04/23/2002 Planning Commission Agenda April, 2002, 04/23/2002, Planning, Commission, Meeting, Agenda, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the proposed "Interpretation Determination" that is intended to clarify that habitable space built over a carport or open patio is considered a second story, A request by the applicant to modify an existing flat roof to a gable roof, at a maximum height of 24’-0", as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade to the highest ridgeline elevation and 19’-6", as measured from the highest ridgeline to the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure. Additionally, the application is to allow a 179 square foot addition located to the rear of the existing residence, at a height of 19’-6", as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade to the highest point in the addition and 15’-0", as measured from the highest point in the addition to the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure The 04/23/2002 RPV Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Agenda April 23, 2002
April 23, 2002

DISCLAIMER

The following Planning Commission agenda includes text only version of the staff reports associated with the business matters to be brought before for the Planning Commission at its Regular Meeting of this date. Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission may elect to delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the Planning Commission Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations, financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments are available for review with the official agenda package at the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department.

...end of disclaimer...

** CLICK HERE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
**CLICK HERE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STAFF REPORTS



This agenda has been prepared for the orderly progression of Planning Commission business.  The Planning Commission is very interested in hearing your comments and encourages your participation in the meeting.  These agenda instructions are intended to familiarize you with how the meeting will be conducted, what to expect and how to most effectively participate in the process.

Staff Reports

Detailed staff reports on the items contained in this agenda are available from the Planning Department the Friday before the meeting and are posted for public viewing immediately prior to the meeting in the hallway outside the chambers.  The Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department is located at City Hall at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes.  The Department's public counter hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday.  The telephone number is (310) 377-6008.

Organization of the Agenda

The Planning Commission agenda is divided into the following sections:

Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items, which, unless a request has been received from the public, a Commission member or Staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the Planning Commission.
Continued Business:  This section consists of items that were held over from a previous Planning Commission meetings and for which a decision has not yet been made.
Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed public hearings which have not been previously heard by the Commission.
New Business: This section is for items that do not require a noticed public hearing.  Pursuant to adopted Planning Commission procedure, the Commission will, except under exceptional circumstances and with the consent of the majority of the Commission, adjourn its meetings on or before 12:00 a.m. and not consider new business items after 11:00 p.m., with any unfinished business being continued to the next regular, adjourned, or special meeting.
Audience Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda.  Comments must be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission.  Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Audience Comments.  If action by the Commission is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda, or referred to Staff, as determined by the Commission.

Presentation of Agenda Items

Unless the Chairperson in his or her discretion should direct otherwise, the order of the presentation is generally as follows:

(a) Presentation of staff report, including any environmental analysis or recommendation.
(b) Questions of staff by members of Planning Commission.
(c) Public hearing opened.
(d) Presentation of the applicant(s) or appellant(s).
(e) Presentation of persons in favor of the requested action.
(f) Presentation of persons in opposition to the requested action.
(g) Rebuttal comments by the applicant(s) or appellant(s), if requested.
(h) Closing comments by staff.
(i) Public hearing closed.


How to Speak on an Item

 In order to speak on an item, please completely fill out a Request to Speak form and return it to the recording secretary.  These half-sheet forms (which are printed on colored paper) are available on the table in the hallway outside the chambers or from the recording secretary, who is seated on the left-hand side of the dais (the table with the blue skirt at the front of the meeting room), next to the light timer.  Requests to speak on an item must be submitted to the recording secretary prior to the completion of the remarks of the first speaker on the item.  No request forms to speak on the particular item will be accepted after that time.

 After your name is called by the recording secretary, please approach the lectern and speak clearly into the microphone.  The height of the microphone may be adjusted by hand if necessary.  Before beginning your comments on the item, please state your name and address for the record.

 The length of time that each person is allowed to speak on individual items is determined by the Chairman and is usually based on the number of speakers on the particular item.  Normally, the applicants and appellants are limited to a five (5) minute presentation and a three (3) minute rebuttal (if requested). All other persons are generally limited to three (3) minutes per person. 

 Submittal of Written Correspondence

 You may submit written evidence to the Planning Commission through the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and request that the Commission receive copies of the submitted materials prior to the meeting.  However, such written evidence must be submitted by 12:00 noon on the Monday prior to the Planning Commission meeting.  If any written evidence is submitted after the Monday noon deadline, the Commission will not consider it at the meeting.  However, it will be distributed as part of the agenda packet for any forthcoming meeting, provided that the item is continued.  This does not prevent you from reading written comments that are submitted late into the record as part of oral comments, in accordance with the time limits discussed above.

Conduct at the Meeting

The Planning Commission has adopted a set of rules for conduct during Planning Commission meetings. Although it is a very rare occurrence, the Chairperson may order from the Planning Commission Chambers any person(s) who commit the following acts with respect to a regular or special meeting of the Planning Commission:

1. Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Commission or any member thereof, which interrupts the due and orderly course of said meeting.
2. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, which interrupts the due and orderly course of said meeting.
3. Disobedience of any lawful order of the Chairperson which shall include an order to be seated or refrain from addressing the Commission.
4. Any other interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting.

Your cooperation in making the Planning Commission meeting run smoothly and fairly for all participants in greatly appreciated.


BEGINNING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 20002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.


SCHEDULING NOTES

REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM. NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME.

PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS NOT HEARD BEFORE ll:00 P.M. WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED AND WILL BE HEARD ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA.

NEXT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-05


CALL TO ORDER:

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



COMMUNICATIONS:

Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes):

  • None

Staff:

Commission:


CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2002


2. MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2002


RECESS/COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) at APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M.:



CONTINUED BUSINESS: (NO ITEMS)



3. INTERPRETATION DETERMINATION TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF A "STORY" (JR)

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the proposed "Interpretation Determination" that is intended to clarify that habitable space built over a carport or open patio is considered a second story.


PUBLIC HEARINGS:



4. 6 MONTH REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 REVISION "A" (Peninsula Montessori School): 31100 Palos Verdes Drive West/Krikorian (AM)

Request: A request that the Planning Commission review the applicant’s compliance with the adopted Conditions of Approval for P.C. Resolution No. 2001-08 that permitted the operation of the Peninsula Montessori School at the Golden Cove Shopping Center.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine by Minute Order that the Peninsula Montessori School at the Golden Cove Shopping Center is operating in compliance with the conditions of approval of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-08.


NEW BUSINESS:



5. SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2002-00054): 5618 Sunmist Drive/ Joe (BY)

Request: A request by the applicant to modify an existing flat roof to a gable roof, at a maximum height of 24’-0", as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade to the highest ridgeline elevation and 19’-6", as measured from the highest ridgeline to the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure. Additionally, the application is to allow a 179 square foot addition located to the rear of the existing residence, at a height of 19’-6", as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade to the highest point in the addition and 15’-0", as measured from the highest point in the addition to the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant’s request to modify an existing flat roof to a gable roof, and to construct a 179 square foot addition located at the rear of the existing residence, via Minute Order.



6. SELECTION OF TWO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE: (GP)

Request: A request of the City Council that the Planning Commission select two members to participate on the City Council appointed General Plan Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will be a 15-member committee comprised of representatives from various City advisory Committees and Commissions as well as representatives from various organizations on the Peninsula.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission select two members of the Planning Commission to participate on the General Plan Update Steering Committee.



7. AMENDMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES (JR)

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Revise Section 1.2 (Quorum) of the Planning Commission’s Rules and Procedures to incorporate recent changes in State law regarding eligibility of voting based on proximity to a subject application; and 2) Provide Staff with direction as to any other amendments to the Rules and Procedures.


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:

Staff



8. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 14, 2002.

Commission


ADJOURNMENT:

The next meeting is an adjourned meeting with the City Council and Finance Advisory Committee
is scheduled for Tuesday, May 7, 2002, 6:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.


AGENDA

RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.


SCHEDULING NOTES

REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM. NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME.

PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS NOT HEARD BEFORE ll:00 P.M. WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED AND WILL BE HEARD ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA.

NEXT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-05


CALL TO ORDER:

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



COMMUNICATIONS:

Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes):

  • None

Staff:

Commission:


CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2002

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 26, 2002


CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.


FLAG SALUTE

City Attorney Lynch led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.


ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners Cartwright, Cote, Duran Reed, Long, Mueller, Tomblin, and Chairman Lyon
Absent: None

Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, City Attorney Lynch, Deputy Director Pfost, Associate Planner Hurwitz, Assistant Planner Yu, and Recording Secretary Peterson.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Without objection, the agenda was approved as presented.


