Loading...
PC MINS 19990824Ll CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 1999 APPROVED 9114199 qk- CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7 00 p m at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Director/Secretary Rojas led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Lyon and Chairman Cartwright. Absent: None. Also present were Director/Secretary Rojas, Public Works Director Allison, Senior Planner Pfost, Associate Planner Mihranian, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Slayden moved to re -order the agenda in the following order: 1, 2, 5, 6, 4, 3, and 7 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed. COMMUNICATIONS Council Policy Items Director/Secretary Rojas updated the Commission 1) on the City Council Meeting of August 17,1999 and informed them that the appeal for Height Variation No 883 (2 Stallion Road) was upheld by the City Council resulting in the applicant's desire to pursue alternatives in reducing the height of the proposed structure by 1 foot; 2) on the status of the {ocean Trails and Marriott projects, and, 3) on the Council's discussion topic (Senior Affordable Housing Project) and noted the Commission's topic (Maximum Structure Size and Roof Decks) to the Council for the upcoming Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop to be held on Saturday, August 28, 1999, 9.30 a m. through 12:30 p.m in the Community Room at City Hall • Staff • Staff distributed: 1) a P.C. Resolution and one item of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 3 (Abalone Cove Project); 2) one item of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 4 (Golden Cove Project); 3) the amended Pre -Agenda for September 14, 1999; and, 4) two miscellaneous newspaper articles regarding Abalone Cove and the Los Angeles rainfall statistics from 1877-1999. IWOTA TABOATMWOrs None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of August 10, 1999 Commissioner Paris requested that a modification be made on page 6, paragraph 9, line 4 to read as, '...the City Attorney informed him that..."; on page 10, paragraph 3, line 1 the street name 'Via Covenel'be modified to read as, 'Via Coronet'; and, on page 12, paragraph 2, line 2 an insertion be made after the word 'store'to read as, '...and stores...'. Commissioner Clark requested that on page 11, paragraph 3, line 1 the word `dictates'be replaced by the word 'takes', and, on page 5, paragraph 4 recollected that Chairman Cartwright had concurred with his statement, but noted that his comment was not recorded into the minutes. Commissioner Paris moved to approve the Minutes of August 10, 1999 as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed (6-1) with Commissioner Slayden abstaining as he was not present at that meeting. 2. Site Plan Review No. 8640; Barbara Dancy (applicant), 7442 Via Lorado Drive. Chairman Cartwright read aloud the applicant's request and Staff's recommendation for this item. Commissioner Alberio moved to waive the reading of the Staff, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The motion passed (7-0) by a roll -call vote. Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any speakers for this item and Staff replied that there were none Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 2 Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Staff's recommendation, to approve Site Plan Review No. 8640, subject to conditions of approval in Exhibit `A', via minute order. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed (7-0) by a roll -call vote. Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARINGS The Commission considered Agenda Item No. 5 at this time 5. Tentative Parcel Map No. 25492; Mr. Bowler (applicant), 3456 Via Campesina Drive. Chairman Cartwright asked why Staff recommended this item for continuance of this item to the meeting of September 14, 1999. Director/Secretary Rojas replied that additional information was needed for the applicant to address and also due to the fact that the applicant's engineer was hospitalized during the application process Therefore, an agreement was made between the applicant and Staff to continue this matter to the next meeting. Staff informed the Commission that the requested extension was received from the applicant. Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any speakers for this item and Staff replied that there were none Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staff's recommendation, to continue the public hearing of this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 1999. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon and passed (7-0) by a roll -call vote and so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. At this time, Agenda Item No. 6 was considered by the Commission. 6. Height Variation No. 884; Sergio Gonzalez (applicant), 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive Assistant Planner Schonborn explained that at the meeting of July 27, 1999 this item was recommended for denial based on Staff's analysis Staff concluded that the proposed project would significantly impair the view from the viewing areas of other residences and that the proposed height was not compatible with the height of the other structures in the neighborhood However, the Commission directed the applicant to modify the proposed project to address several concerns with the proposed structure. The directions provided to the applicant Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 3 were to: 1) lower the pad to reduce the height of the house; 2) Increase the setback from the slope on the west side of the property; and, 3) reduce the mass of the house. Assistant Planner Schonborn informed the Commission that the applicant addressed the concerns and lowered the pad by 2.75 feet, reduced the over all height by 1 foot, and recessed the second story facade on the west side by 6 feet Therefore, based upon the direction of the Planning Commission to modify the proposed project to the extent feasible, Staff believed the applicant has modified the proposed project that addressed the Commission's concerns If the Commission believes that the concerns have been addressed, Staff recommended approval of the modified proposed project Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any speakers for this Item and Staff replied that four requests to speak were submitted Commissioner Slayden moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon and passed. Mr Sultan Ahamed (landowner), 10 Via Pergola Drive, had no comments and stated that he was present to answer questions for the Commission. Mr Minaz Ahamed (landowner), 10 Via Pergola Drive, had no comments and thanked the Commission for direction in modifying the proposed project Mr Tom Alley, 6304 Sattes Drive, supported the proposed project and stated that it would slightly impair his view and felt that it was compatible with the neighborhood Mr Sergio Gonzalez, (applicant) 6 North First Street, #101, Arcadia, CA, stated that he would be glad to answer questions for the Commission Commissioner Paris moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon and passed. Chairman Cartwright asked for Commission comments and discussion on this item Commissioner Paris was pleased and stated that the Commission's points were addressed, the structure was modified to make it compatible to include the view and setback. Commissioner Slayden complimented Staff and the architect for working closely on this Item. Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 4 Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the applicant's proposed roof deck was against City rules and Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that this was correct and oversight on Staff's part However, this issue was discussed with the applicant and that the deck was taken out and not part of the approval Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the restriction of the removal of 2 feet of dirt to lower the pad Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that due to the quantity, depth, and amount of earth movement this issue would not be classified as a grading process through the Planning Division, but none the less it would go through the standard practice by the Building and Safety Division for the exportation of the soil and ensure that the soil is disposed legally. Commissioner Vannorsdall requested that this be added to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Clark echoed the comments of Commissioner Paris and stated that the modified proposed project was a win-win situation for the neighborhood and for the City. Commissioner Alberio and Vice Chairman Lyon concurred with the comments of their colleagues Chairman Cartwright congratulated the applicant who moved in the direction of the Commission. Chairman Cartwright believed that the modified proposed project was consistent with the requirements of the Code and was compatible with the neighborhood Vice Chairman Lyon moved to accept Staff's recommendation with the condition that the Building and Safety Division assure that the fill is disposed in a safe and proper area and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 99-28; thereby approving Height Variation No. 884. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paris and passed (7-0) by a roll -call vote and so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. Chairman Cartwright noted the 15 -day appeal period. CONTINUED BUSINESS At this time, the Commission considered Agenda Item No 4 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 206, Variance No. 446, Grading Permit No. 2135, and Environmental Assessment No. 711; Hannibal Petrossi, Petrossi Associates (applicant), Golden Cove Center, LLC, (landowners), 31100-31776 Palos Verdes Drive West. Associate Planner Mihranian briefly recapped the presentation from the August 10, 1999 meeting at the subject site. Staff pointed out that this was the third Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 5 public hearing that evening and that the previous meetings were held on August 10, and continued to a site visit on August 14, 1999. As a result of the August 14th meeting Staff was able to access the information that was addressed by the Commission from the site visit of seven surrounding residences— five of which were located In the Villa Capri Complex and two located off of Via Del Mar Drive Associate Planner Mihranian pointed out to the Commission that the applicant requested a continuance on this item to the next meeting of September 14, 1999 in order to have ample time to return with a more finalized plan. However, Staff identified several concerns raised at the site visit regarding view impairment, noise, circulation, parking, mechanical equipment, utilities, and architectural features which needed further clarification as indicated in the Staff Report Associate Planner Mihranian also informed the Commission that Staff had made a series of recommendations however, those recommendations have been modified as a result of the site visit Associate Planner Mihranian informed the Commission that an Initial hydrology study had been submitted by the applicant and not formerly reviewed, but Staff recommended further study be prepared since the original study submitted does not sufficiently address all concerns and that there was a condition in the original staff report which required a hydrology study be approved prior to Issuance of building permits. Public Works Director Allison stated his belief that a drain system was installed in the parking lot and assured the Commission that Staff will require the applicant to submit a proper storm drain system plan that will focus on the existing conditions and the proposed buildings on Palos Verdes Drive West. Director Allison also assured the Commission that Staff will also require that the applicant install a proper sub -drain system to extract the groundwater from the subject site if it is determined to be necessary In regard to the traffic concerns, the City's Traffic Engineer initially reviewed the applicant's traffic study, but deemed it incomplete Subsequently, a revised plan was submitted and reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer despite some minor corrections, which would need revision prior to approval by the City's Traffic Engineer. Furthermore, Committee Member Hilderbrand of the Traffic Committee stated that the Committee reviewed the original traffic study