Loading...
PC MINS 20001010r CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 10, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Approved 10/24/00 P/ - The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:04 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Director/Secretary Rojas 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, Senior Planner Fox, Associate Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Lyon noted that Item No 7 of the Agenda should have been described as a discussion on the possible topics for a joint meeting with the City Council. Director/Secretary Rous agreed. There being no objection, Chairman Lyon approved the agenda as amended. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 3. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that at the last City Council meeting the City Council authorized the purchase of a permit tracking system for the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department. He also reported that at the last Community Leader's Breakfast the City's web site was discussed. He explained that the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department has a site with descriptions of the major planning projects in the City. He noted that there are currently 11 department projects on the web site and encouraged the Commission to visit the web site Lastly, Mr. Rous reported that the new Franchise Renewal agreement with Cox Cable that will be presented to the City Council would allow future Planning Commission meetings to be televised. Chairman Lyon reported that he had attended the Mayor's Breakfast. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of August 22, 2000 There being no objections, Chairman Lyon approved the minutes as presented, (7-0). Chairman Lyon asked that a statement on page 2 of the minutes be clarified to more accurately reflect his statements. There being no objections, Chairman Lyon approved the minutes as amended, (7-0-1) with Commission Vannorsdall abstaining since he was absent from that meeting CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Six -Month Review of Conditional Use Permit No. 208: Shiraz Govani represented by Christian Faulk, 27774 Hawthorne Blvd. (Highridge Car Wash) Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report He explained that the Conditional Use Permit permuted the sale of non -automotive Mems and an ATM machine within the cashier area, as well as imposing standards on signage, parking and hours of operation. He stated that staff determined, through site inspections, that the applicant is conducting the business in compliance with the conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit. He noted that staff had determined there were issues concerning the handicapped parking space adjacent to the cashier area. Staff recommended a condition of approval be added stipulating that vehicles that have exited the car wash and are being hand dried shall not be parked in a manner that blocks access to or use of the disabled parking space He explained that staff had also included a more specific condition regarding the hours of operation, since the cashier area is an ancillary use of the car wash. Mr. Schonborn added that there were other violations noted which were being referred to code enforcement. In conclusion, Mr Schonborn stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission determine that the sale of non -automotive Mems is being conducted in accordance with the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 208, with additional conditions added regarding the hours of operation and the disabled parking space, and that staff monitor the issues of re -striping to ensure the re -striping does not fade. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 2 Commissioner Cartwright asked if there were any guidelines on striping in regards to color or actual words He felt the existing striping was very difficult to see and in its current condition would not accomplish what it was meant to accomplish. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that there was nothing specific in the conditions of approval, however the Planning Commission could incorporate specific color or language restrictions. Commissioner Cartwright stated that he understood what staff was trying to accomplish with the conditions regarding hours of operation, however he felt that there should be a specific time frame established in the closure of the car wash before closing the sales of non -automotive items. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that it was not staff's intent to close the store for short periods if it was raining, but to ensure that the use of the store was strictly ancillary to the car wash. Commissioner Cartwright questioned the number of American flags at the site and if there were guidelines regarding the flags Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the city code does not regulate the placement or number of American flags, with the exception of advertising flags. Commissioner Paulson asked for clarification regarding compliance He pointed out sections of the staff report that stating the car wash was in compliance and sections of the staff report noting code violations pertaining to signs that were being referred to code enforcement. Associate Planner Schonborn explained that staff felt the owner of the car wash was in compliance with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit but there were other conditions at the site, such as signs not related to the Conditional Use Permit, that are subject to code enforcement. Chairman Lyon stated that he understood there were no city codes regulating the flying of the American flag, however there were acceptable and standard customs to be followed when the flag is flown. He asked if staff could encourage the owner to follow the customs regarding the flag Director/Secretary Rojas agreed there are long standing customs regarding the display of the American flag, however, since the city code does not specifically address the display of the flag, staff's position has been to not attempt to regulate through conditions of approval the placement and display of the flag. However, he thought it may be possible for the Planning Commission to encourage the property owner to follow the customs of displaying the flag. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 3 Commissioner Long felt it would be prudent to discuss the issue with the City Attorney. He asked staff to ask the City Attorney if there are regulations that the City can formulate regarding flags that would be sustained as being non-political and aesthetic. Further, it was important that the City not be accused of interfering with political speech Commissioner Vannorsdall requested staff also ask the City Attorney if there was some language that could be included in approvals that would assess a penalty to business owners who continually violate the conditions of their Conditional Use Permits Director/Secretary Rojas stated he would discuss both requests with the City Attorney. Commissioner Mueller asked about the lighting requirements at the site. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the exterior lighting conditions were part of a separate permit not covered by this 6 -month review. He explained that the conditions required that all interior and exterior lighting be turned off at the close of business and all lighting not illuminate abutting properties. The exception was security lighting At this time, staff was investigating claims from neighbors that lights were being kept on past the close of business. Commissioner Mueller asked if the Planning Commission could add conditions regarding lighting to the Conditional Use Permit Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the Planning Commission could add the existing lighting conditions to the Conditional Use Permit, giving the City more ability to review and regulate the lighting at the site through an extension of the Conditional Use Permit's six-month review. Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing. Christian Faulk 22497 Kent Avenue, Torrance (representing the owner), began by addressing the flags He stated that the flags do usually come down every night but on occasion employees may forget to take them down. He understood the traditions of flying the flag and would stress to the owner to follow these traditions. Regarding the lighting, he stated that the only interior lighting left on at night was the lighting running down the hallway. He stated that the exterior lights under the canopy have been left on at night recently because of increased after hours loitering at the site. He addressed the letter the Commission received from Ms. Johnson and stated he had gone to her residence to try to address her concerns. He did not feel, however, that Ms Johnson had any view of the gas station or lights from her property. He addressed the condition regarding the obstruction of the handicapped parking space and felt the condition was fair. Mr Faulk did not think the condition regulating business hours and sale of non - automotive items was acceptable. He noted that it was a violation of California State Law to lock the doors of the area during business hours. He stated that if the car wash was temporarily closed because of rain, gasoline customers should still be able to make a purchase. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 4 Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that the intent of the condition was to make the sales consistent with what occurs every night, in that the cashier area must close at 6:00, but the gasoline sales can still occur and the cashier only operates through the cashier box Staff's intention was to avoid a situation where there is sale of non -automotive items occurring and no car wash activity. Staff felt that given the specific findings that were made in approving the store sales, that in such a situation, the store sales may no longer be considered ancillary Chairman Lyon did not feel this was a problem. He understood what the Conditional Use Permit stated, but he did not see it as a substantive problem mainly because it only rains a handful of days every year. Commissioner Paulson asked Mr. Faulk about the banner that has been displayed every Wednesday. Mr. Faulk answered that he was under the impression that it was no longer being displayed, however, he has since learned that was wrong He stated that the owner would submit an application to legalize the use of the banner Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Faulk for an update on the issue associated with the drainage of water from the site. Mr. Faulk stated that he had written to the Public Works Department addressing their proposed action to the concerns. He stated that he had not yet heard back from Public Works in response to the letter. He felt that the staining of the sidewalk was coming from the products used to clean the tires of cars, not from discharge from the actual car wash. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Faulk if it was his contention that the car wash was in compliance with the NPDES program Mr. Faulk replied that he felt the car wash was in compliance. There being no further speakers, Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Paulson did not have a problem with the selling of non -automotive items during normal hours of operation, whether it was raining or not However, if the car wash were to close for an extensive period of time, then the sale of non -automotive items should cease. He was very much opposed to any expansion of the types of products offered for sale. Commissioner Cartwright agreed with Commissioner Paulson's comments. He added that he was concerned with the current parking space striping and stated the striping should be much more visible He was satisfied with Mr. Faulk's statement that the American flags would be taken down at night. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 5 Commissioner Long noted that statements and commitments made by the speaker affects both the speaker's and his client's credibility if they are not then fulfilled He agreed with the other Commissioners that it was not sensible to try to have the cashier area opening and closing within the same day, and Condition No 20 (a) of the staff report should be modified to specify a period of time during which the operation of the cashier area would still be allowed even if the car wash is closed He felt staff's suggestion to include the lighting conditions within the Conditional Use Permit was a good idea, and was inclined to endorse that suggestion He noted that Condition 35 referred to illumination onto abutting properties He felt it should be changed to neighboring properties Commissioner Mueller suggested looking at the Mobil Station and convenience store and how the primary use was handled for that situation He felt there should be consistency with the non -conformity issue at the Mobil station and the non -conformity at the Highridge carwash, rather than dictating the closure of the cashier area solely based on weather He agreed that the striping was not adequate and No Parking should be painted in bold letters in appropriate locations on the site He was concerned with the lighting at the site and agreed with Commissioner Long's suggestions on lighting and that the language should be changed to refer to neighboring properties rather than abutting properties He suggested conditions be added to the Conditional Use Permit reflecting this Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed with what had been said by the Commissioners Vice Chairman Clark also agreed with what had been said by the Commissioners and felt that the Planning Commission should ask for another 3 or 6 month review to determine if conditions were being complied with He asked staff if they knew if the car wash was in compliance with NPDES conditions. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that in speaking with the Director of Public Works there was still a problem with NPDES compliance at the car wash It was his understanding that a letter from the Public Works Department was sent to the property owner that day Chairman Lyon also agreed with the comments and summarized by suggesting Condition 20 (a) be deleted altogether or be changed to read the cashier area shall only be open during the operation of the car wash facility If the car wash facility is closed or not operating, for a period exceeding 30 days, the cashier area shall also be closed He felt the striping should be clarified and include No Parking signage, painted on the ground, where appropriate He also supported including the prior lighting conditions and approvals in the current Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Lyon agreed that there should be another review in 90 days Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 6 0 0 Commissioner Long suggested leaving in Condition 20 (a) with a defined, reasonable amount of time for the sale of non -automotive items to continue, even though the car wash may be closed. Commissioner Cartwright felt there was some merit in consistency and suggested 90 days, as was done with the Mobil Station. Commissioner Long moved to determine that the sale of non -automotive items is being conducted in accordance with the approved Conditional Use Permit, the parking space and parking restriction striping at the site be four -inch white striping and the words "No Parking" be painted at the appropriate site, the existing lighting standards be incorporated into the existing Conditional Use Permit, change the word "abutting" to the word "neighboring" in the lighting conditions, and requested an additional 90 -day review of compliance with the conditions of approval, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (7-0). Chairman Lyon concluded by stating the Planning Commission would expect the staff to fully enforce, through Code Enforcement, the conditions now in place. He also stated that any comments made by Mr. Faulk during the public hearing were interpreted by the Planning Commission to represent the intent and meaning of the applicant/property owner. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:30 p.m. the Commission took a short recess until 8:40 p m at which time they reconvened. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road stated that she was still trying to get a raise for the Planning Commissioners She discussed the traffic in the area and asked the Commission to keep in mind the need for additional turn lanes when they discuss the Long Point project. Eric Pans 29234 Stadia Hill Lane stated that runoff from car washes was created primarily from washing RVs and larger vehicles. The soapy green water would then run directly into the gutter and storm drain. He also felt the restrooms at the Highridge Car Wash should be ADA compliant. Finally, he stated that the turn pocket turning up Highridge is too small and accidents will happen because of it. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Height Variation No. 902 and Coastal Permit No. 162: Nagy Bakhoum (applicant) 10 Clipper Road Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 7 Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He described the existing site condition and the proposed demolition and construction of a new single family residence. He stated that staff could make all nine findings for the height variation Including neighborhood compatibility, view impairment, and privacy infringement to occupants of abutting residences. He stated that both findings for the Coastal Permit could be made. Therefore staff recommended approval of the project Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if they had received any written or verbal communications regarding the project. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff had received no comments. Commissioner Long asked, if in doing the view analysis from the property immediately to the north, staff had taken the view from inside the residence. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff had determined that the property to the north did not contain a protected viewing area from the second floor since that home, if constructed today, would have required a height variation. The windows facing south on the first floor already have a view obstruction by the applicant's existing home. Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing. Nagy Bakhoum 23332 Hawthorne Blvd. stated he was the architect of the project representing the owners He stated that he had talked to many of the neighbors, especially the neighbors to the north, regarding their views. As a result of the discussions, the plans had been revised to address privacy issues. He felt that he now had support of the neighbors, which was why there were none present at the meeting to object to the project. He briefly explained the architecture of the new home to help bring down the scale of the project He felt the project was consistent with what was in the neighborhood Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cartwright moved to adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2000-35 as presented, thereby approving Height Variation No. 902 and Coastal Permit No. 162, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (7-0). S. Height Variation No. 910 and Site Plan Review No. 8977: Robert Garstein (applicant) 28983 Palos Verdes Drive East. Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He explained that the property does not immediately front Palos Verdes Drive East, but rather has access via a private driveway from Palos Verdes Drive East. He reviewed the proposed addition and the applications, noting that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings necessary for approval of the project He stated that there was one item of correspondence received from the adjacent property owner regarding privacy infringement, mainly Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 8 resulting from removal of existing foliage Staff believes that incorporating Condition No. 6 will mitigate their concerns. Therefore, he concluded by stating that staff recommending approval of the project, subject to conditions. Commissioner Cartwright agreed that the two-story addition would not create a view impairment, but he was concerned about the privacy issue. He asked if the foliage in the back yard was currently conditioned in any way to ensure privacy for the neighbor Associate Planner Schonborn replied that there was nothing currently in place to prevent the applicant from removing the trees Commissioner Cartwright asked staff about the additional kitchen window and if staff felt this increased the invasion of privacy. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff did not believe the additional kitchen windows caused any additional infringement on the neighbor's privacy since there were so many other points along that side of the house that could have similar views. Commissioner Cartwright felt it was admirable that the applicant and the neighbor could work out an agreement regarding the privacy issues He questioned why the City would want to become a party to this agreement and take the responsibility of possible code enforcement in the future. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that part of the applicant's request was to remove the existing foliage If there were no project, the removal of the foliage would not occur. To ensure that as an end result the privacy was maintained, staff felt it was prudent to add the condition of approval Chairman Lyon did not feel that the City was getting involved in ensuring privacy, but rather getting involved in requiring the applicant to replace the foliage for the purpose of substantially maintaining the level of privacy that currently exists Commissioner Paulson asked if the applicant had removed the trees before submitting the application, would there be a privacy issued based on the analysis done at the site. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff did not feel there would be a privacy issue. Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing. Ken Swenson 28981 Palos Verdes Drive East stated he lived at the down hill residence being discussed regarding privacy issues He stressed that he does not oppose the improvement of his neighbor's property, but did feel there was an impact on his property. He stated that the nature of the project was to shift the focus of the home to an eastward view. Where today there are a few windows on that side of the home, the proposal added many more windows which would look out over his yard He did not Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 9 0 0 feel he could plant trees on his property that would ensure privacy He explained that because of the view restoration ordinance, a future owner may request he trim or remove any tree he plants that grows over 16 -feet in height. He did not feel 16 -feet was high enough to ensure privacy on his property. He asked the Commission to accept the condition as proposed by the staff. Ron Eddings 28983 Palos Verdes Drive East (applicant) stated that he had read all of the staff recommendations, and had no problem with the restrictions in the staff report. Chairman Lyon did not have a problem with Condition No. 6 in that it does not require the City be involved in the maintenance of vegetation. It only requires the applicant plant replacement foliage for the purpose of substantially maintaining the level of privacy that currently exists. Vice Chairman Clark stated that many times over the years the Planning Commission had, as a condition of approval, required vegetation be planted as a privacy screening. However, the