COMMUNICATIONS

Director/Secretary Rojas distributed a pamphlet from the Livable Communities Group and a memo regarding the expense reports for the Commissioners who attended the Monterey Conference.

Commissioner Long reported that he had met with a Commissioner from the City of Danville, which had recently approved a senior affordable housing project. He stated that the Commissioner would be sending information to the City on that project.

Commissioner Cartwright thanked the City for the opportunity to attend the Monterey conference.

Commissioner Duran Reed also thanked the City for the opportunity as well as her colleagues for their support. She reported that she had contacted the CCC/ME and Marymount College for additional information regarding their project and has passed some information on to the City.

Chairman Lyon noted errors on the Planning Commission roster and reported on an e- mail he had received from Mitchell Hahn regarding Marymount College. He stated he would share this information with the Planning Department to include in their analysis.


NEW BUSINESS



1. Planning Commission Orientation – Procedures and Informational Materials

The Planning Commissioners introduced themselves and gave a brief overview of their education and background.

Director/Secretary Rojas gave a brief overview of the Planning Department organization and responsibilities. He discussed the agendas and how they are prepared as well as the current Planning Commission policy regarding late correspondence.

City Attorney Lynch distributed an orientation manual to the Planning Commission and discussed the Brown Act, due process issues, CEQA and how it applies to the City, and the conflicts of interest rules.


CONSENT CALENDAR



2. Minutes of March 12, 2002

Commissioners Long and Mueller noted clarifications on page 11 of the minutes.

Commissioner Duran Reed noted two clarifications to the minutes on page 12.

Commissioner Tomblin noted a clarification on page 12 of the minutes.

The minutes were approved as amended, (7-0).


3. Permit Extension Request (Case No. ZON2002-00100): Gene and Terry Rolle (applicants) 38 Seacove Drive

Commissioner Tomblin moved to grant a 1-year extension thereby setting the final expiration date of Variance No. 461-Revision ‘A’, Coastal Permit No. 159-Revision ‘A’ and Grading Permit No. 2144 as March 26, 2003, with all conditions of approval contained in P.C. Resolution NO. 2000-17 remaining in full force and effect, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (7-0).


RECESS AND RECONVENE

At 8:35 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess to 8:50 p.m. at which time they reconvened.


CONTINUED BUSINESS



4. Coastal Permit, Variance, and Site Plan Review Case No. ZON2001-00032: 120 Spindrift Lane.

Assistant Planner Yu presented the staff report. She explained the scope of the project and stated that staff found that the four findings to approve a Variance could be made to warrant approval to reduce the front, side and rear setbacks; to exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage; to waive the replacement of a two-garage with a two-car carport; and exceed the 250 square foot addition limit in the coastal zone. Additionally, staff found that the two findings for granting a Coastal Permit could be made to allow the existing structure to extend within the Coastal Zone, and that the proposed addition would be compatible with the immediate neighborhood in terms of scale, architectural design, and front yard setback. As such, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve, with conditions, the Variance, Coastal Permit, and Site plan Review.

Commissioner Mueller was concerned with the height and size of the proposed structure and wondered what section of the Development Code was being cited when discussing building height. He noted sections of the Development Code on page 218-23 that discussed building height and the need to obtain a height variation to build a structure as an addition to an existing structure exceeding 16 feet in height.

Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the staff referred to Section 17.02.040(B) of the Development Code, which discusses building heights as well as diagrams on page 218-25.

Commissioner Mueller stated that the staff report refers to a "building" and he did not find any reference to a "building" in the Development Code when referring to the need for a height variation.

Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Development Code sets height limits, in this case the height limit is 16 feet. He stated that this project meets the height limits, therefore by measuring the height of the project it does not require a height variation. However, in the Development Code on page 218-24b, there is a sentence saying that structures allowed pursuant to this subsection shall contain no more than one story. He continued to state that if you look up the definition of "story" it mentions that a story must be in a building and if you look up the definition of "building" it mentions that a building must have walls and a ceiling, and since the carport is proposed without walls staff defined that it is not a building and not a story and therefore does not require a height variation.

Commissioner Mueller argued that the definition is still "structure" and not "building" as found in the last section on page 218-23, which is the first place in the code that deals with a height variation. He also noted that the term "structure" was defined earlier in that section. He felt the carport was a structure and not a building and noted the definition of a structure in the Development Code. He therefore did not follow the logic that the proposed addition does not require a height variation.

Director/Secretary Rojas explained that staff had tried to address the Development Code limitation to one story. He noted that the Code set a limitation on height and a limitation that there shall be no more than one story, and although the proposed project would be within the height limit, the question was whether the project was considered two stories, or more specifically was the carport a story. He explained that the Development Code’s definition of a "story" led to the definition of a "building", which led staff to conclude that the carport was a structure and not a building and therefore not a story.

Commissioner Long echoed Commissioner Mueller’s concerns and added that he was concerned this interpretation would allow anyone to place something on top of a platform.

Director/Secretary added that this situation with the carport was very rare, as staff has seen very few carports in the City.

Commissioner Mueller felt the staff report suggested that a height variation was not needed in this situation because the addition would be placed over a carport, which is not a building. He did not agree with this interpretation.

Commissioner Long stated that the staff analysis was dependent on two things: 1) that because the structure was below 16 feet no height variation was required by virtue of the height of the proposed project; and 2) based on staff’s reasoning the project is only 1 story and therefore no height variation is required.

Director/Secretary Rojas agreed with Commissioner Long’s statement and added that the Variance gives staff the discretion to identify any adverse impacts to surrounding residences, including view impacts.

Commissioner Long asked if the Planning Commission could amend the existing application to include a request for a height variation.

Director/Secretary Rojas explained that if the Commission determines that a height variation should be applied for then the applicant would have to submit the application, pay the fees, get the required signatures of the neighbors, and place the silhouette.

Commissioner Mueller did not agree with staff’s interpretation and felt that a height variation application was crucial to protect what views remained in the area.

Commissioner Cartwright asked if the concerns over the lack of a height variation was because of the findings regarding views and neighborhood compatibility.

Commissioner Long felt that the process of a silhouette being erected to make the findings on view should be followed. He continued by noting that the Development Code definition of "building" specifically states that a building shall not mean a mobile home or trailer. He felt that if the Development Code specifically excludes mobile homes and trailers it would have explicitly excluded carports as well if it had meant to do so. He concluded that since carports were not specifically excluded then "building" includes carports, and if a carport is a building then the carport is a story and the structure on top of it is a second story and therefore a height variation is required for the proposed addition.

Commissioner Mueller stated he was looking for a rather straightforward interpretation of the Development Code and that the Planning Commission should stick to interpreting the Development Code in a very straightforward way. He was very concerned that the Planning Commission follow the Development Code and if they didn’t there would be other cases which may have significant view impairment from structures or stories which are located on top of carports or any platform attached to the ground. He felt the Development Code was something that should be adhered to regardless of what the outcome is as far as view impairment, which he felt was a separate issue.

Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if the height variation was triggered by a second story or by some portion of the structure being in excess of 16 feet, and what staff was trying to accomplish by not making this proposed addition a second story.

Director/Secretary Rojas stated that in this case the trigger was both. He explained that staff had pointed out the one sentence to the applicant that staff felt was problematic in avoiding the height variation, however as pointed out by the applicant, the carport does not have walls and staff relied on the definition of building. He also noted that staff was originally concerned that by circumventing the height variation process certain things were not going to be looked at that would be looked at through the height variation process. However, he noted that in doing the analysis for the variance the same impacts such as views, neighborhood compatibility and privacy were analyzed.

Chairman Lyon wondered if too much was being made from a technicality. He noted that staff had gone through the procedures in terms of impacts on the neighborhood that would have been done if the application had been a height variation. He felt the applicant had consulted with the neighbors many times and had made extensive modifications and compromises to accommodate their concerns. He also noted that the staff report indicated that there were no objections to the proposed addition. He felt the Planning Commission should do what is right, which was still entirely within the Code.

Commissioner Duran Reed felt that the Development Code definition was problematic and felt that by simply glossing over any particular problems in the Development Code and issuing a finding without having a clear and appropriate definition, the Planning Commission could be setting a very dangerous precedent. She noted that there may be other carports and structures in other neighborhoods and while in this situation no problems might be created, what would happen down the line with other similar applications in different neighborhoods. She felt the proper process and steps should be followed for the proposed addition. She discussed the neighborhood consultation process and felt this was an important process that should be done with this application.

Commissioner Cote agreed with Commissioner Long that it was very difficult to justify that an addition above a carport was not a second story and that if a height variation is necessary all of the associated steps should be followed.

