Loading...
PC MINS 20000822CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING AUGUST 22, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:03 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Vannorsdail led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL Present- Commissioners Cartwright, Mueller, Long, Paulson, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Clark, and Chairman Lyon Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Planning Administrator Snow, and Recording Secretary Morreale. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Lyon suggested modifying the Agenda to finish all of the regular Planning Commission business before beginning the public hearing for Long Point Therefore, Item 4 would be heard before Item 3. The Commission agreed COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the City Council meeting of August 15, 2000 the City Council adopted a Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit for Mr Abrams' commercial antenna, thus upholding the Planning Commission's denial of the project. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Lyon reminded the Commission that any grammatical changes to the minutes could be submitted directly to the Recording Secretary to help expedite the meeting. Commissioner Long did not feel that statements on pages 12 and 14 of the minutes accurately reflected what he had said. He read a statement that he felt was more accurate and gave the written text to the Recording Secretary Chairman Lyon asked if both of these items were things that he mentioned in the meeting Commissioner Long stated that they were and he did not feel the minutes accurately stated his views. Commissioner Paulson noted on page 12 that he, rather than Commissioner Long, had asked a question to Mr. Kemp. Commissioner Long agreed. Chairman Lyon noted three clarifications on page 3 of the minutes. He submitted grammatical changes directly to the Recording Secretary Commissioner Vannorsdall noted on page 13 his statement was not very clear and asked staff to re -phrase the statement. Commissioner Cartwright recused himself as a Planning Commissioner and addressed the Commission as a private citizen and a member of the Panorama Homeowners Association. He discussed the comments made on page 18 of the minutes. He noted that paragraph 5 did not accurately express his views and read a re -write of paragraph 5 that he felt would reflect the true goal of the Association with regard to public use of the private street and would make the minutes consistent with the application He submitted the re -written paragraph to the Recording Secretary Commissioner Long felt that the point of the minutes was to accurately reflect what was said at the meeting. He questioned the proposed amendment submitted by Mr. Cartwright and asked if the amendment was being submitted to more accurately reflect what happened at the meeting. Mr. Cartwright responded that the changes were made to accurately reflect an association position He felt that he had not been clear in his remarks at the Planning Commission meeting, and his remarks were inconsistent with the Association actions as well as the application submitted to the City Chairman Lyon allowed the revised comments to be part of the minutes for clarification Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. The minutes were approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioner Mueller and Vice Chair Clark abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 2 0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 16 2. VARIANCE NO. 456, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2137 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8693: Dr Ghadak-Saz (applicant) 3281 Crownview Drive. Director/Secretary Rojas presented the staff report. He explained the proposed project and the reasons for each application. He noted that the required notice was sent to all property owners within a 500 -foot radius and published in the newspaper. Staff received only one comment from the public, a letter in favor of the project He noted that staff had reviewed the proposal, which meets all of the findings for each application. Therefore, staff was recommending approval and adoption of the Resolution Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing. Vice Chairman Clark asked the applicant if he had read the staff report and conditions of approval, and if he had any concerns or comments regarding them Dr. Ghadak-Saz stated that he had read the report and agreed with the findings and recommendations. Commissioner Paulson moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt this was a good project but asked staff about the geology reports for this project. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that the geology reports had been reviewed by the City Geologist and approved Vice Chairman Clark moved to approve Variance 456, Grading Permit 2137 and Site Plan Review 8693, as presented by staff, thereby adopting Resolution 2000- 28 as presented, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. PRE -AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 Commissioner Long requested the Planning Commission Guidelines be added to the September 12, 2000 meeting if staff felt it would not over -crowd the agenda. Director/Secretary Rojas felt that it would be possible to add this item to either the September 12 meeting or the following meeting Vice Chairman Clark requested that an item be added to allow the ad-hoc committee on neighborhood compatibility to present a status report to the Commission, provided the agenda is not too full. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT.) 3. LONG POINT RESORT — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCOPING Destination Development Corporation (applicant) 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Chairman Lyon explained that the purpose of this hearing was to provide a forum for the public to state their concerns, which may then be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report. There would be no decisions made at this meeting, nor would there be any deliberation over what was good and bad regarding the project. In addition, Chairman Lyon explained the City staff would like input from the Planning Commission and Traffic Committee, which will be made following the public comments. The Recording Secretary called the roll for the Traffic Committee: Present Committee Members Covey, Hildebrand, Ruben, Schurmer, Wall, Chairman Jones Absent: Committee Member Jordan -Shepherd Planning Administrator Snow presented the staff report including a brief overview of the proposed development. The presentation included details regarding the components of the proposed resort, the various applications required for the project, and that the project site consists of two separate properties, namely the Long Point property, owned by York Long Point Associates and the Upper Point Vicente property, owned by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mr. Snow indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to obtain public input regarding the scope of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that must be prepared for the Long Point Resort Project. He indicated that the deadline for submission of written comments on the scope of the EIR was September 5, 2000. He indicated that the deadline applied only to comments on the scope of the EIR, and that there would be several opportunities to comment on the merits of the project and the contents of the Draft EIR in the future when public hearings are held before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Glenn Lavoie, 1725 Alton Parkway, Irvine, with RBF Consulting, the City's environmental impact report consultant for the project, presented an overview of the California Environmental Quality Act process and requirements Mr. Lajoie's report concluded the staff presentation. Vice Chairman Clark asked if the cumulative analysis made with regards to this project included not only Rancho Palos Verdes, but also the entire peninsula. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 4 0 01 Mr. Lajoie responded that they were looking at the project from a regional standpoint. He added that the notice of preparation process offers adjacent jurisdictions the opportunity to comment in terms of the project Commissioner Long asked about evaluating alternatives and how input on that issue was being obtained. Mr. Lajoie responded that alternatives are typically structured so that they reduce one or more potentially significant impacts. The alternatives will be developed in conjunction with potentially significant impacts. Planning Administrator Snow added that staff had already identified some project alternatives and more will likely be developed based on the comments received at this meeting. These would then be included in the Draft EIR. Chairman Jones asked at what point in the process the traffic analysis would be performed and when that would be given to the Traffic Committee for review before going to the Planning Commission Planning Administrator Snow answered that the Traffic Committee will be looking at the traffic analysis contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, whether that will occur before or after the Planning Commission begins reviewing the document could not be determined at this time. The applicant then presented the project to the Commission and Committee. Mike Mohler, 11777 San Vicente Blvd, Suite 900, Los Angeles, representing the applicant Destination Development Corporation addressed the Commission and Committee. He introduced Paul Edwards, the land planner for the Long Point Resort project. Paul Edwards, 17500 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine of Forma Design described the project to the Commission, Committee and public. He indicated that the project site consists of two distinct parcels, and summarized the uses proposed for each of the parcels. The Upper Point Vicente site would include habitat and natural preservation areas, parks, parking, trails, overlooks, golf course holes, and a golf practice facility. The Upper Point Vicente site would be connected to the Long Point site by an underground tunnel under both lanes of Palos Verdes Drive South. The resort center on the Long Point site would consist of a variety of hotel accommodations including hotel rooms, bungalow units, casitas, and resort villas. The resort villas would be privately owned, but with restricted use by the owner. The restrictions would likely allow the owner to use the villa for a maximum of three months out of each year, with a maximum term of 30 days at any stay When not in use by the owner, the units would be managed as additional hotel accommodations by the resort hotel. Additionally, the resort center would contain spa and banquet facilities Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 5 Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing. Barbara Gleghorn, 28850 Crestridge Road, stated that the scoping meeting should not be held, as the applicant does not own all of the project site, and since the issue of management of public lands needed to be resolved first. She believed the scoping meeting gave the appearance of tacit approval of the project, and she noted that