Seabreeze Tract Now that he is ready to get started, Seabreeze has become an issue. He stated that recently he visited the Seabreeze Tract and was told that the houses on the ridge side were not being sold as view lots Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 8 0 Commissioner Albeno asked Mr. Ahamed if he was willing to compromise further in the design of his home. Mr Ahamed answered that he has been compromising since the first day and will continue to do so He stated that these people will be his neighbors and he wants no hard feelings between neighbors Commissioner Slayden complimented Mr. Ahamed on his thoroughness in working with the City throughout this process Mr Ahamed thanked the planning staff and the Commission for the time they have taken to help him through the process Commissioner Paris asked staff to clarify the statement by Mr. Ahamed that the planning staff suggested he build a two-story building. Principal Planner Snow clarified that the nature of the meeting with Mr Ahamed was to talk about the property, the constraints on the property, and what opportunities Mr. Ahamed should be looking at for developing the property Because of the size of home he desired and the limited pad area outside of the restricted area, the only alternative would be a two-story home Mr Snow added that it was conveyed to Mr. Ahamed that there is a process for building above 16 feet in height He stated that view impact was probably not discussed, as that is difficult to discuss until a silhouette is in place Mr Ahamed agreed with the summary of the conversation Minaz Ahamed 10 Via Pergola pointed out that along Ocean Terrace Drive the lots gradually step down However, he felt that the step down does occur at the beginning (to the south), but as you get towards the end of the street (north), the step down basically levels off, making the last three or four lots at an equal height. He also discussed a protected view and felt that a protected view should be the one that is created first If, when a lot is created it has a protected view, then the lot on Ocean Terrace was created much earlier than the lot in the Seabreeze Tract and therefore had the protected view first. Tom Alley 6304 Sattes Drive stated he lives across the canyon from the subject property and that building a home at that site will have a very minimal impact on his view. He felt the protect was reasonable and an asset to the community. Further, he pointed out that the pads at the Seabreeze Tract had been built up approximately 15 feet, and he therefore questioned why they should have a protected view He was pleased to hear the trail easement around the lot would be reopened, as it was previously a very useable easement Chairman Cartwright asked staff for clarification of the protected view issue The Ocean Terrace development was created much earlier than the Seabreeze development The Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 9 developer of Seabreeze created the lots and therefore he questioned why one could create built up lots that would then be entitled to a protected view. Principal Planner Snow responded that the grading and lot elevations come before the Planning Commission for approval If the developer chooses to build up a lot to gain a view he could, provided all of the grading criteria were met. If it is an appropriate grading concept and results in a view, then it could be appropriate. Mr Wright 5008 Golden Arrow Drive stated he recently purchased a home in the Seabreeze Tract because of its location and view He felt the view over the subject property is one of the most beautiful views on the peninsula and he was very sorry to loose that view He encouraged the city to re-establish the trail access as quickly as possible Chairman Cartwright asked if, at the time he purchased his home, he was aware the lot on Ocean Terrace was going to be developed. Mr Wright stated he did not know it was a lot, rather he thought it was public land Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road expressed her deep concern over fire department access to the canyons during a fire She asked the Commission and staff to make sure there would be adequate area for the fire engines to fight any fires that may occur in the canyons Chairman Cartwright pointed out that in the staff report it was indicated that the fire department had been contacted regarding building this structure, and the fire department was not concerned Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9.15 p m. the Commission took a short recess until 9.30 p.m. at which time they reconvened. Commissioner Paris believed the design should be sent back to the architect for revision He thought with a little creativity in the design the height could be lowered a few more feet as well as reducing the mass of the house. He also would like to see the structure set back further from the ridge. Commissioner Slayden thought the plan was too large for this particular lot. He felt the house was beautifully designed but did not fit on the lot He would like to see some re- design which may include lowering the pad elevation Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 10 Commissioner Alberio agreed with Commissioners Paris and Slayden He felt sending the plan back to the architect and homeowner for redesign was a good option. He requested that if this were to be done that new flags be put on the property, as the ones out there are falling down Vice Chairman Lyon stated he was inclined to approve the protect. He understood the concerns regarding the fire access, but did not feel the Commission could restrict the right of the owners to develop their property just because it has been open space for so long. He agreed that lowering the pad might help