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

Jim Maniscalco (applicant) 120 Spindrift Lane stated that his house is much lower than the surrounding homes and he was shocked to learn that his plans had raised concerns. He noted that over 15 people and the HOA were significantly opposed to the plans when they were first drawn. He and the architect worked for eight months to design a project that was acceptable to the neighbors and the HOA. He noted that he had originally applied for a height variation which was still on file with the City and had done a silhouette and the early neighborhood consultation process. He stated that there were a number of people in the neighborhood that were vehemently opposed to a height variation, not because of any view concerns, but because of the label. He therefore consulted with staff to see what project he could design that would not require a height variation. He stated that even if he designed the exact same building with the exact same silhouette and called it a height variation, the neighbors would then object. He explained that quite often there is an entryway or entry courtyard into a house that is below a portion of the house, which was not considered a story. He felt it was clear that if they built the exact structure as shown on the plans it would not require a height variation if cars were not going to be parked there. He questioned why this would change if cars were then parked there and why this would change the nature of the structure.

Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mr. Maniscalco if he planned on living in the residence after the remodel.

Mr. Maniscalco assured the Commission that he loves his home and had no intention of leaving it.

Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Maniscalco if he had kept the signatures from the early neighborhood consultation process and if so, had he submitted them to the City.

Mr. Maniscalco responded that he had the signatures and would submit them to staff.

Commissioner Cartwright noted that Mr. Maniscalco had mentioned there was a silhouette erected at the site and asked what happened to that silhouette.

Mr. Maniscalco responded that the silhouette had been erected, but taken down after the project was revised, as the new project was lower and smaller than the silhouette indicated.

Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if their view analysis was done while the silhouette was up or after it was taken down.

Assistant Planner Yu stated that the view analysis was done after the silhouette had been taken down.

Miles Pritzkat (architect) explained that a height variation had originally been applied for, however based upon the neighborhood meeting, there seemed to be quite a bit of opposition to the label of height variation, regardless of the height of the building. He stated he has worked very hard to accommodate the neighbors as well as accomplish what the applicants wished to accomplish. Mr. Pritzkat submitted to staff the signatures received from the early neighborhood consultation process.

Commissioner Mueller noted that there had originally been quite a bit of opposition to the project and asked Mr. Pritzkat what alternatives he had looked at to come up with the current design.

Mr. Pritzkat responded that he was limited in what could be done on the lot because of the size and shape of the lot. He stated that he has lowered the proposed ridge height down to the lowest possible elevation, which was 5.6 feet lower that the original proposal.

Commissioner Mueller asked if he had considered moving the addition away back toward the hillside of the property.

Mr. Pritzkat answered that if the addition were moved more toward the rear of the property it would have to be placed on top of the existing structure and he felt that would make a greater impact upon the neighbors.

Mike Fabian 124 Spindrift Lane stated he was pro building, however he was opposed to the addition over the carport as it would impact his west facing view of Inspiration Point, Portuguese Bend anchorage, and the landslide point. Given the current trend of beach view land speculation going on in the Portuguese Bend Club, he felt it was prudent to oppose the project at this point. He reminded the Commission of the unstable land in the Beach Club and that there was quite a bit of building happening in the area, which concerned him.

Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Fabian if he was still concerned with the view even though the ridgeline has been lowered to 16 feet.

Mr. Fabian answered that he currently can sit on his couch and look out at the point and cove, and when the addition is completed he will be looking at the roof.

Chairman Lyon asked Mr. Fabian what portion of his view would be obscured with this addition.

Mr. Fabian answered that the west-facing portion would be obscured, which was approximately 3 percent of his 180-degree view.

Commissioner Mueller noted that there were other additions in the neighborhood and asked Mr. Fabian if any of those additions impaired his view in any way.

Mr. Fabian responded that they only impaired his view of the volleyball court on the beach.

Commissioner Mueller asked if the 3 percent loss of view was more significant to Mr. Fabian than the loss of the beach view.

Mr. Fabian answered that it was much more significant.

Randee Wood 111 Spindrift Drive explained that she lived behind and across the street from the proposed project. She stated that the applicant has been very open and accommodating throughout the project, and adjusted their plans to minimize any view impairment. She stated that she was very much opposed to a height variation that would take away her beach view. She felt that if a height variation were required the applicant could and possibly would move the project back up to the original height, which would obscure her view.

Commissioner Duran Reed stated that there seemed to be concern that if a height variation application were submitted the applicant would then raise the height of the proposed structure. She asked the applicant if this was something they would possibly do.

Mr. Maniscalco answered that he has worked very hard to accommodate the neighbors and that if he had to apply for a height variation would not change the project. He was very concerned, however, that the neighbors were very much opposed to granting a height variation in the neighborhood, even if it did not obstruct any views.

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

Chairman Lyon felt there were two ways to look at the project, the first being the legalistic view by looking at the letter of the law. He felt that in doing that there was a gray area in some of the definitions. However, the other way to look at the project was to consider what serves the best interests of the applicant, the neighbors, and the City. In this particular case the neighbors have been very clear in saying they are opposed to the use of the term height variation in this application. He noted that all of the procedures associated with a height variation have been followed, and did not feel any precedent would be set by using staff’s interpretation on building and story. He did not think there was anything about the Portuguese Bend area that would ever establish precedence anywhere else in the City. He felt it was important to listen to the neighbors on this project and noted that the neighbors, with one exception, were satisfied with the project as proposed. Therefore, he would support the approval of the request as submitted, with the interpretation that the staff has made.

Commissioner Long shared the concept that the Planning Commission should be concerned with what was best for the applicant, neighbors, and City as a whole. He acknowledged that a lot of thought has gone into the project and did not feel there was anything clearly wrong with the project. However, he felt that the project should be considered under a height variation application. He did not think all of the procedures for a height variation had been followed, since a silhouette had not been erected to do a proper view analysis. Because of this, he had not had the opportunity to do a proper view analysis at the site to determine if there was significant view impairment. He also noted that while the views of the neighbors are very important, applications are not approved by the vote of the neighborhood. He stated that the way planning is done is through consistent and logical application of the ordinances and consistent logical application of the ordinances compels the conclusion that a carport designed to hold property is a building, not withstanding staff’s interpretation to the contrary. If the carport is a building, then what goes on top of it is a second story and if what goes on top of the carport is a second story, a height variation is required. He felt it was unfortunate that this may inconvenience the applicant, since he felt the applicant had done an outstanding job of trying to accommodate the concerns of neighbors. Nevertheless, he felt that a height variation application was an extremely important thing, and the fact that some people are concerned about the label and they do not want the label of height variation permits attached to something does not justify applying the ordinance in a way that is not consistent and logical. He suggested finding the application incomplete because of the lack of a height variation with the hope that the applicant will then apply for a height variation permit and the Planning Commission will then be able to go through the process of looking at a silhouette that matches the project and assess whether view impairments, if any, are significant.

Commissioner Cartwright felt the Planning Commission had the responsibility of trying to balance the interests of the applicant with the concerns of the neighbors and concerns of the City. He also felt the Planning Commission was bound by the Development Code, even though there was the discretion of using common sense and compassion when appropriate. He felt the Development Code in this instance lends itself to multiple interpretations, one being that a height variation is required and the other that there may be a way to approve the project and then go back and clarify the Development Code. He did not know what could be done as far as view impacts, as the proposed structure was under sixteen feet in height. He did think a silhouette would be helpful at the site to assess the actual structure. He also thought it would be helpful to review other structures within Portuguese Bend that have this type of carport with a structure on them and if they received height variation or Planning Commission approval. He did not feel that approving the proposed project without a height variation application would in any way set precedent, as every application was reviewed on its own merits. He added that he was concerned with the geology in the area and asked if there was a 1.5 safety factor at the site.

Director/Secretary Rojas responded that the Moratorium Exception process was contingent upon the City Geologist making a finding that the project will not aggravate the landslide. He stated that the City Geologist has made that finding. In terms of the 1.5 factor of safety, he noted that this was the moratorium area and he did not believe the 1.5 factor of safety could be achieved.

Commissioner Mueller explained that his approach to evaluating applications is to first look at the General Plan, then the Development Code and finally the guidelines. He stated that he holds that above any of the opinions of the staff, neighbors, and Planning Commission. He stated that he would not like to see Portuguese Bend as a model on how to fine tune the Development Code, as it is a very unique area. He felt that a height variation should be required and a silhouette should be constructed at the site. He felt that the only way the neighbors could be sure of the impact the project would have on their views would be through the erection of a silhouette that accurately represented the proposed project. He felt that by not requiring a height variation as requested by some of the neighbors in the Portuguese Bend Club, this application would be circumventing the City procedures that were put in place to help protect the views of the immediate neighbors in the area. He felt that by looking at what the concerns of all the interested parties are and ignoring the Development Code was not serving the best interests of the applicant, neighbors, and the City.

