Loading...
PC MINS 20000523 0 • Approved June 13, 2000 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 23, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Lyon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Director/Secretary Rojas led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cartwright, Mueller, Paulson, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Clark, and Chairman Lyon Absent: Commissioner Long was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Fox, Associate Planner Louie, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There being no objections to the Agenda, Chairman Lyon approved the Agenda as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that the City Council had taken action on three items regarding Ocean Trails: 1) Approved amendments to the public amenities plan; 2) Approved an extension for vesting tentative tract map 50666; and 3) Received a report on the repair plan for the landslide. Director/Secretary Rojas also reported that the City Council had set the Community Leaders breakfast for October 7, 2000 at Hesse Park, awarded the Building and Safety contract to Charles Abbott Associates, and announced the newly appointed members of the View Restoration Commission. Director/Secretary Rojas distributed two items of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 4. 0 0 Commissioner Vannorsdall reported that he would be absent from the June 13, 2000 meeting and Commissioner Paulson and Chairman Lyon reported they would be absent from the June 27, 2000 meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of May 9, 2000 Commissioner Mueller noted a typo on page 2 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Clark noted that on page 9 Mr. Abrams' statement regarding the retractability of his antenna tower was missing the comment that the only way to retract the tower was to loosen four bolts and let the antenna slide down. He felt that was important to add to the minutes. Vice Chairman Clark asked that a paragraph on page 10 be clarified to read more smoothly. Commissioner Cartwright noted a typo on page 6 of the minutes. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Clark. Approved, (6-0). Chairman Lyon noted that he would have no objection if the Commissioners found a typographical error in the minutes that had no consequence in terms of meaning, to inform the recording secretary before the meeting rather than take time during the meeting to do so. The Commission agreed. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation NO. 892 and Grading Permit NO. 2130: Mr. John Koscy, 3151 Deluna Drive. Associate Planner Louie presented the staff report. She outlined the proposed new residence and driveway. She explained that, although the applicant had requested a separate driveway from his neighbor, the Director of Public Works felt that since a portion of the driveway was located within an intersection visibility triangle there would be traffic impacts since the driveway would be located too close to the curb and would be difficult to distinguish between the separations between the two driveways. Therefore by combining the driveway approach, the proposed driveway would not create any traffic impacts and would be located outside the intersection visibility triangle. She explained that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings for the Height Variation as well as for the Grading Permit and was recommending approval subject to the conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes May 23,2000 Page 2 II 0 Commissioner Cartwright questioned the driveway configuration. He understood that the reason for moving it was the intersection visibility triangle, however he felt that putting it in its current location created a greater hazard. Associate Planner Louie stated that staff could bring that concern to the attention of the Public Works Department. Commissioner Clark asked if there had been many homes built with basements included in their design. Director/Secretary Rojas stated it was somewhat rare for a home to be proposed with a basement. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Andrew Hajduczek 3141 Deluna Drive stated he lived directly next door to the proposed residence. He objected to the current driveway configuration and preferred the original configuration, which was 2 separate driveways. He felt the house, as designed, would be out of place in the neighborhood. He explained that most of the homes in the neighborhood were single story and smaller. He was concerned about the geology of the lot and wondered why caissons were not required. He was also concerned about the soil in the area, since he felt the soil is not stable enough to support a large house, and felt it was being constructed too close to his house and swimming pool. He also felt the construction of the new house might create cracks to his house and pool area. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if Mr. Hajduczek had experienced any cracking or settling on his property. Mr. Hajduczek answered that he has not. However, he was required to build with very deep caissons when he added on to his residence. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Hajduczek to clarify his concerns over the driveway and the grading. Mr. Hajduczek pointed out on the display model that the area where the two driveways meet is much steeper than what was represented on the model. He felt that the wall adjacent to the driveway would be too tall and the equipment necessary to build it would be very heavy. David York (architect) 1825 '/z Balboa discussed the grading proposed for the project. He explained that the driveway and garage accounted for 900 cubic yards of export material. He stated that no matter how large the house is, the grading quantity would not change. He stated that the house would be situated on the property to minimize impacts on the neighborhood. Regarding the basement, he explained that the geologic report that had been approved by the City recommended either caissons or a basement Planning Commission Minutes May 23,2000 Page 3 • 0 structure. He realized that it was more expensive to build a basement rather than caissons, but felt that the added useable area was a benefit. Chairman Lyon asked why the model displayed was not made topographically correct. Mr. York responded that the model was topographically correct since it represented the proposed project. Where it may look steeper at the property now, there would be grading involved to level out much of the area around the driveway and garage. Commissioner Cartwright asked if the flags at the property were at the currently proposed elevation. Mr. York explained that originally the flags were at 27 feet but they were lowered on the Friday prior to the meeting to 24 feet in height. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked what the final slope of the driveway would be. Mr. York answered that the final slope will be at 20 percent, which was as steep as one would ever want a driveway to be. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt a condition should be added that the driveway not be blacktop as that material is very slippery and unsafe at such a steep slope. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. York if he would like to comment on the previous speaker's concerns over the geology on the property. Mr. York responded that test pits were dug and a thorough geology report was submitted to the City for review and approval by the City geologist. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. York if he knew what type of soil material was at the site. Mr. York answered that he thought it was shale, which is an expansive material and would require a substantial footing to prevent the residence from cracking. Commissioner Paulson asked about the trees and vegetation that are along the current driveway and whose property they were on. Mr. York answered that although the existing driveway from the adjacent property lies on Mr. Koscy's property, it is a dedicated easement to allow access on to the property at 3141 Deluna Drive. Commissioner Paulson referred to the model and asked about the retaining wall that goes along the driveway up to the garage. He felt that the grade was very steep behind the driveway and wondered what was happening to the slope. Planning Commission Minutes May 23,2000 Page 4 0 0 Mr. York answered that there will be some grading and an approximately four foot high retaining wall. Vice Chairman Clark asked if there was a difference in cost between building a basement rather than building caissons. Mr. York answered that he felt that a basement would be more expensive than the caissons but did not know how much more. Vice Chairman Clark asked if Mr. York knew of any other "cons" in regards to building a basement over using caissons, especially in light of the testimony of the neighbor who stated he had to use caissons when remodeling his home. Mr. York replied that a basement was an option given by his geologist, however he said that once they start digging there may be a possibility for modifications. Vice Chairman Clark asked about the large, 17-foot high retaining wall that is required to be built for the basement. Mr. York responded that the retaining wall is for the garage and would be there whether a basement was used or caissons, as the garage must be built into the hillside. The garage must be built into the hillside due to the 20 percent grade of the driveway. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Hajduczek if he had noticed any settling at his house and if his house was built on caissons. Mr. Hajduczek responded that he had only noticed the typical stucco cracks. He stated that the original house had a concrete foundation and as far as he knew he did not think it was built with caissons. However, his addition was required to be built on caissons. Mr. Hajduczek added that he had not seen any geologist at the proposed residence dig any type of holes or borings in the last seven years. Chairman Lyon asked staff if there was a reason the Planning Commission did not receive a copy of the geology report and if they had received a report would they have come across any information other than what was summarized in the staff report. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that since geology reports tend to be rather lengthy they are not normally attached to the staff reports. For this project, the findings of the geology report were summarized in the staff report and he could attest that the conclusionary statement in the staff report appears almost verbatim in the geology report. The other information they may have gotten from the actual report would have been an explanation of the types of soils at the property. John Kocsy (applicant) 4530 W. 170th Street, Lawndale stated that his geologist had told him the front part of the property was on fill and could not be recompacted because there was not enough room. He felt the best thing to do was remove the fill, put all Planning Commission Minutes May 23,2000 Page 5 0 • footings down to bedrock, and build a basement. He stated that he was at the property when the geologist dug five test pits. He did not feel the house would be a big impact on the neighborhood and had worked with the neighbors to satisfy their concerns. Mr. Kocsy stated that he had a new, additional request. He explained that since the project began there had been medical problems with his father and he would have no way to get his father into the proposed house. He requested that the Commission consider a new request to attach the garage to the basement and that a handicap elevator with ramps be added for access to the residence. Francesco Funiciello 3257 Starline Drive stated that the applicants have made every effort to make their house beautiful while addressing the concerns he had from his property. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Director/Secretary Rojas addressed Mr. Kocsy's request stating that the request raised an issue involving building height, since the connection from the garage to the residence will result in one structure. Per the Development Code that would change the way the overall structure height is measured, making the foundation of the garage the new point where the 30-foot downslope height would be measured. He felt that Mr. Koscy's new request raised some complex issues that need to be addressed by staff and recommended the Planning Commission continue the item. Commissioner Cartwright stated that he was satisfied with the geology, however he was curious if there was a difference in stability between a basement floor and caissons. Commissioner Paulson asked that the Public Works Director look at the driveway proposal and if it is possible to have two separate driveways, what conditions would be required to assure visibility in regards to the trees and vegetation. Vice Chairman Clark moved to continue the item for 3 reasons: 1) to re-examine the issues of the driveway locations; 2) to allow for the City Geologist to attend the meeting to answer the numerous geologic questions from the Commission, and 3) to address the applicant's request to modify the request, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. Approved, (6-0). Director/Secretary Rojas suggested the item be continued to the meeting of July 11, 2000, as two Commission members would be absent from the June 27 meeting. The Commission and applicant agreed. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:25 p.m. the Commission took a short recess to 8:35 p.m. at which time they reconvened. Planning Commission Minutes May 23,2000 Page 6 0 110 COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road discussed her continuing concerns over Ocean Trails and Oceanview Estates and her displeasure with the City Council and their handling of the developers. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation No. 827-Revision 'A' and Grading Permit No. 1887- Revision 'A': Mr. Mohamad Chahine (applicant) and Mr. Forrest Ebbs (landowner), 7455 Alida Place. Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report. He briefly reviewed the history of the project and explained that the approval of PC Resolution No. 98-23 included a condition (No. 8c) which addressed certain concerns of the appellants. This condition required the relocation of the garage doors from the east side of the house to the central motor court, as well as the reduction of the area of the driveway and parking area on the east side of the house by one-half. He explained that the current property owner had begun construction of the house and was requesting permission to construct the garage doors and east parking area as originally proposed by the previous property owner. He explained that the request was made for four reasons: 1) the owners felt the approved driveway would be too steep and exceed the 20 percent maximum permitted by code; 2) other homes on Alida Place do not have the garages at the front of the house as this one does; 3) the change would be more aesthetically appealing; and 4) the relocation of the garage doors and enlargement of the parking area would have no adverse noise or visual impacts on the adjacent house at 7435 Alida Place. Mr. Fox noted that the only correspondence received by staff was from Dr. Reaves at 7435 Alida Place, which indicated that he did not support the proposed revision. However, Senior Planner Fox noted that in a telephone conversation with Dr. Reaves on May 18, Dr. Reaves stated that he was now neutral towards this application. Senior Planner Fox stated that since the inclusion of Condition 8c was intended to address neighborhood concerns about the project, Staff was reluctant to recommend any changes to the condition without the clear support of affected neighbors. Staff acknowledged that there may be physical difficulties resulting from the imposition of the design changes under Condition No. 8c but Staff suggested alternative designs as outlined in the staff report. Senior Planner Fox therefore recommended denial of the requested height variation and grading permit revision without prejudice, in order to allow the applicant to consider the design alternativesP resented in the staff report and return to the staff or Planning Commission at a future date with a more acceptable proposal. Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if they had received any other calls or correspondence regarding the project, other than that of Dr. Reeves. Senior Planner Fox responded that staff had received a telephone call from Mr. Ted Shields, who was the attorney for the appellants, who indicated that Mrs. Jane Botello 7400 Alida Place may be opposed to the project. Staff, however did not hear directly Planning Commission Minutes May 23,2000 Page 7 0 • from Mrs. Botello regarding the project and Mr. Shields did not express any strong opposition to the proposal. He noted that Staff had provided full 500-foot notification for this revision, which included all of the current property owners on Alida Place. Chairman Lyon asked for clarification of the change to the east-side motor court. Senior Planner Fox demonstrated on the project plans how the motorcourt would be revised. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Mohamad Chahine (applicant) 7460 Alida Place stated that the main reason they were trying to change the garage was aesthetics. He stated they were trying to change the motor court to a pedestrian court because the house, as it currently sits, has no courtyard. He explained that the current driveway plan does not work, which Staff agrees with. However, the alternatives that Staff suggested had great cost impacts. He explained that he had contacted Dr. Reaves, who indicated he was neutral on the issue and Mr. Chahine did not think there was any objections from any of the neighbors. He stated that he had no objection to getting a written statement from Dr. Reaves. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Chahine if he had spoken to Mrs. Botello. Mr. Chahine replied that he had not; however, he had read the history of the project and did not think Mrs. Botello would have any objections to the garage doors. The main argument about the garage doors was originally from Dr. Reaves. Russ Barto 3 Malaga Cove Plaza, Palos Verdes Estates explained that he was the original architect involved with the project. He felt that the residents in the Alida Place neighborhood had changed significantly since the original project was before the Planning Commission, as many of the original residents had since sold their homes and moved. He also felt that since Mr. Chahine lives on the street he was very sensitive to the concerns and feelings of the surrounding neighbors with respect to this application. Mr. Barto felt that the net result of this proposed change would be beneficial to the project as well as the neighborhood. He felt this project would also eliminate the possibility of RV or boat parking behind the house and creating a motor court that would not be able to accommodate any parking other than in the garage. With respect to Mrs. Botello, he felt her home was as far from the project as any home on Alida Place. He did not object to speaking directly with her to explain the project thoroughly. Commissioner Cartwright asked if there would be any objection to getting written approval from all of the appellants involved. Mr. Barto did not think there would be a problem. Planning Commission Minutes May 23,2000 Page 8 0 II Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that, although he originally thought the house was too large, he felt the proposed changes made a lot of sense and was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Cartwright stated he did not object to the proposal before the Commission. However, he felt that the Planning Commission had made a commitment to a group of neighbors who had appealed the original decision and felt that there should be some written indication from these neighbors that they had no objection to this proposal. Without that, he did not feel he could support the proposal. Commissioner Mueller stated that he was surprised that no neighbors were present at the hearing, but understood that they had all been notified of the meeting. He reviewed the proposal, felt the proposed changes were reasonable, and could find no objection to the proposal. Commissioner Paulson stated he had similar sentiments to those of Commissioner Cartwright. He asked staff how many neighbors were still living on Alida Place that were involved in the original proceedings. Senior Planner Fox stated that he believed that three of the four original appellants still lived or owned property on Alida Place. Commissioner Paulson asked the applicant if he felt he could speak to all of the original appellants that were still living on the street to get their input on the project. Mr. Chahine stated that he had talked to Dr. Reaves and Mr. Ken Nishide (7440 Alida Place), both of whom had no objections. He had not talked to Mrs. Botello, as she lives so far from his property. However, he did not object to speaking with her. Commissioner Paulson stated that he did not have a problem with the proposal however he did have sympathy for an agreement made between the previous owner, the neighbors, and a government body after public hearings and would feel more comfortable having the neighbors statements in support of the project in writing. Vice Chairman Clark stated that this proposal was properly noticed to the neighborhood and the parties that previously took a deep interest in the project did not choose at this time to attend this hearing. He did not feel that there was a formal contract between the City and the neighbors and did not want to see this turn into a contract. He felt the proposal was sensible and given there was no written objection or speakers at the public hearing objecting to the project, he was supporting the request. Planning Commission Minutes May 23,2000 Page 9 Chairman Lyon agreed with the Vice Chairman and supported the approval of the request, noting that it would result in an improvement to the appearance and functionality of the project. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to approve Alternative 1 of the staff report, thereby approving the request of the applicant, seconded Vice Chairman Clark. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Cartwright dissenting. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the revised Resolution would be brought back to the Planning Commission on the Consent Calendar for adoption at the next meeting. 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 109-Revision 'A' and Coastal Permit No. 163: St. Peter's-by-the-Sea Presbyterian Church, 6410 Palos Verdes Drive South. Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report. He explained the project and stated the addition complies with setback requirements and will not exceed the 16-foot height limit. He reviewed the applicable findings that must be made and stated that all of the findings could be made. He stated that the issue of most concern to staff was the adequacy of the off-street parking for the additional square footage proposed. Staff concluded that based on information provided by the applicant, the current parking was adequate since during the peak demand on Sunday mornings the parking demand was 124 spaces and the available parking was 182 spaces. He noted that staff had been contacted by a resident at the adjacent Seacove Townhomes concerned about noise generated by the addition of the toddlers' room and nursery. In order to address the concerns, Staff recommended a requirement that the exterior doors and windows be kept closed during operation and a restriction on the use of the grassy area outside the classrooms. Senior Planner Fox noted the two items of late correspondence on the project, one of which was in opposition. Addressing the letter of late correspondence from the applicant that was distributed at the meeting, Mr. Fox stated that it was not Staffs intention to prohibit the use of the lawn area as a play area in general, only to stipulate that there would not be outdoor play in conjunction with the nursery and toddler's room. He felt that a modification of the second sentence in Condition No. 15 would clarify this. Further, staff had no objection to the exterior windows being operable, just that these windows are not opened during class time. He noted that in speaking with the Building Official, it would be possible to make modifications to the heating and air conditioning system to provide the necessary ventilation and still allow the windows and doors be kept closed to meet the noise concerns. The final request in the applicant's letter was the addition of square footage to address exiting issues raised by the Building Official. Staff explained that the Building Official did not specifically direct the architects to pursue the additional square footage to address the exiting issue, and that perhaps there were other alternatives that would not require the additional square footage. Senior Planner Fox also noted that Staff had not had the opportunity to review the revised plans or assess any impacts that might result from the additional square footage proposed. Planning Commission Minutes May 23,2000 Page 10 0 0 Chairman Lyon asked if staff expected any significant impact as a result of the additional square footage. Senior Planner Fox stated that it was difficult to say. If the additional square footage were for a corridor, as represented by the architect, then no additional parking would be required. However, Staff had not seen plans to verify the use of the additional square footage. Chairman Lyon asked if the neighbor's objection to the project was based on perceived noise that may happen in the future or if there was currently a noise problem. Senior Planner Fox responded that he was not aware of a current noise problem and did not know the answer to that question. Commissioner Cartwright asked staff approximately how many children this addition would accommodate. Senior Planner Fox answered that according to the information provided by the church, the nursery and toddlers' room addition would accommodate approximately 35 children and 9 adults. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Clark. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Edward Lok Ng 279 7th Street, San Pedro, stated he was the architect for the project and distributed handouts to the Commission for their review. The handouts depicted the additional square footage for the sanctuary, as well as suggested changes to the conditions of approval. He stated that there is currently no dedicated nursery and toddler room at the church and these children are currently housed with the pre-school children in another building. There are currently no changing facilities, cubbyholes, toys, and other specialties associated with this young age group. He stated that after meeting with the Building Official, the plan before the Commission reflected the best and only way to exit people from the sanctuary. This necessitated the enlargement of the addition to accommodate the change. He stated there was no additional square footage added to the toddler area, only the exit passageway. He agreed with the Building Official that the air conditioning system could be modified to accommodate the building code requirements, however at an added expense to the church. He stated that the church would like to maintain the flexibility to be able to open the windows, especially on days where it was not warm enough to warrant turning on the air conditioning. He pointed out that the congregation had not increased such that there are additional toddlers coming into the church, this addition was to accommodate the current congregation. Chairman Lyon noted that the letter distributed at the beginning of the meeting requested an addition totaling 3,210 square feet. The handout distributed by the Planning Commission Minutes May 23,2000 Page 11 I • architect requested an addition totaling 3,340 square feet. He asked which number was correct. Mr. Ng replied that the request was for an addition of 3,340 square feet. Clayton Cobb 2 Packet Road stated that he was the pastor of the church and the intent of this project was to provide a safe place for kids and adults to grow, particularly the children. Regarding the neighbors at Seahill Townhomes, he stated that they were mindful of the neighbors in designing the project. He noted that there were no windows on that side of the property. He felt that operable windows were an important option and asked the Commission to give the church that option. He stressed that the church wanted to be a good neighbor and asked that he have the opportunity to speak to the individual who had concerns and work directly with him. He thanked Staff for the clarification added to the conditions regarding use of the grass area. Commissioner Paulson asked staff if they had had a chance to review these requested changes to the plans and if they would make a difference in their recommendations. Senior Planner Fox responded that in his brief review Staff had determined that this additional square footage would not require any additional parking spaces since the area of the addition was for exiting corridors. The change in the setbacks was still well within the minimum setback requirements. He felt that it would be appropriate to consider an addition of 3,340 square feet. Commissioner Cartwright asked if the church had received any complaints from their neighbors regarding noise. Mr. Cobb stated that they had not received any noise or safety complaints from the neighbors. Harold Lung 30738 Via Rivera stated that he was the chairman of the operations committee responsible for the construction of the addition. He explained that the church wanted to move this project ahead as quickly as possible so that construction could begin next month when the preschool was no longer in session. He stated that the church would like to complete the entire project prior to the winter of 2000. Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road felt it was ridiculous to have the windows of the toddlers' room closed and encouraged the Commission to modify the condition. Commissioner Paulson moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Lyon felt it was important to address how the Commission was to incorporate the proposed changes into their discussion. He had no problem incorporating these changes into the request and the Commission agreed. Planning Commission Minutes May 23,2000 Page 12 • Vice Chairman Clark asked Staff if they thought it was feasible, assuming the Planning Commission approved the project, for this project to begin construction next month as requested by Mr. Lung. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that although possible it would be very difficult. He noted that if a decision were made this evening, there is still a 15-day appeal period before plans could be submitted to Building and Safety Division to begin the plan check process. He explained that once plan check is initiated, the very minimum amount of turn-around time is 2 weeks, and that is assuming that there are no corrections to be made to the plans, which is very unlikely. Commissioner Cartwright asked Staff if there were any other communications from residents regarding noise. Senior Planner Fox stated that there had been no other complaints. Commissioner Cartwright moved to approve the project with the modifications as requested by the applicant, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6-0). NEW BUSINESS 5. Neighborhood Compatibility Hand-Outs Director/Secretary Rojas presented a brief staff report stating that the Commission had requested an item be placed on the agenda dealing with the neighborhood compatibility materials provided to the public. The Commission wanted to ensure that the city has materials that are as clear, simple, and comprehensive as possible so that applicants and residents get a good understanding of the process and criteria up-front. He stated that the Pacific Grove guidelines have been distributed to members of the Commission and the idea was to discuss their handout and perhaps move in a direction where this City has something very similar for it's residents. He added that there is possibly room in the budget to hire a consultant to create a handout that is very similar in quality to that of Pacific Grove. Vice Chairman Clark also noted that the City of Pacific Grove includes a checklist for neighborhood compatibility that was quite good. He stated that he did not see that included in the packet. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that was left out by mistake and should have been included. Vice Chairman Clark suggested one or two members of the Commission meet with staff to discuss the best approach to this project, as it was a very important topic. Planning Commission Minutes May 23,2000 Page 13 A discussion followed on the Pacific Grove Guidelines and their neighborhood compatibility process and how that could be used in Rancho Palos Verdes. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that Rancho Palos Verdes already has a code that discusses neighborhood compatibility and its process as well as neighborhood compatibility guidelines. His intent was to hire a consultant, give them our guidelines, and have them put that into a readable illustrated handout. He explained that if the Commission wished to re-examine the neighborhood compatibility process, that would require an amendment to the City Council approved guidelines which would first have to be authorized by the City Council. Vice Chairman Clark stated that he felt that part of the benefit of looking at the Pacific Grove guidelines was not just to produce a better formatted handout, but it is also to reflect upon what this City has in terms of neighborhood compatibility and see whether or not it bears looking at. He suggested that a few members of the Commission discuss these aspects with members of staff and report back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. Chairman Lyon asked Commission Paulson and Vice Chairman Clark to meet with and start discussions with staff regarding the direction that should be taken with the guidelines and handouts. 6. 1999 Annual Report on the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Director/Secretary Rojas reported that this was a procedural matter in which the government code requires the city to report to the City Council how the General Plan has been implemented. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that the item regarding Abalone Cove needed some clarification. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed and said staff would clarify the item. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept the report, via minute order, and forward it to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. The motion was approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS The Commission had no items to place on future agendas. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Clark moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to June 13, 2000. Planning Commission Minutes May 23,2000 Page 14