petitions previously submitted to the City demonstrate a lot of opposition to the project. She believed the process being followed for this project was inappropriate. Mrs Gleghorn represented SOC II (Save Our Coastline II) Bob Nelson, 6612 Channelview Court, spoke on behalf of the Seabluff Homeowner's Association. He stated there was unanimous approval, as neighbors, of the prosect and referenced prior letters to the City to that effect. He stated that the Marineland site was blighted, and that the development would improve the site. He believed that many of the opponents to the project were not neighbors of the project site, and were not residents of the City, whereas his Association consisted of residents and neighbors. Mr. Nelson expressed environmental concerns regarding control of dust from construction, the blighted condition of the Upper Point Vicente site, and that the prior Manneland operation on the Long Point site generated a lot of traffic which should be taken into consideration. Mr. Nelson indicated that he was speaking for the Association Vice Chairman Clark asked if all 60 homeowners shared this view. Mr. Nelson responded that these were the views of the HOA Board of Directors, who represented the homeowners. He felt sure that there would be some homeowners in the area who were opposed to the project. Mark Feil, 2565 Chelsea Road, PVE, stated his belief that the existing entitlements on the Long Point property were not feasible, and that he supported the project. Donald Pehrson, 8 Shadow Lane, RHE, questioned if the EIR would include economic analysis of the project, and felt that the project, if approved, must be an economic success for both the City and the applicant. He urged the City to consider the economic impacts of the project. Mr. Pehrson indicated support for the project. Chairman Lyon informed Mr. Pehrson that the economic issues were being handled separately from the environmental impact report by the Finance Advisory Committee who would then report to the City Council Marjorie Jensen 32653 Seagate Drive `D' , in the Palos Verdes Bay Club, and a member of SOC II addressed the Commission and Committee She suggested that alternative uses should be analyzed, such as using the Upper Point Vicente property for park and recreation uses. She believed that public use of the property should be maximized rather than golf use Ms. Jensen indicated opposition to the project Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 6 Suzanne Gulcher, 30034 Via Bonca, representing St. Paul's Lutheran Church expressed concerns regarding traffic capacity of the cul-de-sac between the Church and the proposed practice facility location, the types of foods and beverages that would be available at the restroom/restaurant facility (particularly alcoholic beverages), the impact of the separately proposed pre-school facility between the Church and the Golden Cove commercial center regarding traffic and safety, hazards resulting from the golf activity and the construction of nets to control the hazard. Ms Gulcher, also stated concerns regarding potential lighting impacts, irrigation impacts, and drainage impacts as related to the Church. Ms. Gulcher indicated neutrality toward the project Kay Conrad, 28649 Crestridge, stated her belief that the proposed protect was a good environmental use of the land, particularly with respect to the Long Point property. The project would improve the site and improve access to the ocean, and would allow for recreation by many people She expressed concerns regarding use of pesticide and herbicides on the golf course, the relationship to drainage and potential for impact to the ocean. Ms Conrad indicated support for the project. William Tolliffe, 6347 Tarragon Road, believed the proposed project would have negative impacts on the City owned land such as destruction of biological resources during construction, impacts from golf hazards and netting to control any such hazards, soil stability from the proposed grading and subsequent golf course irrigation, and the loss of natural open space for the public use He expressed concern regarding the construction and maintenance of the proposed tunnel, and believed it could become an attractive nuisance. He questioned whether a nine -hole golf course would be sufficient to make the project successful, and suggested that arrangements be made between other golf courses in the area and the proposed hotel Mr. Tolliffee advocated retaining the Upper Point Vicente property as open space. Mr Tolliffee indicated that he opposed the portion of the project on the City owned land Anne Shaw, 30036 Via Borica, expressed concern regarding errant golf balls and the proximity of the practice facility to the Villa Capri condominiums She stated that the Los Verdes course was redesigned to address problems, and the result was the tall nets that are now visible. Ms. Shaw stated that holes 2, 3, and 4 of the course presented golf safety issues due to the design and the potential for wind impacts to airborne golf balls She was concerned that the course would get built, and then tall nets and poles would be installed to address problems, which would result in significant visual and aesthetic impacts to the community. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:30 p.m. the Commission and Committee took a short recess until 8 40 p.m. at which time they reconvened. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 7 COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, suggested that the Planning Commission receive a pay increase. I1113[4i[9_ Of►MOPMA] Vic Quirarte, 29369 Quailwood, stated his concern for impact to the California gnatcatcher and the cactus wren that utilize the portions of the project site. He discussed the Department of the Interior's letter regarding the necessary changes to the program of utilization for the Upper Point Vicente portion of the site, and the criteria they must consider regarding impacts to natural habitats and sensitive plant and animal species. Mr. Quirarte expressed concern regarding the impact of construction and grading on the habitat and biological resources, and pesticide and water runoff impacts to adjacent habitat areas. Mr. Quirarte indicated his affiliation with SOC II and his opposition to the project Angie Papadakis, 28655 Roan Road, a 40 -year resident, stated her support of the project and that she would like to have a hotel on the Palos Verdes Peninsula She supported the trails, and thought the proposed project would be better than the existing condition of the project site She believed that the project would be an environmental enhancement by improving the site conditions beyond the existing condition. Betina Arnold, 30803 Rue Langlois, believed the grading proposed would result in a significant amount of exported dirt, and was concerned about where and how disposal of the earth would be handled. She believed the depth of cut, and the height of retaining walls indicated too much disturbance to the Upper Point Vicente property. Ms. Arnold indicated her affiliation with SOC II, and her opposition to the project. George Gleghorn, 28250 Crestridge Road, expressed concern with the proposed Long Point project, and felt that the project already approved for the Long Point site should be built. Mr. Gleghorn indicated his affiliation with SOC II. Jim Knight, 5 Cinnamon Lane, submitted a 14 -page letter of comments. Additionally, he questioned whether the applications were complete in light of the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) that the City is working on. He expressed concerns regarding natural habitat as well as corridors and linkages between stands of habitat He felt that the NCCP must be completed before the City could consider the Long Point Resort proposal. He discussed fragmentation impacts to habitat on the Upper Point Vicente property. He was concerned about view corridors that would be interrupted with golf course improvements or uses, and believed that the proposed project excluded the general public from certain view that could only be enjoyed from the golf course itself. Mr. Knight indicated his opposition to the project. Tony Baker 16 Limetree, stated that he did not oppose development on the Marineland site, but was concerned with the use of the Upper Point Vicente property for uses other Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 8 than open space. He stated that non-native grasslands are important too, and should be considered in analysis of biological impacts regarding restoration potential and open space value. He was concerned about birds and isolation issues. Mr Baker indicated his opposition to the protect. Dena Friedson, 1737 Via Boranada, PVE, discussed the state law requirements for General Plan consistency, and stated her opposition to the general plan amendment which was added to the project to change the land use designation on a portion of the Upper Point Vicente property from Passive Recreational to Active Recreational She believed the change to the general plan would result in an adverse impact to environmental quality. Ms Friedson discussed the existing approved project on the Long Point property, and that it was appealed to the California Coastal Commission. She discussed the deed restriction on the Upper Point Vicente property, and believed that the golf course would unduly restrict the public from enjoying the property. She believed the restricted use would not be consistent with the deed restriction requiring public use of the property. Ms. Friedson indicated her affiliation with SOC II and her opposition to the project. Norma Knowles, 30021 Avenida Esplendida, stated that she believed the project would have positive environmental impacts to recreational opportunities and parks and the EIR should recognize this. She believed issues of lighting, netting, poles, and safety must be addressed. Ms Knowles indicated her support for the project Lois Large, 3136 Barkentine Road, stated her belief that golf courses are toxic waste sites. She stated that the project currently approved for the Long Point site was appealed to the Coastal Commission. She expressed her opposition to the applicant's proposal. She stated that the deed restriction on the Upper Point Vicente property was for the benefit of all people. Holly Cain, 52 Avenida Corona, believed that the golf uses were too close to neighboring uses. She expressed concern about the loss of open space areas, and the impact to the rural character of the City She advocated enhancing the trails and other public uses of the Upper Point Vicente property. Ms. Cain indicated her affiliation with SOC II and her opposition to the project. Robert Haase, 20 Sea Cove, expressed his opposition to the inclusion of the Upper Point Vicente property in the project He believed the proposed golf course would not be truly for the public but for the guests of the hotel Mr Haase challenged anyone to explain the difference between a public golf course and a private golf course. Chairman Lyon accepted the challenge and explained that in the golf industry a public golf course is open to the public for play at a fee, whereas a private golf course connotes a membership requirement in order to use the course. Betty Zappas, 32614 Coastsite Drive, #104, indicted that she was a neighbor