Commissioner Duran Reed felt the applicants had done a very thorough job with their application to try to reach an agreement with their neighbors. She felt if the Development Code were not followed a precedent would be established, which concerned her. She noted that there were multiple interpretations of the Development Code which could lead to inconsistency and the purpose of having laws is to be able to follow the letter of the law and use it as a guideline. While not wanting to see the applicant have to go back and do additional work, she did feel it was important for a silhouette to be constructed to get a clear picture of the impact of the project to the neighborhood as required by the Development Code.

Commissioner Cote commended the applicant for working with their neighbors. She noted that the applicant had already applied for the height variation and gone through the process involved with the application and that the only thing that had to be done was construct a silhouette to reflect the project as currently proposed. She asked if there was a way to expedite the height variation process so as not to delay the applicant unnecessarily.

Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the applicant had submitted the height variation application and paid the fee, however had asked staff not to process the application. In terms of expediting the process, there is a 30-day notice required for a height variation and the notice could not be sent out until the silhouette has been constructed. If the applicants could erect the silhouette over the weekend the notices could be sent out Thursday and published in the newspaper on Saturday. Therefore, May 14 was the earliest the Planning Commission could hear the new application.

Commissioner Tomblin felt there was a process established in the Development Code for this type of situation and that the process should be followed. He encouraged the staff to work with the applicant and expedite the height variation process.

Chairman Lyon did not feel that anyone was proposing or suggesting that the process not be followed. He felt the differences of opinion had to do with interpretation of some words in the Code, and while they need to be clarified in the future, staff has made an interpretation, which he agrees with. He was not suggesting in any way that the Development Code not be followed

Commissioner Long agreed with the Chairman that no one was proposing to depart from the proper procedures, however felt that in this case the staff’s interpretation of the language was not as reasonable as the one he proposed. He asked the Planning Commissioners to not accept the recommendation of staff, but to apply their own judgment. He asked the Planning Commissioners to use their own judgment to determine whether a carport was a building or not.

Commissioner Mueller moved to deny the application without prejudice and require the applicant to submit a height variation and instruct staff to expedite the process with the exception of the duly required public notice period, seconded by Commissioner Long.

Commissioner Cartwright did not disagree with the intent of the motion, however felt that if the application were denied the applicant must then reapply for all of the applications associated with the project. He suggested the Planning Commission deem the application incomplete and continue the application to a future meeting, giving the applicant the opportunity to process a height variation.

Director/Secretary Rojas noted that in denying the project a Resolution of denial would be required, which would have to come before the Planning Commission at their next meeting. He felt the most efficient way to expedite the process was to ask the applicant for a 90 day extension, make the determination that the carport is a building and requires a height variation, ask the applicant to submit a height variation application which the staff will duly notice. This application can then be heard as early as May 14.

Chairman Lyon re-opened the public hearing.

Commissioner Long asked Mr. Maniscalco if he would agree to a 90-day extension of his project.

Mr. Maniscalco agreed to the 90-day extension, and asked that they be put on the May 14 Planning Commission agenda.

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Long proposed to amend the motion to deem the application incomplete because it lacks a height variation permit application and instruct staff to expedite any application that may be made for a height variation permit as quickly as is possible consistent with the Code.

Commissioner Mueller accepted the amendment to the motion, seconded by Commissioner Long.

Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if they had any concerns with the motion.

Director/Secretary felt the motion accomplishes the motion maker’s intention. Although he felt that situations should be avoided where applications are deemed complete and then incomplete, the Planning Commission has made a decision that is supported by evidence and in addition an extension has been granted by the applicant. Therefore his concerns were alleviated.

Chairman Lyon explained that voting no on the motion would allow for a follow up motion that would be to approve the project as recommended by staff, and in so doing the Commission would be adopting the staff’s interpretation of the verbage in the Code relating to what is a building and what is a story, but with full recognition that the Planning Commission intends to clean up those words so that there is not this problem again.

Commissioner Cartwright acknowledged that there were different interpretations of the verbage in the Code as well as different interpretations on how it should be resolved. He agreed with the Chairman in much of what he said, however he supported the motion.

Commissioner Cote appreciated the need to expedite the process for the applicant.

Commissioner Duran Reed stated that she would like to see the Code clarified so that in the future there will be no question on the interpretation.

The motion passed with a vote of (6-1) with Chairman Lyon dissenting.


5. Conditional Use Permit No. 226, Grading Permit No. 2296, and Environmental Assessment No. 742: Verizon Wireless Services, Mr. John Koos (applicant) 32201 Forrestal Drive.

Associate Planner Hurwitz presented a brief staff report explaining the history of the proposed project. He stated that the applicant has not been able to meet with the residents nor address the issues identified by the Planning Commission. As such, since there has been no visible progress since the January 22 Planning Commission meeting, staff is again recommending denial without prejudice of the application. He noted that staff had received a fax from the applicant requesting a continuance as well as 90-day time extension.

Commissioner Cartwright asked if staff had taken the request for continuance and extension into consideration when making the recommendation for denial, and if the staff recommendation would be different because of the request.

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that staff had taken the request into consideration, however the recommendation of denial would not change.

Chairman Lyon moved to accept staff recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2002-03 thereby denying without prejudice Conditional Use Permit No. 226, Grading Permit No. 2296, and Environmental Assessment No. 742, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (7-0).


NEW BUSINESS



6. Issues to be discussed at the joint meeting with the City Council and Finance Advisory Committee concerning the Crestridge properties.

Chairman Lyon explained that the staff report outlined six proposed questions that the Planning Commission ask the City Council to include in a joint workshop. He felt that the process needed some organization and felt that there were three separate and distinct fundamental questions that should be addressed in this and perhaps subsequent workshops. He stated that the three different issues were: 1) what are acceptable uses of these properties, 2) what are the needs for senior citizen housing on the peninsula and what sites in the City can help accommodate that need, and 3) what sites in the City would be suitable for affordable housing. He then discussed the issues that would fall under each of the three questions. He suggested the Planning Commission propose to the City Council that the first question be addressed in the upcoming workshop, as he did not think there would be time to begin discussion on questions 2 and 3.

Commissioner Long felt that the discussion should include what are the needs for senior housing, what are the needs for affordable housing, how can they best be met, and if not with the Crestridge property then where. He felt that a bigger picture of where should senior housing be, where should affordable housing be, and where should parks be should be asked so that the inter-relationship of the questions could be understood and discussed.

Director/Secretary Rojas explained that at their next meeting the City Council would be discussing and defining the objectives of the joint meeting. He stated that this was an opportunity for the Planning Commission to give their input to the City Council. He noted that the joint meeting will focus on the needs of the Crestridge properties and that the City Council would also be discussing a General Plan update in the future that will address the bigger picture and look at the entire City.

Given that explanation, Commissioner Long agreed that the issues should be limited to the Crestridge property and agreed with Chairman Lyon’s approach.

Commissioner Mueller suggested that the list of proposed uses should include both a Senior Center and a Youth Recreational Facility.

The Commission agreed to revise staff’s proposed list of issues by condensing it into three main issues that should be addressed in sequential order at the workshop. The Commission also identified six specific sub-categories that should be discussed pertaining to the first issue.


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS



7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of April 9, 2002

Commissioner Long requested a discussion on the definitions of "building" and "story" and how to clarify the Development Code.


ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.



2. MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2002

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 9, 2002


CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.


FLAG SALUTE

Commissioner Lyon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.


ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners Cote, Long, Lyon, Tomblin, and Chairman Cartwright
Absent: Commissioners Duran Reed and Mueller were excused

Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Blumenthal, Assistant Planner Luckert, and Recording Secretary Peterson.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Without objection, the agenda was approved as presented.


COMMUNICATIONS

Director/Secretary Rojas distributed two items of communication relating to agenda item no. 5. He reported that he had received a message shortly before the meeting from Commissioner Mueller that he had e-mailed comments to him regarding the minutes of March 26.

Director/Secretary Rojas reported that at the City Council meeting of April 2, the City Council approved the Conditional Use Permit, with conditions, at 44 Oceanaire Drive. The City Council also discussed the General Plan update and decided to create a steering committee which will be made up of 15 individuals and will include two planning commissioners. The City Council also approved the agenda for the joint workshop of May 7.