submitted by the applicant and concurred to further review the traffic concerns raised and recommendations made by the City's Traffic consultant and that a determination would be made upon receipt of a final traffic impact report from the applicant Traffic Committee Member Hilderbrand Informed the Commission that he would recommend placing a "right turn only' sign at the exit of the driveway (steep driveway) behind the grocery store to prohibit motorist from making a left turn on to Hawthorne Boulevard, which should prevent a potential traffic hazard. Traffic Committee Member Hilderbrand pointed out that a truck delivery area was Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 6 not specified in the Staff Report and suggested that the Commission look further into that matter Associate Planner Mihranian concluded his presentation by stating that Staff recommended the Commission to direct the applicant to modify the plans as requested by Staff and that the existing silhouette be re -flagged to reflect the modified plan. Should the Commission desire to continue this public hearing to the meeting of September 14, 1999, Staff recommended that the silhouette modifications be made by August 30, 1999 to provide Staff with ample time to assess the modified height from the surrounding properties. Furthermore, the revised plans should be resubmitted to the Planning Department by September 1, 1999 in order for Staff to review and prepare a Staff Report for the Commission. Chairman Cartwright asked how many speakers requested to give testimony and Staff replied that there were five speaker slips submitted Ms Kathy Berg, (Golden Cove LLC & Napa Valley Farms Representative), 26621 Hawkhurst Drive, informed the Commission that she received a letter from the Palos Verdes Chamber Commerce stating their support for the proposed remodel. Mr. Charles Hugan, 21 Via San Remo, complimented Associate Planner Mihranian on the Staff Report and stated that although the proposed tower was modified to be lower in height from eight to three feet he was still concerned with his view impairment and the reason for an elevator installation In regards to the 'right turn only' sign to be placed at the top of the exit way in the back of the proposed grocery store, Mr Hugan stated that he would support the idea. Mr Bill Griffin, 5 Ginger Root Lane, suggested that the applicant screen the air conditioning system on the roof area and stated that he was pleased with the proposed remodel and looking forward to shopping at the subject site. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated that she recollected the previous Vons Market had no problems with trucks delivering produce at the exit way in the back Mr Hannibal Petrossi (applicant) 3700 Campus Drive, #202, Newport Beach, CA stated the reason for continuing this item was to provide him additional time to address additional concerns raised by the Commission, Staff and the residences from the site visit on August 14, 1999 Mr. Petrossi pointed out that the elevator was not exceeding above the existing roof line and if it were eliminated it would cost the developer, but would be glad to look further into this matter to satisfy the concern. Mr Petrossi addressed the concern of the air conditioning unit on the proposed two-story building and stated that there was an option to install a package unit for multiple tenants and informed the Commission Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 7 that the developer would upgrade the unit which would decrease the noise issue and screen the equipment as suggested by Staff if deemed economically feasable. In regards to the transmission lines, Mr Petrossi informed the Commission that he has contacted the Edison Company to gather information on the cost of placing the existing overhead power underground. Mr Petrossi also stated that he and Staff are working together at the site of the three proposed buildings located along Palos Verdes Drive South to determine whether the outdoor area should be designated as a public resting/eating area The proposed dining terrace at the Golden Lotus would be removed elsewhere within the building footprint and would be enclosed. Mr. Petrossi stated that his traffic consultant was working on the parking concerns raised and would prepare a report for Staff in the near future Mr. Petrossi stated that he spoke with the gas station owner of his proposed two-way driveway and that the gas station owner informed him that he had approvals for a car wash and that he had no objections with the two-way driveway. In regard to the four parking spots adjacent the Admiral Risty Restaurant he believed that 90 feet was adequate for motorist to be aware of incoming outgoing vehicles. Mr. Petrossi stated that he would work further with Staff to satisfy additional traffic concerns Commissioner Vannorsdall believed that the old flags should be taken down and the new flags be placed on the silhouette Commissioner Slayden asked if Napa Valley Farms was concerned with the delay of proceeding with the proposed project. Mr. Petrossi replied that Napa Valley Farms has seen the great support of residences and had not really decided on a specific start date Commissioner Alberio asked Mr Petrossi how would the delivery truck issue be resolved and he replied that the parent company, KV Mart of Napa Valley Farms have their own warehouse and could control their own delivery hours. Mr. Petrossi concurred with the Traffic Committee's recommendation of placing a right turn only sign at the top of the exit way in the back of the proposed grocery building Commissioner Paris asked how many air conditioning units were on the roof area, and Mr Petrossi replied approximately 26 units. Commissioner Paris then asked how much height would be decreased if they considered replacing the newer units and Mr. Petrossi replied maybe eight inches Commissioner Paris asked if he discussed with the Admiral Risty owners of putting in a non - competing restaurant that would compliment them and Mr. Petrossi replied that he spoke to them and was aware that a he could not propose another restaurant over 1500 square feet because of their lease. Commissioner Paris asked if the tower could be lowered any further and Mr Petrossi replied if they were to go any lower it would not be a tower — open or closed. Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 8 0 Ll Commissioner Clark was concerned about the parking issue and whether the proposed revitalization of the center required new building construciton as opposed to refurbishment of the market and existing infrastructure. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Petrossi if had reviewed Staffs modified recommendations and if he had concerns. Mr. Petrossi replied that he reviewed the modifications and stated that he was willing to work with Staff to make all the accommodations. Chairman Cartwright asked if the proposed 321 parking spaces required with the joint parking program was not adequate that alternatives be available, and Associate Planner Mihranian replied that this condition which required the parking capacity in terms of dining area were incorrect or maxed out. The applicant would have to amend the dining area for any new restaurants to comply with the required 321 parking spaces Vice Chairman Lyon echoed the comments of Commissioner Clark and was concerned with the need of the three proposed additional food outlets and hoped that the developer would succeed with its tenants. Vice Chairman felt that it was not a necessity to do everything at the beginning and suggested that the appellant consider the proposed project as a two-phase project. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to reflag the silhouette in terms of differences between Staff and the developer's recommendation and in all other areas there would be one set. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed (7-0) by a roll -call vote and so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. Commissioner Clark moved to continue the Public Hearing of this item to the meeting of September 14,1999. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed (7-0) by a roll -call vote and so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 10.15 p m there was a brief recess until the Commission reconvened at 10:30 p.m. Agenda Item No. 3 was considered by the Commission at this time. 3. Abalone Cove Beach Improvement Proliect — Coastal Permit No. 156 and Variance No. 448. Senior Planner Pfost stated that in July 1998 the City Council approved the design concept of the proposed project and in March 1999 the City Council reviewed and approved the landslide moratorium permit for the proposed project thereby permitting the City to apply for the Variance and the Coastal Permit. During the review of the landslide moratorium the Council also approved the Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 9 geological analysis conducted by Dr. Perry Ehlig and indicated that the analysis was adequate and that no further analysis was necessary The Project was originally scheduled for the July 13, 1999 meeting. However, due to correspondence received by the U S Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game requesting an additional survey be made, the project was continued to the August 10, 1999 meeting and the survey has been completed and included in the Staff Report Senior Planner Pfost described the location as well as the requested action for the proposed project and discussed the code consideration and analysis in regard to the Environmental Assessment, Coastal Permit, and Variance as indicated in the Staff Report. Senior Planner Pfost stated that the proposed project required the approval of the Coastal Permit since it lies within the coastal zone and also required the approval of the Variance since the location of the proposed structures were within the coastal setback area. He informed the Commission that on May 12, 1999, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the site and the review comment began on May 15th and ended on June 14th During the review period Staff received 9 comment letters from various agencies and the public. Staff's responses to those letters were included in the Staff Report. Senior Planner Pfost pointed out that the letter from the U S Fish & Wildlife service requested that no construction occur during the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 — August 30, 1999) since the site's sensitive habitat may be occupied In the mitigated measures, Staff crafted a measure that would require on site monitoring to determine if a sensitive species was identified on the subject site and that if a sensitive species was identified construction would be halted within 300 feet of said species. Senior Planner Pfost informed the Commission that Staff is requesting to revise this mitigated measure to consider the request submitted by the U.S Fish & Wildlife Staff felt that the proposed project met the findings necessary to grant the approval of the Coastal Permit and Variance and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration could be adopted. Therefore, Staff recommended the Commission adopt the resolutions approving the MND, Coastal Permit and Variance Commissioner Slayden asked if the old check-in booth entrance would still remain. Public Works Director Allison replied that this booth would still be utilized and stated that in the future Staff envisioned the installation of an automated parking payment system. Chairman Cartwright asked how the proposed project was funded and Public Works Director Allison replied that the proposed project was funded by Measure `A' money He informed the Commission that the Measure 'A' money is used for park facilities construction and maintenance services. Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 10 Commissioner Clark asked how the proposed design concept came about and Public Works Director Allison replied that he believed it originated from the discussions of the Recreation and Parks Committee Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any speakers for this item and Staff replied that four requests to speak were submitted Commissioner Alberio moved to open the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, opposed the proposed project and stated that the landslide area was collapsing due to contour grading done by Dr. Perry Ehlig at the Portuguese Bend Club which fell into the ocean. Lois read aloud a letter from her son, David regarding the excavation of fill at the Wayfarers Chapel Mr Bill Griffin, 5 Ginger Root Lane, stated that he read the Staff Report and did not see any information indicating as to why this project should come to be since he saw no support from the surrounding residences. Mr Griffin stated that the geology analysis was his concern and that the subject site was were the landslide movement began He stated that operable machinery and equipment would give vibration effects at the subject site and will cause potential land movement Mr. Jim Knight, 5 Cinnamon Lane, read aloud a letter from Ms. Daphne Clark stating her opposition of the night time use of the proposed beach facilities Mr. Knight stated that he concurred with the comments of Ms. Clark and discussed other concerns such as, additional public uses, revegetation plan, and environmental assessment. Commissioner Paris asked why was he concerned with the additional public uses of the beach since that was the goal for the proposed project. Mr. Knight replied that he strongly felt security should be enforced on the subject site. Commissioner Clark asked if he sensed within the Community whether an environmental impact report was necessary. Mr Knight replied an environmental impact report was necessary and that there was one environmental attorney who resided close to the subject site Mr. Earle Casler, Jr. 3324 Nanno Drive, stated that the subject site was an important habitat area and appeared to him that the City has begun to reconcile the importance of the environmental assets that it has left in the undeveloped portions of the City. Mr. Casler felt it would be inappropriate to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 11 Commissioner Vannorsdall read aloud his memorandum regarding the proposed Abalone Cove Park renovation and pointed out his observations regarding the two separate parks. Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Staff's recommendation, to continue the Public Hearing of this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1999. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall and passed, (7-0) by a roll -call vote and so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. NEW BUSINESS None. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff 7. Pre -A Septe Commission Meetina of The Commission briefly discussed topics for the City Council/Planning Commission Joint Workshop to be held on Saturday, August 28, 1999, 9:30 a.m. in the Community Room at City Hall. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Lois Larue discussed topics regarding the Abalone Shore Club and the Natural Conservation Community Program. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Clark moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Alberio The meeting was adjourned at 11:58 p.m. to the next regular meeting on September 14, 1999 at Hesse Park W.1PC1MInutes119990824 doc Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 12 FROM Don Vannorsdall TO Planning Commission SUBIECY Abalone Cove Park Proposed Renovation DATE August 28,1999 The staff proposal and report have been done in a complete and professional manner in my opinion There is one major area that concerns me however It appears that what exists now and is still proposed, are two separate parks. I will refer to them as Upper Abalone Cove and Lower Abalone Cove Parks. That is, there are separate entrances to each area and only foot paths which are relatively steep are available to matriculate between the Parks. There isn't any apparent interaction between the two Park areas Consider the Lower Park as having 45 parking spaces (as indicated in the proposal) and the upper park as having 147 spaces (with possible 125 additional temporary spaces mentioned in the staff report) However I believe that the usage will probably be predominately in the lower park because it has almost all of the amenities that the public will be there to enjoy This means that the overflow parking from the lower park to the upper Park will be substantial. At the moment there is a guard shack at the upper park I understand the plan is to automate the parking charges The proposal indicates that there is be a person at the new guard shack with a telephone and he will also be charging for parking As a side issue, a method will have to be devised to facilitate matriculation between the two parking areas without duplicate charges being incurred When overflow from the lower park parking lot occurs under the present plan, it will be necessary for the cars to retrace their route up to PV Drive S and go west beyond the upper entrance, make a U-turn back to the upper park entrance and then walk down the steep paths There is in existence a wide foot path starting at the eastern end of the upper parking lot and runs mostly parallel to Palos Verdes Drive South that leads down to the currently paved road leading to the lower park. I would like to recommend to the Commission and hence to the Council as follows 1 That the above mentioned path be graded for a two lane interconnecting road between the two sections of the Park and paved as part of this "Park upgrade" The recommended route being that mentioned above as a foot path 2 That consideration be given to having only one park entrance This would be the Easterly entrance which is currently paved and will be widened and repaved as part of this proposal ` tf I believe that this action would integrate the two areas into one park instead of two, handle the overflow parking to and form the lower part expeditiously and perhaps cut the cost of operating the Park In the event that the City Council does not have funds to pave the interconnecting road at this time, I would recommend that the grading be done in the initial phase of the project, even if the paving is not done as part of the present project Grading done as part of the initial project would be at no additional cost to the City In other words grading for the road at this time will only shift where the required fill dirt will be taken from I have revued this proposal with the Director of Public Works, Dean Allyson and have walked the site with him. The Commission may wish to hear his comments on the matter