to the Long Point property. She believed the proposal needed to be fully studied before Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 9 LA 0 construction started, and that there was the potential for impact to 65 acres of open space. Ms. Zappas indicated her affiliation with SOC II and her opposition to the project. Marianne Hunter, 31 Narcissa Drive, stated her concern regarding cumulative impact and the additional environmental degradation that would accompany the proposed project She questioned the quality of the habitat in the plan, and was concerned about edge effects caused by fragmented habitat She was concerned about traffic, believed that financial benefits that could flow from the project should not be the only consideration. She suggested use of volunteers to clean up the Upper Point Vicente site. Ms Hunter indicated her affiliation with SOC II and her opposition to the project. Steven LaPine, 6744-5 Los Verdes Drive, suggested that if a 9 -hole golf course was fiscally viable, then the plan already approved for the Long Point site should be built He expressed concern regarding Impacts of night operation of the practice facility, and the potential for a cumulative light impact on nocturnal creatures. Mr. LaPine indicated his affiliation with SOC II and his opposition to the project. Alfred Sattler, 1944 Avenida Aprenda, identified himself as the Chairman of the Sierra Club's Conservation Committee for the Los Angeles Area. He stated his objection for use of the public land for private development, and suggested an alternative to the project consisting of only privately owned property He stated concerns regarding impacts of golf netting on flying birds, runoff impacts on coastal sage scrub, and light impact on wildlife. Larry Vivian, 2324 West 37th Street, Los Angeles identified himself as the local Conservation Chair for the Sierra Club, and stated that he has been involved with the NCCP preparation He expressed concerns regarding the amount of public land included in the project, and that some areas of the plan should not be considered as habitat. He also indicated concern regarding the economic ramifications of the proposed project. Diane Weinberger, 4206 Exultant felt that the City owned property should be kept for the public, and that view corridors and wildlife and vegetation on the site should be preserved and protected She noted that there are five golf courses in the area. She suggested considering uses other than golf such as a spa for enjoyment of the natural character, ocean views, botanical gardens, and other such uses She suggested utilization of soft-scape materials in parking areas Ms Weinberger indicated her affiliation with the Seaview Subdivision, and her opposition to the golf course Russell Hudak, 38 Via Capri, stated that the prior applicant had promised that the project would not include a driving range. He was concerned about view impacts on adjacent residences from the structures at the practice facility, traffic impacts from the project and other proposed projects in the area, noise impacts due to the amphitheater shape of the practice facility area, and fire hazards associated with the vegetation Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 10 buffer adjacent to the Villa Capri development. Mr. Hudak indicated his position on the Board of Directors for the Villa Capri Homeowner's Association. Dodie Clarkson, 6424 Seabryn, stated her opposition to staff working on the proposal, and questioned why the City was proceeding with the EIR. She pointed out the deed restrictions on the Upper Point Vicente property, and reinforced that the property was owned by the City for public use. Ms. Clarkson indicated her opposition to the project Angelika Brinkmann-Busi, 2141 w 35th Street, San Pedro, expressed concern about impacts to California gnatcatchers, and suggested that no action should occur until the NCCP is finalized She requested that resource issued be addressed in the EIR, including the Ocean Locoweed, and the coastal plants present at the Long Point site. She expressed concern about habitat strips and edge effects on habitat Ms Brinkmann-Busi indicated her affiliation with the South Coast Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, and her opposition to the project Samuel VanWagne , 2763 San Ramon, expressed concern regarding the use of public lands, and believed that the question of use of the land should be answered prior to processing the plan He discussed the deed restrictions on the City property, and a letter from the National Park Service from February 1990 stating golf would be generally acceptable on City property however controls would be needed to ensure that the use was public. He expressed concern that the project would not ensure public access to the site Barbara Walsh, 34 Oceanaire, believed that potentially significant aesthetic impacts could result from the proposed project. She stated opposition to use of the property for golf, and was concerned with noise and water impacts. Ms. Walsh indicated her affiliation with SOC 11. Eric Paris, 29234 Stadia Hill Lane, felt that the casitas and other components of the project should be eliminated to allow for transfer of golf holes to the Long Point property. He indicated that the applicant previously indicated that an 18 -hole golf course was necessary to make the project feasible, however in the revised plan removed golf holes, and did not significantly reduce area dedicated to housing. Mr. Paris suggested that a par 35, 9 -hole golf course could fit on the Long Point site with a reduction in the number of casitas and villas. He stated that by attribution, the City's