Commissioner Tomblin asked if the City or County would, in the event that lots at Oceanfront Estates were sold to another developer, have to disclose any possibilities of future development on the lot adjoining Oceanfront.

Director/Secretary Rojas noted that there is currently no application submitted or pending for the adjoining lot. He stated that the City relies on the buying and selling parties to do the required due diligence and take the state mandated disclosure responsibilities seriously.

Chairman Cartwright agreed that it was the responsibility of the seller to disclose any possible development on the adjoining property.


1. Selection of a Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission

Chairman Cartwright explained that the Planning Commission needed to select a Vice Chairman that had a good understanding of procedures, the Development Code, and the General Plan. With that, he nominated Commissioner Long as Vice Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Lyon.

The Planning Commissioners unanimously selected Commissioner Long as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission.


CONSENT CALENDAR



2. Minutes of March 26, 2002

Chairman Cartwright began by stating he was uncomfortable approving the minutes without Commissioner Mueller present to review his suggested changes. He therefore suggested the Planning Commission make any changes they see necessary and continue the approval of the minutes to the next meeting.

Vice Chairman Long suggested staff incorporate Commissioner Mueller’s proposed changes into the minutes as well. The Commission agreed.

Commissioner Lyon noted a modification on page 12 of the minutes, as well as a typo on the same page. He also noted slight modifications to page 13 of the minutes.

Vice Chairman Long noted a clarification of the Director’s statements on pages 3 and 4 of the minutes. He also noted clarification to his statements on page 4. He noted a clarification on page 8 of the minutes as well as pages 9 and 11.

Commissioner Cote asked for a minor change to her statement on page 5 of the minutes.

Chairman Cartwright noted a clarification on page 9 of the minutes.

Chairman Cartwright stated that the minutes would be continued to the meeting of April 23.


PUBLIC HEARINGS

Chairman Cartwright noted that in the past roll call had been done alphabetically by Commissioners last name. He suggested that beginning tonight it rotate from meeting to meeting so that the same commissioner did not always have to be the first to vote. He felt this would particularly benefit the new commissioners and did not think there was anything in the Planning Commission rules and procedures prohibiting this. The Planning Commission agreed with the suggestion.


3. Height Variation NO. 941 and Grading Permit No. 228: 3261 Crownview Dr.

Vice Chairman Long moved to continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 2002, seconded by Commissioner Lyon. Approved, (5-0)


4. Height Variation (Case No. ZON2001-00015): 4155 Palos Verdes Drive South

Assistant Planner Luckert presented the staff report. He explained there were no significant view impairments cause by granting the application due to the varying pad elevations in the Seaview tract and the varying view corridors located directly above the proposed second story addition. He reported that staff believes the proposed structure is compatible with the immediate character and will not result in a structure that is out of scale with the neighborhood. He stated that all findings could be made and staff recommended approval of the height variation.

Vice Chairman Long stated that the only objection he had heard from the neighbors was that the new addition had a lot of windows facing one of the neighbors. He asked if staff knew what that privacy concern was and if it was appropriate for the windows to be opaque.

Assistant Planner Luckert answered that opaque windows was an option, however staff felt that since the proposed addition would be approximately 85 feet away from 4207 Palos Verdes Drive South the privacy issue was not significant.

Commissioner Tomblin asked about the boat and motor home parked on the lot and asked if it there was some kind of side yard fencing proposed next to the new garage.

Assistant Planner Luckert answered that there was no proposed fencing next to the driveway.

Chairman Cartwright asked if there was something in the Code regarding the parking of RV’s.

Director/Secretary Rojas responded that the Code allows the parking of RV’s on private property provided that it was on a legally paved surface, however there was no restrictions on location or height.

Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearing.

Joe Young 1617 S. Pacific Coast Hwy., Redondo Beach stated he was the architect for the project and distributed a rendering of the proposed project to the Planning Commission. He clarified that the windows in question are existing windows that will stay in place. He stated that there would be new windows on the second floor but did not think they created an issue with privacy.

Rod Lenders 4155 Palos Verdes Drive South stated that, concerning the boat and RV, there would be a concrete area created to park them and fencing around them. He added that the boat may or may not continue to stay on the property.

Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Lenders if he would be opposed to some sort of covered fencing that would block off the RV storage area.

Mr. Lenders stated that he would not be opposed to that, however he would have to see the design first. He added that he was currently planning to fence straight across along the same line as the garage, which would cover where the RV is usually parked.

Director/Secretary Rojas noted that the Code restricts the height of fencing to a maximum of 42 inches in the area between the property line and façade of the residence and stated that anything higher would require a Variance. He also noted that any additional paving would have to be considered in the lot coverage calculation. He suggested the Planning Commission direct the applicant to ensure the RV and/or boat is parked on a paved surface and direct the applicant to revise the plans to incorporate a paved surface, provided it does not exceed the lot coverage limits. He added that there was an item on the next City Council Agenda to discuss the RV parking requirements and whether or not to amend these requirements.

Vice Chairman Long felt it might be appropriate to require the applicant to comply with whatever the code would happen to be regarding the RV parking.

Commissioner Cote asked if the large windows shown on the Schooner Drive side of the house were proposed new windows.

Mr. Lenders stated that they were proposed windows.

Mr. Lenders distributed photographs from where the second story proposed windows would be, looking downward.

Brad Barez 4206 Admirable Drive stated he was across and up the street from the applicant’s home. He stated that the neighborhood was such that it was possible to look into different neighbor’s yards and homes if one chose to. He felt that this proposal was a benefit to the neighborhood.

Derek Classen 4120 Admirable Drive stated that if the proposed addition is built to the same height as the flags on the property, he had no objection. He noted that if it does go any higher then he would have an issue with view impairment.

Vice Chairman moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Tomblin did not think there was a privacy issue at the site, but did have a concern with the RV and boat and hoped that would be addressed.

Commissioner Lyon felt the application was reasonable, well done, and would represent an improvement in the neighborhood. He did not feel there was a privacy issue at the site and felt the Planning Commission should require the applicant to adhere to City Codes regarding the parking of RV’s and/or boats.

Commissioner Cote felt the applicant had done a good job in working with the neighbors to ensure that their views would not be impaired. She supported the proposed project.

Vice Chairman Long stated he always looks at height variation applications very cautiously and considers them to be one of the most important applications the Planning Commission considers. He stated that rules restricting height variations are one of, if not the most important vehicle by which the existing views are preserved in the City. In this application he felt all of the necessary findings could be made and felt that the proposed project would be a significant improvement for the house and the neighborhood at nobody else’s expense. He therefore recommended approval of the staff report.

Chairman Cartwright agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners. He noted that this was clearly a neighborhood in transition and was pleased that the applicant could present an application that would have little or no adverse impact on the neighborhood. He noted the concerns raised regarding the boat and RV and agreed with Commissioner Lyon that a condition should be included that the parking of the RV and boat adhere to the requirements in Development Code.

Director/Secretary Rojas suggested a condition that trailers, campers, boats, and any other mobile vehicles shall be stored in accordance with the applicable City codes. Secondly, to address the hardscape restriction, a condition could be added that driveways and parking areas shall not cover more than 50 percent of the required front or street side setback areas.

Vice Chairman Long suggested amending the first condition to say that trailers, campers, boats, and any other mobile vehicles shall be stored in accordance with applicable City codes as they now exist or may be amended from time to time. He felt this would make it clear that the Planning Commission was not grandfathering in the current condition.

Director/Secretary Rojas concurred with the amendment.

Commissioner Tomblin referred to condition no. 11 regarding the construction site being kept clean. He asked if that includes keeping the street clean and free of nails and debris.

Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the contractors are required to keep the construction site clean and the building inspectors do write correction notices when they feel a site is not kept clean and free of debris.

Vice Chairman Long suggested modifying condition no. 11, as well as the general condition, that the construction site and adjoining public property shall be kept clean.

Commissioner Lyon moved to accept the staff recommendations to approve the height variation, with the conditions outlined by the Director regarding storage of the vehicles and the hardscape and the modification of the condition regarding clean construction sites, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 2002-04, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (5-0).


RECESS AND RECONVENE

At 8:20 p.m. the Commission to a short recess until 8:30 p.m. at which time they reconvened.


PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont)



5. Height Variation NO. 928, Variance No. 487, Minor Exception Permit No. 586, Grading Permit No. 2276, Site Plan Review No. 9127: 4206 Admirable Drive

Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report. He explained that during staff’s analysis of the project it was determined that 6 of the 9 required findings for the height variation could not be supported. The issues included view impacts from both 4140 and 4137 Admirable Drive with the proposal having a significant view impacts to 4137 Admirable Drive. Additionally, staff determined that the proposed two-story addition would impact privacy on the property at 4207 Palos Verdes Drive South. With respect to neighborhood compatibility, staff found that the proposed home is not compatible with the neighborhood regarding size, bulk, and mass. He stated that staff analysis of the Variance resulted in one of the required four findings being supported and noted that the other three findings could not be made. These three findings included how the variance is not needed to preserve a substantial property right, the variance could detrimentally impact other properties in the area, and granting the variance would be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. With respect to grading, staff analysis found that the proposed grading is not necessary for the permitted primary use of the property, the grading would impact the view of adjoining properties, and would not conform to standards for grading on slopes height of cut and fill and height of retaining walls. He explained that the required findings for the Minor Exception Permit could be supported to allow the covered porch within the front yard setback and to allow the 6-foot high fence in the street side setback. However, in staff’s opinion there are no practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or inconsistencies with the Development Code that would support the granting of the Minor Exception Permit for the room addition to be setback only 18 ½-feet from the front and to allow the increase in lot coverage. Finally, staff’s analysis of the one-story addition found that it does conform to the development code and the site plan review could be granted. Therefore, staff was recommended the Planning Commission deny the height variation, grading permit, variance, and portions of the minor exception permit, and recommend approval of the site plan review and portions of the minor exception permit, subject to the conditions of approval.

Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearing.

Russ Barto 3 Malaga Cove Plaza, PVE, stated he was the architect for the project. He stated that the crux of the project was the family room and garage addition. He gave a brief history of the project, noting that the property owner’s goals were to increase the size of their home and to construct a garage that they could park cars in. In doing so, they wanted to be respectful of other homes in the neighborhood, particularly in regards to views and privacy. He felt the view impact of the current project was isolated to one home. He disagreed with the staff report’s analysis that 40 percent of the view was taken from this home as the current view was already partially blocked by street trees. He also noted that the project will include removal of two trees from the applicant’s yard which will improve views for many neighbors. Regarding privacy, Mr. Barto stated that his client could currently look into the neighbor’s home from his backyard. He stated that there was vegetation in the backyard that cuts off sight lines in the backyard. He stated that the current plan would utilize the same type of vegetation screen.

Brad Barez 4206 Admirable Drive (applicant) explained that his current garage was completely unusable and, because of the slope, even a small car could not fit into the garage. He stated that his family was growing and he needed a larger home to accommodate the family. He noted a slope issue on the property where, when it rains, the slope area erodes into the garage and down the street. He stated that the proposed project would control that erosion and make sure that the slope does not erode into the street. He noted that he has one of the largest lots in the neighborhood, however can utilize less that 50 percent of the lot. The proposed plan will allow them to use 90 to 95 percent of the land on the property. He discussed privacy, and stated he would do whatever he could to make sure everyone’s privacy was respected. Finally, regarding view impairment, he explained that he has five large trees in his backyard and two would be removed which will open up a significant view for many of his neighbors.

Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Barez if he had discussed his plans with the neighbors and if there was anything more he could do to mitigate their concerns.

Mr. Barez answered that he had discussed and reviewed his plans with three immediate neighbors, and there was one neighbor that he was not able to talk to. He stated that the plans before the Commission were the result of modifications and alternatives discussed with the neighbors.

Derek Classen 4120 Admirable Drive felt the proposed structure would make a nice entrance house into the community and didn’t feel the size of the home was too large for the area and supported the project.

John Martin 4207 Admirable Drive stated that a number of years ago he had added a second story to his home to gain a view of the ocean and shoreline. Therefore, he was very sensitive to anything that would obstruct his view. He stated he had worked with the applicant and was very pleased that two of the trees would be removed, which would open up a tremendous amount of his view.

Ira Schey 4137 Admirable Drive stated that the view from his living room, which is his principal viewing area, would be obscured 40 percent by the proposed addition and would impact him tremendously.

Commissioner Lyon pointed out that the Development Code requires that, in making the findings, to consider a view exclusive of foliage. He stated that in looking at the view of the ocean it is not obstructed by houses. He stated that the view corridor is obstructed by the proposed addition by roughly 40 percent if the existence of trees is excluded.

Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Schey what type of modifications he would like to see to the proposed addition.

Mr. Schey answered that he would like to see the second story eliminated.

Joe Lindorfer 4207 Palos Verdes Drive South stated he had three major concerns regarding the project. The first concern was privacy as the plan showed a very large window on the second story facing his property. He distributed pictures to the Planning Commission showing the approximate location of the window and the various views from his bathrooms, bedroom, and spa in the backyard. His second concern was that, in contrast to what the City determined, he has a view up the hill and not out towards the ocean. The City claimed his view was from the living room, however he felt that his protected view should be from the kitchen and patio adjacent to the kitchen. He distributed pictures showing the views from his living room and kitchen. His third concern was that the structure was incompatible with the neighborhood as it appears to be twice as large as any other home in the neighborhood.

Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Lindorfer if he was the neighbor the applicant had stated he was not able to speak to regarding the proposed addition.

Mr. Lindorfer stated he was that neighbor.

Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Lindorfer if he had spoken to his neighbor, would he have had any suggestions for him on how he might be able to expand his home and still consider some of his concerns.

Mr. Lindorfer answered that he did not know of any modifications that would protect and address his concerns, other than remove the second story addition.

Chairman Cartwright asked staff to clarify where the primary view was from Mr. Lindorfer’s home.

Associate Planner Blumenthal responded that in processing the application, staff determined the primary view would be toward the ocean.

Vice Chairman Long asked if hillsides were defined as views in the Ordinance.

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that developable land was not a protected view, so if the hillside was developable the view was not protected. However, if the land were considered a natural setting, the view was protected.

Vice Chairman Long asked if the hillside that would be blocked was developable land.

Director/Secretary Rojas responded that staff determined that the hillside that would be blocked consisted primarily of property in the City of Rolling Hills that had been developed.

Commissioner Lyon felt that the view was of houses at the top of the hill in Rolling Hills and the hillside that comes down towards Seaview which is either in or very close to the Portuguese Bend slide area. He therefore felt that part of the view was of property that was not developable because it is an unstable hillside. Secondly, he stated that a primary view was one which the applicant and the staff agree is the best view from the property.

Director/Secretary Rojas agreed with the comment about the primary view, however noted that according to the Code, when there is disagreement the City view prevails.

Vice Chairman Long asked if a chunk of the hillside view is part of the slide area or land that is not developable.

Director/Secretary Rojas responded that it appears that a majority of the view is of developable land in Rolling Hills, however there appears to be portions of visible land below the homes which is the City’s Forrestal property which he would consider a natural setting and not developable.

Milton Rosen 4140 Admirable Drive stated he lived directly across the street from the applicant. He disagreed with staff’s comment that the view impairment from his house was not significant and stated that any impairment of his view was significant. He stated that he agrees with the staff report that the height variation be denied. He was willing to meet with Mr. Barez to discuss a compromise and felt the rear of the house may not have to be lowered very much to satisfy his objections.

Mr. Barto (in rebuttal) stated that he had not discussed any alternatives in terms of view impairments and approached the design by trying to keep the ridgelines at or about where they currently area that would minimize the view impact. He felt that mitigating some of the view problems may create other view problem because the center section of the home would have to be made larger and would raise the ridgeline, perhaps causing problems with other neighbors.

Commissioner Lyon asked if there was a way, architecturally, to lower the new garage and family room above it. He felt lowering it would help the view situation and help the slope drainage.

Mr. Barto responded that it was something that could be considered.

Commissioner Lyon felt the extreme slope might be eliminated by leveling the dirt off and diminishing the slope against the garage.

Mr. Barto felt that might also be a possibility.

Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Barto if he and the applicant would be willing to meet with the neighbors to better understand their concerns and there may be ways to lower the ridgeline.

Mr. Barto resounded that he would be willing to meet with the neighbors, but did not think there was any point in looking at lowering the ridgeline if there was no chance of the Variance being approved in order to construct the garage where they want to build it.

Vice Chairman Long stated that the Planning Commissioners could not presume to tell the applicant that the Variance might be approved given the submission of a different design. He could say that right now it would be very difficult to approve as it was at the margin in a number of areas, and that the prospects of approval may be greatly enhanced by taking some more time to refine the existing application. He therefore asked the applicant if he would be willing to permit the Commission to have more time to make a decision on these permit applications by continuing the hearing and during the time of the continuance consider revisions to the application based upon the Commission’s comments.