address some of the issues raised on view impairment and felt that if the pad could be lowered without changing the design of the house he would find that quite acceptable Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed with Commissioner Lyon's comments He did not feel there was a significant view impairment from the Seabreeze tract. He did feel the house may be too massive and lowering the lot may help alleviate the problem Therefore, he agreed that the Commission should send the plan back to the architect for re -design Chairman Cartwright stated he had been out to the Seabreeze area three separate times to look at view impairment. He felt that most of the view impairment would happen if a 16 -foot structure were to be built, and therefore could not support a finding of significant view impairment for a taller structure. He felt the structure was a nice design and was compatible and consistent with the neighborhood He did think it could be a little lower in height, but once foliage was planted the effect would be softened He commented that if the fire department had no concern with access then it should not be a concern of the Commission He did think that lowering the pad a few feet might help reduce the impact of the residence Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the item to allow the architect and homeowner to work with staff to address the concerns of the Planning Commission, specifically lowering the pad to reduce the height of the house, increase the setback from the slope on the west side of the property, and reduce the mass of the house, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that the homeowner would have to agree to a one time, 94 -day extension to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act if the protect was continued. Commissioner Paris moved to re -open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The pubic hearing was reopened by Chairman Cartwright. Chairman Cartwright explained to Mr Ahamed the Commission was concerned with the mass of the structure, as well as the height He asked Mr. Ahamed if he would be willing to grant a time extension to give himself and the architect extra time to make modifications to the structure Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 11 0 0 Principal Planner Snow explained to Mr Ahamed the Permit Streamlining Act and why the time extension was necessary Mr Ahamed had no objection Commissioner Cartwright closed the public hearing. Principal Planner Snow requested that Mr Ahamed put the time extension request in writing Chairman Cartwright stated that he was uncomfortable with the third issue of reducing the mass. The motion to continue the public hearing to a later meeting to be determined by staff was repeated by Commissioner Alberio and was approved, (5-1) with Vice Chairman Lyon dissenting, 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 185 — REVISION `A'. 5755 Palos Verdes Drive South/Wayfarers Chapel Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report, explaining the applicant was requesting an amendment to condition 14 of the Conditional Use Permit regarding amplified sound at Wayfarer's Chapel Noise at the site had been monitored at three separate activities within the outdoor amphitheater The report from the noise consultant stated that all three events the noise level exceeded the maximum decibel level of 50. Staff was recommending raising the decibel level of amplified sound from 50 decibels to 65 decibels, as recommended by the certified noise consultant. He stated that events at Wayfarer's Chapel would still be subject to monitoring to verify that they are in compliance with the 65 decibel level Further, the noise consultant recommended any amplified system and musical instruments be orientated behind the seating area, which would radiate the sound waves toward the ocean. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that the Commission had recommended in their original approval that the sound system be orientated toward the ocean Associate Planner Mihranian responded that there was no such condition in the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Slayden asked how many events Wayfarer's Chapel was allowed to have per year with amplification. Associate Planner Mihranian answered they were allowed in a calendar year two outright, Easter Sunday and Palm Sunday, and two additional events subject to a Special Use Permit. Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 12 Commissioner Paris asked if there had been any complaints registered by the public Associate Planner Mihranian responded that there had been no complaints made to staff. Commissioner Paris asked why staff was recommending 65 decibels when in the staff report it showed that in every observance the decibel level was over 65 decibels He wondered if 65 decibels was an unreasonable request Associate Planner Mihranian answered that the noise consultant had stated that if the amplified sound system were orientated towards the ocean that would typically allow for a 65 decibel reading Commissioner Vannorsdall reminded the Commission that when the Planning Commission originally approved the application they had recommended a 65 decibel limit The City Council later reduced the limit to 50 decibels. He also explained that it was not necessarily the level of noise that was distracting, but the type of sound He felt what was being asked for was very reasonable. Vice Chairman Lyon wondered why, since the background noise level had been measured in excess of 70 dbs, couldn't the Commission recommend approving 70 dbs as the maximum noise level Commissioner Alberio stated that the state of California had a standard of 65 decibels He felt approving anything over 65 dbs would be problematic Commissioner Vannorsdall felt it was important to add the condition that the sound system be orientated toward the ocean to help reduce noise and had no problem approving 65 dbs. Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Rev Harvey Tafel (chapel administrator) 5755 Palos Verdes Drive South stated that a 50 decibel level was too low of a level to have any type of amplification His main concern was the recommendation in the staff report that speakers, musicians and instruments be behind the audience Having the speakers oriented toward the ocean was acceptable, however it was next to impossible to station the musicians behind the audience He requested the Commission look at the condition regarding the placement of the musicians and instruments. He agreed the trumpet and soprano were loud and would be willing to work out an arrangement to keep that noise lowered Associate Planner Mihranian stated that was correct and placed in the staff report based on the noise consultant's recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 13 Commissioner Vannorsdall did not think that would be very practical Corrinne Gerard 22 Narcissa Drive stated she did not object to the proposed 65 decibel level. She stated the noise is still there, however it is only there a few days out of the year. She appreciates the suggestion to have the speakers face the ocean and stressed that the noise level must be continued to be monitored. She reminded the Commission that what may be pleasant music to some ears may not be pleasant to others. Commissioner Alberio asked if she believed they would be able to keep the decibel level at 65 or below. Ms. Gerard answered that she believed they could very easily She further stated that it was very easy in monitoring the sound to determine what noises were coming from the Wayfarer's Chapel and what noises were coming from other sources. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Paris felt there were two modifications that needed to be made The first was that only the speakers be pointed toward the ocean. The other that the applicant work to mitigate or reduce the amplification on brass instruments and soprano voices Commissioner Alberio moved to adopt the staff recommendations as amended, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Chairman Cartwright asked staff to clarify for him how it is determined if the readings on the meter are from noise being made at Wayfarer's Chapel or noise from a passing truck Associate Planner Mihranian explained how the noise meters work and how they are continually monitoring during a performance at Wayfarer's Chapel. Commissioner Alberio repeated his motion to approve the staff recommendations with the amendments that the speakers only would be directed toward the ocean and that Wayfarer's Chapel would reduce the amplification on sopranos and brass instruments thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-24, which Commissioner Vannorsdall had seconded. The motion passed, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Slayden stated he would be absent from that meeting Planning commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 14 1 0 0 Principal Planner Snow stated that there are several items on the pre -agenda that could take a fair amount of time He stated that Item No 6 under public hearings (Site Plan Review No. 8640) will be continued to the August 24 meeting. In addition he requested that Item No. 7 under New Business (Maximum Structure Size and Roof Deck Report) be moved to the August 24 meeting The Commission had no objection to the changes COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Corinne Gerard 22 Narcissa Drive discussed the ongoing security issue at Wayfarer's Chapel She requested Wayfarer's Chapel be responsible for on-site security and that she be given the security company's phone number so that she could call them in the event of a problem at the site. She stated she had requested this information several times to no avail Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested that staff speak to the City Manager about the problems and if necessary the topic be put on a future City Council agenda. Principal Planner Snow stated he would bring this to the attention of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement and the City Manager Finally, Ms Gerard wondered if it was too late for her to request that Wayfarer's Chapel cut some of their trees to the 16 foot level before being allowed to break ground for the visitor's center Principal Planner Snow checked the conditions of approval for the project and there was not a standard condition that the trees be lowered to a height of 16 feet Chairman Cartwright suggested checking into the view restoration process that is available in the city Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road discussed a letter to the editor that Commissioner Paris submitted to the Palos Verdes News questioning why everything in the city had to be "upscale". She further stated that, regarding the development in Abalone Cove, she had phoned the Planning Department and stated they could not do a Negative Declaration She further stated that she still strenuously objects to the proposed development at Abalone Cove She talked about the fire department using water scooper planes and helicopters to fight fires in the canyons and therefore was not as worried about the proposed development on Ocean Terrace Drive Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 15 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Slayden moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Paris. The meeting was duly adjourned at 10:56 p.m. to Thursday August 10, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1999 Page 16