issue of maintaining the vegetation was another matter that was not dealt with through the Planning Commission Commissioner Cartwright stated that the neighbor had already said that the added window would not increase the visibility into the area, since there are already many other areas that look into his yard Therefore, if the Planning Commission determined there was no privacy issue, he questioned why the City would get involved with the screening issue. Commissioner Long agreed there was not a privacy issue. However, if the Commission did determine there was a privacy issue he would rather see a condition requiring vegetation be planted and maintained to screen privacy. Chairman Lyon re -opened the public hearing. Chairman Lyon asked Mr Swenson if he had any objections if the condition to plant vegetation were deleted from the conditions of approval. Mr. Swenson stated that he would object to removing that condition He was not concerned that the present owners would plant the vegetation, but he could not be sure that future owners would keep that vegetation and not remove it He felt the condition could be redrafted to state that trees should be planted that at their mature height would be expected to not exceed a certain height. Commissioner Paulson commented that during his site visit he was under the impression that the applicant was going to do extensive re -landscaping and wondered if the existing trees needed to be removed Mr Eddings responded that there were too many Eucalyptus trees on the property and he wanted many of them to be removed or thinned, as well as the Coral Tree at the Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 10 corner of the house. The pine trees in the back yard are at the end of their life expectancy and would most likely be removed. He stated that this would be done regardless of the remodel. Mr. Swenson agreed that the removal of these trees was appropriate. Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Paulson stated again that after visiting the site he did not feel there was a view issue or privacy concerns that warrants the City to take a position to require planting of vegetation. Commissioners Cartwright and Mueller agreed with Commissioner Paulson's comments. Commissioner Paulson moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2000-36 excluding Condition No. 6, thereby approving Height Variation No. 910 and Site Plan Review No. 8977 as amended, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 6. Grading Permit No. 1928 — Revision `B': Terence Kwok (applicant) and Arik Abdalian (landowner) 30025 Cachan Place. Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report He gave the background of the original approval for the construction of the house. He explained that staff has received complaints that the house is not being constructed in accordance with the Planning Commission's approval, specifically the location of the house on the property, the width of the balconies, the number of stories, and the quantity and configuration of the grading at the rear of the house He reported that Building and Safety staff had verified that the balconies were constructed to the correct width and a setback certification had been provided showing the house was in the proper location on the property However, Building and Safety staff did note that additional grading had been done at the rear of the property which has increased the apparent height of the residence. Therefore, the applicant has submitted this revision to his grading application to allow for an additional 140 cubic yards of grading. He explained that the additional grading was for the excavation of a crawl space below the garage, a crawl space below the upper-level master bathroom, and grading to create a flat pad area behind the house in an extreme slope area. Mr. Fox stated that staff believed that the additional 50 cubic yards of excavation within the footprint of the house was consistent with the Planning Commission's original approval of the project and that the applicable findings for the grading permit could be made for this area However regarding the additional grading on the rear slope area, staff believes that this component of the proposed revision is unnecessary for the development of the new home on the lot and constitutes excessive grading. He explained that the 1997 Planning Commission approval was based on the understanding that this slope area would not be modified. He reported that staff felt the Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 11 creation of the pad behind the house and construction of the 6 -foot retaining walls at the toe of the slope would be visually obtrusive and inconsistent with the perimeter fencing of the Palos Verdes Monaco community. He stated that the additional grading also gives the appearance of a 3 -story facade for the home as viewed from Hawthorne Boulevard Staff determined that the proposed grading on the slope significantly alters the existing slope condition and did not feel these modifications could be reasonably done to minimize the disturbance of the slope or to appear reasonably natural. Therefore, staff does not believe the applicable findings could not be made for the additional 90 cubic yards behind the house and retaining walls He explained the proposed conditions of approval and concluded that staff recommended approval for an additional 50 cubic yards of grading under the existing residence only Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he had originally opposed the construction of this residence because of the extreme slope, because it was a natural drainage area, because of the poor soil on the lot, and because the slope was in excess of 35 percent. Commissioner Cartwright stated that the applicant had told him that the footings had to be dug considerably deeper than originally intended and as a result some leveling of the slope in the rear yard was required. He asked staff if they agreed with that statement. Senior Planner Fox stated he was not qualified to answer that question. Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing. Terence Kwok 109 E. Floral Drive, Monterey Park, stated he was the architect for the project He stated that conventional footings were selected to be used for this design. He stated that the owner had considered the use of caissons, which required a deeper footing, but found it too expensive. The conventional footings resulted in the grading of the rear yard area He also stated that the owner would eventually like to put a swimming pool in the rear yard, which would require leveling of the back yard area Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Kwok how deep the footings were. Mr. Kwok replied that they had to dig 8 to 9 feet down to hit bedrock. Arik Abdalian 30825 Marne Drive (owner) stated that the proposed retaining wall at the foot of the slope would also be used to prevent people from using his property as a shortcut from Hawthorne Boulevard up to his residential area. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Abdalian what the intent was for the new habitable space under the garage. Mr. Abdalian replied it would be used as a type of game room Commissioner Cartwright stated that the issue that concerned him the most was the extreme slope at the rear of the house. He asked the applicant to explain why that area Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 12 was now level, as the conditions of approval were clear in that the rear slope area was not to be graded to a flat level Mr. Abdalian explained that in digging the foundation the excess dirt was put on the slope, and when the extra dirt had to be removed, the tractors made the slope area flat. Commissioner Cartwright asked if it was necessary to have the 6 -foot retaining wall in order to maintain the level slope. Mr. Kwok answered that it was necessary to have the 6 -foot retaining wall. Commissioner Cartwright asked if the slope was restored back to its original condition, would they still want the 6 -foot wall. Mr Kwok answered that they would not. Vice Chairman Clark asked what the intent was for the requested additional exterior door on the south side of the lower level. Mr. Abdalian answered that it was originally designed for a window, however once the windows was framed he felt it would be safer to make that area a doorway for exiting Also, in the future if he were to receive permission for a pool a door would provide easy access to the residence Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Abdalian if he had any intention of converting this level into a second unit for rental FTSTIM Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the lower crawl space area had any windows. Mr Abdalian explained that the area had a cripple wall and the only opening would be the door. Eric Paris 29234 Stadia Hill Lane questioned why a crawl space needed both a full size doorway and a giant window facing toward the ocean. He felt this was a perfect example of what he called the "nibble process" He explained that if the developer had asked for the home with the balconies, the third floor, and the swimming pool in his original application he was confident the application would have met with far more opposition Instead, the developer received Planning Commission approval then submitted a revision for the deck, and now asking for approval for the apparent third floor. Further, since the ground behind the home is graded, he presumed he would try for approval of the swimming pool and retaining wall at a later time He felt this was a blatant attempt to abuse the approval process and a very dangerous precedence to set. He asked what the sense was for having Planning Commission restrictions that were routinely removed. He noted the danger of hillside failure on this property since this was Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 13 a drainage area. He stated that it appeared the rock was cut on the north side of the property and the foundation was dug out for the sole purpose of asking for the additional living space at a later time He felt that in the interest of equity and safety the applicant should be compelled to re -grade the swimming pool pad, fill in the bottom floor to restore it to a true crawl space, and special drainage should be added through the foundation to allow for water to flow through Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road stated that this property was the last place in this City that a swimming pool should be allowed. Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Clark asked for staffs reaction to Mr. Paris' comments., Senior Planner Fox stated that staff shares some of Mr. Paris' concerns about the project. He did feel there was some confusion as to what level of the house is proposed to be converted to habitable space. He noted that staff was proposing to require the applicant to modify the lowest level crawl space so that it could not be converted to habitable area He clarified that the living area being proposed was above the lowest crawl space area, behind the area visible from the street Chairman Lyon re -opened the pubic hearing to ask the applicant a question. Chairman Lyon asked why the applicant was proposing two regular size doors into a crawl space area. Mr. Abdalian answered that the doors were that size so the contractors could go inside easily to put the beams in. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if Mr. Abdalian was intending to pour a concrete pad in the crawl space area and how high the area was from the floor to the roof. Mr. Abdalian said he was going to leave the floor dirt and the height was approximately 6 to 6 Y2- feet from the floor to the roof. Eric Paris stated that he was at the property and had gone into the downstairs area. He stated that the open space area was over 8 -feet high. He also noted in the structure that the cinder blocks were built in such a way that windows could easily be added and there were already two full-size doors built into the cinder block He felt it was clearly built to use as habitable area. He stressed again that the way the cut was made into the rock on the north side of the property was going to create a drainage problem. Commissioner Mueller stated that at his site visit he had gone into the downstairs area. He agreed that the open space area was over 8 -feet in height, which he did not think was acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 14 Mr. Abdalian responded that they had an engineer design the drainage on the property and have already built in quite a bit of pipe and gravel for the drainage. In response to a question from Chairman Lyon, Senior Planner Fox stated that Mr. Paris was correct in that the ceiling height in the lowest level crawl space was probably closer to 8 -feet in height. He noted that the plans also reflect that the access doors presently in place are 6 feet 8 inches tall. Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cartwright agreed with the staff recommendation that the applicant should be able to use the space within the footprint and the Planning Commission should approve the 50 cubic yards of grading within the footprint as recommended in the staff report. The Commission agreed with Commissioner Cartwright's comment and unanimously agreed to approve that portion of the request. Chairman Lyon next addressed the issue of the grading on the slope behind the residence. He supported staff recommendations regarding this issue. Commissioner Paulson agreed that the slope should be returned to original grade, which would impact the doors into the crawlspace. Commissioner Mueller did not feel that the size of the house was as noticeable until the cut was made on the slope Furthermore he felt the slope should be restored. Senior Planner Fox explained that staffs recommendation is to restore the slope to the natural grade that existed before the house was built, however, staff did not feel there would be a problem to require a re -grading of the slope to create a more natural contour on the slope Chairman Lyon suggested restoring the slope, allowing for minor modifications for aesthetic and geotechnical purposes. Commissioner Cartwright asked what the purpose of the crawl space was. Chairman Lyon re -opened the public hearing. Mr. Kwok stated that the water heater was going to be put in the crawl space. Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. After a brief discussion the Commission agreed that the rear slope should be repaired to its original contours with minor modifications for aesthetic and geotechnical purposes. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 15 Chairman Lyon then brought up the issue of the crawl space below floor one. He noted that there are currently two full-size doors in place which were not on the approved plans Senior Planner Fox noted that staff also recommended that there might also be a need to do some fill or modification inside the crawl space to make sure the head room inside the crawl space is below the permitted height for habitable purposes. Chairman Lyon suggested approving staff recommendations, which would restrict the headroom and restrict the access to a door that is not a full size door, and include the language in the staff report and in the conditions that requires any conversion of that area to habitable space be first approved by the City. The Commission agreed Vice Chairman Clark moved to approve Grading Permit No. 1928 — Revision '13' for fifty cubic yards of grading for the additional living area only and to restore the rear slope to conform to the original approval of Grading Permit No. 1928 to the maximum extent possible, subject to geotechnical approval, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (7-0). 7. City Council/Planning Commission Joint Workshop The Chair sought ideas from the Commissioners for possible topics to discuss with the City Council at a possible joint workshop. Vice Chairman Clark suggested a discussion on neighborhood compatibility The Commission agreed that was a good topic for discussion Commission Cartwright felt a joint meeting with the City Council was a good time to identify and discuss some key issues regarding Long Point Chairman Lyon did not think the project would be far enough along in the Planning Commission process to have a productive discussion with the City Council. Commissioner Long felt that was exactly the point. He did not think the City should spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a process where policy decisions on the use of City land need to be made that impact the process Chairman Lyon did not think the City Council needed to talk about this so early in the process. He felt the City Council would want to hear the Planning Commission's recommendation as to the best possible use of the property in conjunction with the current Long Point proposal After seeing specifically what was being proposed he felt the City Council will then make a judgement on whether it is a good thing for the City to do. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 16 • Commissioner Long stated that the City Council may very well say that at a joint workshop, but even that will give the Planning Commission some direction. Commissioner Paulson felt that was what the City Council had already done He did not want to see the Planning Commission putting themselves in a roll of forcing the City Council to make a decision on the City land issue. Commissioner Cartwright stated that was not what he was asking. He was saying that the Planning Commission was at the beginning of the planning process and it was their responsibility to deal with the land use issue. He felt that in order for the Planning Commission to do that they would have to make some assumptions about use of the public land. He did not feel the hearings would get very far if the assumption was that public land was not part of the project, and if the Commission assumes that the land is part of the project, they may get through many months of hearings just to learn public lands will not be part of the project. Commissioner Paulson thought there was also a third option. He felt the Planning Commission may, in the course of the process of evaluating the project, come up with their own decision on whether City property should or shouldn't be used based on supportable findings heard during the process Commissioner Long stated that it would help to have guidance other than by implication or assumption. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that he thought the review process was clear, that the Planning Commission's review of the land use issues would occur without the need for guidance from the City Council. The approach would be to let the planning process happen and let the City Council deal with the policy issues when the entire project was before them with the Planning Commission's recommendations. He felt that putting the Long Point item on an agenda for a joint workshop to seek direction was not consistent with that approach Chairman Lyon stated that it was his opinion that the City Council has delegated to the Planning Commission the consideration of an integrated plan that in their judgement may or may not include the use of city land Vice Chairman Clark agreed that this, being a land use issue, was a traditional responsibility of the Planning Commission. City Council would have the final word on the issue and he asked what raising the issue now was going to accomplish Commissioner Long responded the Planning Commission could get guidance so that whatever they do is consistent with the City Council's mandate He understood everything that has been said, but still wanted to get a feel for the City Council's thinking, as this was going to be an expensive and time consuming process. He wanted to make sure the Planning Commission did the most effective job possible Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 17 Chairman Lyon reminded the Planning Commission that there is no "mandate" without a vote of the entire City Council. He did not think the City Council would find it productive to take a vote on this issue at this time and he did not feel it would be productive to discuss it with them before going through the planning process Commissioner Paulson asked how the question before the City Council would be formulated. Commissioner Cartwright responded that he would acknowledge to the City Council that this was a very complex planning issue and the Planning Commission was beginning to move into the process and ask the City Council for any guidance they may have. Further, he stated that whatever topics they bring before the City Council doesn't mean they will be discussed. The City Council may decide they do not want to discuss the issue. Therefore, he did not see the risk of putting this item on the list of proposed topics of discussion. Chairman Lyon was opposed to adding the topic because the direction he has been given as Chairman is very clear. Commissioner Long stated that if the City Council has shared their views with the Chairman they should not have difficulty in sharing it with the rest of the Commission. He could also respect the City Council not wanting to give them any guidance After listening to the discussion Vice Chairman Clark he felt the topic was worth adding to the list of possible topics of discussion. Commissioner Long added that he did not think this was an opportunity for the Planning Commission to seek the City Council's views of the Long Point project, but rather an opportunity to get input from the City Council on the review process Commissioner Cartwright stated that his intention was not to put the City Council in a position that they don't want to be in, but rather that this is a very complex planning issue and he could not imagine this process occurring without any dialogue. He stated that even if the City Council were to say they didn't want to discuss the topic, that would be acceptable. Commissioner Long added that the City Council may not want to talk about substance but may be willing to discuss the process and procedures involved. He suggested the subject should be presented as a discussion of policy and procedure issues regarding the Long Point project. Chairman Lyon asked for a vote on whether to include a discussion on policy and procedures for Long Point on the agenda. The Commission voted (4-3) to include the topic, with Commissioners Mueller, Vannorsdall, and Chairman Lyon dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 18 Director/Secretary Rojas stated that based on the Commission's action he will ask the City Mayor to agendize an item for an upcoming Council meeting to discuss the Planning Commission's request for a joint meeting with the City Council with the suggested proposed agenda items being neighborhood compatibility issues and policy and procedure issues regarding the Long Point project. He asked if the Planning Commission had any other subject they wanted to discuss Vice Chairman Clark suggested a review of the Coastal Specific Plan After a brief discussion, the Commission agreed Chairman Lyon asked about the timing of the joint meeting Vice Chairman Clark suggested sometime during the first quarter of next year ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Long noted that on the pre -agenda for the October 24, 2000 meeting he would have to recuse himself from every item on the agenda Every applicant on the agenda are clients of his law firm ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Clark moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. The meeting as adjourned at 11:35 p.m. to October 24, 2000 W-\PC\M inutes\2000\20001010.doc Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2000 Page 19