Mr. Barez responded that he did not want to be denied on the basis of a single meeting and appreciated the suggestion. He stated he was willing to meet with the neighbors but felt it would be very difficult to meet with Mr. Schey at 4137 Admirable Drive and actually deciding what he would want for the house.

Vice Chairman Long clarified that, regarding the meetings with the neighbors, the Planning Commission was not saying that he would succeed and further he did not think the Planning Commission or the applicant should hypothesize now what the success or failure in the future may be. He explained that Mr. Barez has a staff report that outlines some difficulties and the viewpoint of the staff is not what the neighbors want Mr. Barez’s house to look like, but rather can the findings necessary to issue the permits be made. He stated that was the same issue that each of the Planning Commissioners have. Further, he would be hearing the concerns of each of the Planning Commissioners and the questions was whether the applicant wanted to take those concerns and address them. Regardless of what his neighbors do or do not do, the applicant can still address the facts.

Chairman Cartwright agreed with the Vice Chairman’s comments and added that if the applicant were willing to look at a continuance, the Planning Commissioners would try to discuss some things they would like to see addressed, which he realized may not be able to be accommodated.

Mr. Barez agreed to a continuance.

Commissioner Tomblin moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Long. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Cote was sensitive to the fact that the garage was not useable and the need to improve it. She was supportive of the continuance and to see what type of alternatives the applicant would present. She felt one item that should specifically be addressed was the privacy issues with respect to height and the proposed windows, as well as how far the addition could be brought back on the property. She also thought appropriate foliage could be addressed to help with the privacy issue. She felt the other issue that was fairly significant was the view impairment from the neighbor at 4137 Admirable Drive. Finally, she felt the overall neighborhood compatibility should continue to be considered.

Commissioner Tomblin felt the overall plan was too big for the lot. He was concerned with the privacy issue and felt there may be a way to keep the addition from going too far over the garage and lowering the ridgeline. He felt the window in the back was looking directly into the neighbors yard and felt there may be ways to address that issue.

Commissioner Lyon felt the staff report was a very good basis to begin dialogue with the neighbors and the staff may be able to facilitate the dialogue if necessary. He felt the staff report identified all of the significant issues, and would support a motion to continue the item to a date certain so that the project can be modified to alleviate the significant concerns of the neighbors.

Vice Chairman Long stated that all his issues had been covered in the remarks made by the Planning Commission, and he too supported a continuance of the project. He asked staff if an extension was needed from the applicant in accordance with the Permit Streamlining Act.

Director/Secretary Rojas responded that a 90-day extension would be needed from the applicant.

Chairman Cartwright echoed the comments of the Planning Commissioners and added that he would like to see the applicant spend a little time with the situation at 4137 Admirable Drive as well as 4207 Palos Verdes Drive South, in regards to privacy and view impairment.

Chairman Cartwright re-opened the public hearing.

Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Barez if he would be willing to give the City a 90-day extension on his application in order to allow the continuance of the project.

Mr. Barez stated that he would grant the 90-day extension. He was concerned, however that the project not take an additional 90 days and asked when it could again be heard by the Planning Commission.

Director/Secretary Rojas responded that it was usually up to the applicant as to how long they needed to complete their work, however he suggested continuing the item to the meeting of May 28.

After consulting with his architect, Mr. Barez suggested the first meeting in June, which staff agreed was open and available.

Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Long moved to continue the item to the meeting of June 11, 2002 so that the applicant can attempt to meet with the neighbors to try to alleviate as many concerns as possible and reasonable, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. The motion carried, (5-0).


NEW BUSINESS



6. Discussion of Development Code definitions of "building" and "story"

Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the discussion is how to clarify the definitions of "building" and "story". He stated that staff had identified two options for the Planning Commission’s review: 1) A code amendment to change the language of either of the definitions, or 2) An interpretation process to clarify the intent of the Code without having to go through the formal code amendment process that goes before the City Council.

Chairman Cartwright did not think it was necessary to go back to establish whether or not there was a concern, but rather how to go about dealing with the issue.

Commissioner Lyon felt that the simplest thing to do would be to implement an interpretation procedure that adds three words to the definition of "building" and say that mobile home, trailer, and carport are excluded.

Commissioner Cote was concerned with the issue of the second story above the carport and felt there was a parallel between an addition over a garage and an addition over a carport. She looked up the definitions of carport and garage and noted that the term "building" is used when talking about a private garage and when discussing carport it was only referred to as a structure. Therefore, she would prefer that they be treated similarly and that the term "building" could be added to the definition of carport.

Vice Chairman Long felt the definition, by implication, of building already includes carport. Therefore, he reaches the same conclusion as Commissioner Cote does since he concludes a carport is a building, he can conclude it can be treated the same way as a garage.

Commissioner Tomblin asked staff what they felt was the easiest way to solve the problem.

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the easiest way to solve this would be to make an interpretation that the carport shall be considered a building. He explained that once the interpretation is made it goes before the City Council and is published and if no one objects it becomes the official interpretation.

Chairman Cartwright asked what the interpretation would be if he had a raised deck that he wanted to build a structure over the top of.

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the addition above the raised deck would not be considered a second story, but if it were over 16 feet in height it would require a height variation.

Chairman Cartwright asked what needed to be done to include decks, which fit the parameters of carports, in the interpretation.

Director/Secretary Rojas felt that the definition of "story" would have to be better defined.

Chairman Cartwright stated that this may not be the time to try to define decks, but it would have to be addressed when discussing neighborhood compatibility and noted to staff that they would have to define deck at a future date.

Commissioner Cote moved to have staff return at the next meeting with an interpretation which clarifies that a carport is a building, seconded by Vice Chairman Long. Approved, (5-0).


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS

Chairman Cartwright suggested that if in reviewing a staff report a Commissioner sees omissions or has questions, or is looking for specific information, it would be advisable to call staff and ask questions. Secondly, explicit direction to the staff should come through the chairman or as a result of a consensus of the Planning Commission.

As a follow up to that, Vice Chairman Long felt it was important that if a fellow Commissioner seeks or wants information that is important to their decision, unless it will create an extraordinary burden on staff, the Planning Commission should support that request, regardless of their own personal assessment of the relevance of the request.

Commissioner Cote stated that she would not be at the next Planning Commission meeting and noted there was an item to select two Commissioners for the General Plan Steering Committee. She volunteered to be one of the members of the Steering Committee.

Director/Secretary Rojas suggested an item be added to the Agenda to discuss amendments to the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures. He noted that the City Attorney had clarified a change in the law regarding when Planning Commissioners have to recuse themselves from an application and the rules and policies have to be amended to reflect that law. The Commission agreed that it should be added to the next agenda.

Vice Chairman Long asked that at a future meeting staff present the institutional memory table to the Planning Commission that was discussed at past meetings.

Director/Secretary Rojas responded that he had been working on a format and would like to bring it to the Planning Commission on the May 14 Agenda.

Vice Chairman Long asked that at some time items be agendized to discuss the standards by which the City addresses infill developments and the Development Code’s method of controlling the density of development. He felt this should be discussed after hearing the report from the neighborhood compatibility sub-committee.


ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.


RECESS/COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) at APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M.:



CONTINUED BUSINESS: (NO ITEMS)







3. INTERPRETATION DETERMINATION TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF A "STORY" (JR)

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the proposed "Interpretation Determination" that is intended to clarify that habitable space built over a carport or open patio is considered a second story.

TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 23, 2002

SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION DETERMINATION TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF "STORY"

RECOMMENDATION

Review and discuss the proposed "Interpretation Determination" that is intended to clarify that habitable space built over a carport or open patio is considered a second story.

DISCUSSION

At the April 9, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare an "Interpretation Determination" to clarify that the definition of a "building" should include carports which can be used to support habitable space.

Staff believes that the intent of the Commission’s direction is to prevent situations where habitable space is built on top of a carport or an unenclosed covered patio that is within the maximum building height, but not considered to be a two-story structure, thereby avoiding the height variation application process. Staff believes that the best way to achieve this is to make the following formal interpretation of Development Code Section 17.96.1990 (the definition of "Story"):

For purposes of this definition, the "space in a building" shall include the space between the floor and the ceiling of a carport, covered patio or any other unenclosed structure that may be used as a gathering area.

Staff seeks Commission direction as to the proposed "Interpretation Determination". If acceptable to the Commission, Staff will formally prepare, notice and transmit the interpretation in accordance with the Development Code.