land was not being used for golf, but for the housing. He expressed concern regarding the privatization of the ocean and the impact of structures on views. He felt the existing approved project should be built, and he believed that project to be economically viable Mr. Paris indicated his opposition to the project Vice Chairman Clark moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 11 Chairman Lyon complimented the audience on their concern and devotion to the community which was reflected in their comments and suggestions He also thanked the speakers for adhering to the time allocation in place for the hearing The Planning Commission and Traffic Committee then provided input regarding the potential impacts of the proposed project. Traffic Committee. Chairman Jones explained that for any traffic analysis the issues to be reviewed should be volume, access, and circulation He felt that the documentation received thus far on the future proposal noted that the additional analysis was forthcoming Therefore, he did not feel there was much for the Traffic Committee to review in the current documentation Committee Member Hildebrand discussed the potential significant impacts of helicopters accessing the site He also discussed the significantly higher traffic volumes associated with the historic Marineland use, and suggested that those conditions be considered in the traffic analysis Committee Member Ruben recommended that the parking areas be better distinguished from the park areas, and that occupancy and keying issues of the casitas and villas be considered when completing the traffic analysis Committee Member Schurmer suggested using the Marineland data as a baseline for the traffic analysis, and was concerned with the scope of the cumulative impact analysis, and that the intersection at Western and 25th Street be considered He suggested that safety issues be analyzed by considering acceleration and deceleration lanes Parking access, vehicular visibility issues, and signal locations all should be analyzed Additionally, turn pockets and potential need for expansion should be considered Committee Member Covey stated that the impacts to Villa Capri and St. Paul's church should be analyzed, and that more information was needed regarding the practice facility design Committee Member Wall stated that traffic surveys were needed, and that survey should include impacts related to the Church Committee Chaiman Jones concluded the Traffic Committee comments, and requested maps, street elevations and project exhibits when the Committee next considers this project. Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 12 6 4f Commissioner Paulson expressed concerns regarding impacts from lights, drainage containment and disposal of pesticides, fencing and netting for golf safety, and aesthetic impacts from any such netting. Commissioner Cartright stated that the EIR should address the appropriateness and impact of the use of public land for the project, as well as impacts of lighting, noise, traffic, landslide potential, grading, export of soils, and drainage Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that the EIR should address hours of operation, provision of utilities including capacity to furnish the required services, export of dirt and export routes, and biological impacts. Commissioner Long stated that the EIR should address likely future view impacts that could result from golf safety nets, alternate recreational uses of the Upper Point Vicente property, and traffic impacts including impact on bicycle traffic He suggested that the density of golf uses be considered in light of parks, pools, and other recreational opportunities in the City in order to determine if golf is the best use of the Upper Point Vicente property. Commissioner Long expressed concern that the decision on whether or not to allow golf on the City property should be made by the City Council now, rather than deferring this decision to after completion of the environmental review. Commissioner Mueller stated that the EIR should address impacts to the urban environment; impacts related to limousines, valet parking, and airport shuttles, helicopter noise; and the practice facility regarding noise and lighting. Commissioner Mueller suggested that the traffic analysis consider distinctions between the Manneland use which had morning and afternoon peaks, whereas the Long Point Resort would experience more constant traffic flows throughout the day He concurred that the parking areas should not be shown as green on the maps, to avoid confusion with the true park areas. Vice Chairman Clark agreed with the previous comments from the Commission and requested that the preparation of the EIR be comprehensive and thorough and address the geologic issues in great detail, particularly with respect to minor slides identified at the bluff face on the Long Point property. He expressed concern that a 45 -day comment period for the Draft EIR was not long enough Chairman Lyon clarified the Planning Commission's role with regard to the use of City land for the project He stated that use of City land deserves consideration to determine if the proposed uses make sense for the City. He explained that after analyzing the project, the Planning Commission would forward a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Paulson stated that the EIR must cover all parts of the project, public and private Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 13 9 12-13101Wkwif 2 Chairman Lyon moved to adjourn, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. to September 12, 2000. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 14