PUBLIC HEARINGS:



4. 6 MONTH REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 REVISION "A" (Peninsula Montessori School): 31100 Palos Verdes Drive West/Krikorian (AM)

Request: A request that the Planning Commission review the applicant’s compliance with the adopted Conditions of Approval for P.C. Resolution No. 2001-08 that permitted the operation of the Peninsula Montessori School at the Golden Cove Shopping Center.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine by Minute Order that the Peninsula Montessori School at the Golden Cove Shopping Center is operating in compliance with the conditions of approval of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-08.

MEMORANDUM

TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 23, 2002

SUBJECT: SIX MONTH REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 206 REVISION ‘A’ (PENINSULA MONTESSORI SCHOOL, 31100 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / KRIKORIAN)

Staff Coordinator:Ara Michael Mihranian, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Determine by Minute Order that the Peninsula Montessori School at the Golden Cove Shopping Center is operating in compliance with the Conditions of Approval of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-08.

BACKGROUND

On December 12, 2000, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Conditional Use Permit No. 221, et. al. to allow the construction of a new school building for the Peninsula Montessori School on vacant property located at 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West. Soon thereafter, while preparing the engineered plans for "plan check" submittal, the applicant, Claudia Krikorian, realized that the construction of the school building might not be completed in time for the 2001-2002 academic school year. Working under a critical time constraint, the applicant began considering the idea of locating the new school in the vacant grocery market building at the Golden Cove Shopping Center, which would only require minor improvements as opposed to new construction. As such, an application to occupy the vacant grocery market space was submitted to the Planning Department by the applicant. On April 24, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-08 approving, with conditions, Conditional Use Permit No. 206 Revision ‘A’, to allow the operation of the Peninsula Montessori School at the Golden Cove Shopping Center.

In order to ensure that the School would operate in compliance with the adopted conditions of approval, a condition was added that required a compliance review to be preformed six months after the Certificate of Occupancy was issued. The Peninsula Montessori School has been in operation at the Golden Cove Shopping Center since September 10, 2001, thereby triggering the required six month review. In accordance to the Development Code’s public noticing procedures, tonight’s meeting was duly noticed

to property owners within a 500 foot radius, interested parties, and published in the Peninsula News. In response to the public notice for the six month review, Staff received one letter from an interested party supporting the applicant’s school’s operation at the Golden Cove Shopping Center (see attachment). It should be noted that to date, City Staff is not aware of any written or verbal complaints from the public regarding the operation of the school.

DISCUSSION

The following discussion encompasses Staff’s assessment of the Peninsula Montessori School’s compliance with the approved Conditions of Approval. In accordance to the six month review condition, the Planning Commission may add, delete or modify any conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate based on an assessment of parking conditions, circulation patterns, lighting, and noise impacts, in addition to other concerns raised by the Commission and/or interested parties during the six month review. If necessary, the Planning Commission may impose more restrictive standards and conditions to mitigate any impacts resulting from the operation of the school.

Traffic

At the time the Planning Commission reviewed the Golden Cove Shopping Center’s renovation proposal, the applicant prepared a traffic study analyzing the potential impacts the shopping center may have on City streets at full occupancy. According to the applicant’s traffic study it was determined that the renovated and expanded shopping center (with new market) would not adversely impact traffic, and was subsequently approved by both the Traffic Committee and the Planning Commission in 1999.

As part of the Peninsula Montessori School applications, a revised traffic study that examined a school use in lieu of a market use was submitted to the City and subsequently reviewed and approved by both the Traffic Committee and the Planning Commission. During the Commission’s review of the School’s applications, a concern was raised that if the Peninsula Montessori School located to the shopping center and the entitlement for the vacant lot (31270 Palos Verdes Drive West) remained valid*, there was a potential for the operation of two schools within the same general location, thus creating a potential adverse impact to surrounding streets with increased vehicle trips. To address this, the Commission placed a condition on the approval for the Peninsula Montessori School at the Golden Cove Shopping Center, that provides the Commission with an opportunity to reassess traffic related impacts in the event a private school becomes operational at 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West. This condition remains in full force and effect as Condition No. 7 of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-08 (see attachment). To date, no plans have been submitted to the City for the construction of a school at 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West.

*The entitlements issued by the Planning Commission for the construction of a new school on vacant property located at 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West (immediately adjacent to the Golden Cove Shopping Center) remain valid until December 12, 2002. Said approval allows the operation of a School with 240 students (preschool through grade 6) and 26 staff members.

Notwithstanding, on numerous occasions Staff has observed the traffic conditions surrounding the Golden Cove Shopping Center since classes began in Fall 2001 and believes that the operation of the school does not adversely impact the flow of area traffic. Furthermore, the City has not received any complaints from surrounding neighbors regarding school related traffic movement. Therefore, Staff believes that the operation of the Peninsula Montessori School complies with the adopted conditions of approval relating to traffic.

On-site Circulation

When the operation of the Peninsula Montessori School at the Golden Cove Shopping Center was proposed, concerns were raised with regard to on-site vehicle movement and the safety of students/pedestrians. In order to address these concerns, the Traffic Committee reviewed the applicant’s proposal and recommended specific conditions to ensure public safety and adequate vehicle movement. These conditions were adopted by the Planning Commission as Conditions Nos. 17 – 23 of P.C. Resolution NO. 2001-08 (see attachment). According to Staff site visits, the school has implemented all of the required on-site conditions by posting precautionary and directional signs, painting directional arrows, red curbing the sidewalk in front of the school building, and clearly delineating the designated drop-off area.

With respect to the operation of the student drop-off and pick-up, Staff has observed the drop-off/pick-up activity and believes that such activity occurs in full compliance with the adopted conditions. The drop-off area is visibly identified with signs and directional arrows, as well as fully supervised by faculty/staff members during the designated drop-off and pick-up times. Furthermore, in order to prevent the queing of vehicles, the school implements staggered class times which results in staggered student drop-off and pick-up times. The use of staggered class times has mitigated potential impacts to the vehicle circulation of the shopping center as well as City streets because vehicles are not entering and exiting the center at the same time.

Furthermore, in accordance with the conditions of approval, an information sheet is provided to all parents and faculty/staff members regarding the required ingress and egress flow patterns, as approved by the Traffic Committee and the Planning Commission. Said informational sheet has been provided to Staff for City records and is attached to this report for review by the Commission (see attachment).

Parking

According to the Joint Use Parking Program approved for the shopping center’s renovation and expansion, the center (with market) would have had to maintain a minimum of 314 parking spaces. The applicant for the Montessori School submitted a revised Joint Use Parking Program addressing the parking condition of the center at full capacity with the use of the school instead of a market. According to the revised parking study, the new maximum peak demand is 265 parking spaces during the noon hour. The reduction in the center’s parking demand is directly related to the change of use from a market to a school. The center, with the associated school improvements, provides 290 parking spaces, resulting in a surplus of twenty-five (25) parking spaces. Although the Joint Use Parking Program was eventually approved, the Commission expressed a concern with the assumptions of the Joint Use Parking Program. As such, a condition was imposed that required further review by the Commission of the parking situation six (6) months after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by Building and Safety.

Based on numerous site visits, Staff believes that the parking demand for the school and the shopping center is being adequately met at this time. According to Staff’s site visits, it appears that the majority of the parking used by the school (faculty/staff members and parents) is concentrated in the center two aisles of the easterly portion of the parking lot, closest to the school building. Under this condition, parking for the remaining tenants is available in the areas directly adjacent to the Golden Lotus Restaurant, the existing two-story office building, and the westerly portion of the parking lot near Palos Verdes Drive West. It should be noted that although the parking condition appears adequate at this time, the potential still exists to have a deficient parking condition when the renovations for the center are completed and the center is fully occupied*. To address potential parking conditions, a condition adopted by the Planning Commission for the center’s renovation project requires a comprehensive review of the shopping center six months after the certificate of occupancy is issued for the combined improvements to the existing two-story building and the construction of the three new buildings along Palos Verdes Drive West. Therefore, Staff believes that this condition provides the Commission with a mechanism to assess future parking conditions.

*Construction plans for the renovation of the two-story building and the addition of the three new commercial buildings along Palos Verdes Drive West, as approved by the Planning Commission in 1999, are currently being reviewed by the Building and Safety Division. Staff believes that building may be issued within the next two to three months.

Noise

According to the adopted conditions of approval, no amplified sound, including but not limited to loud speakers and microphones, shall be permitted outside the school, including all outdoor areas. Staff has determined that the operation of the School complies with this condition in that no amplified sound is used by the School’s staff or faculty outside the school building.

In addition to the above, the condition pertaining to noise also indicates that for special events, temporary amplified sound may be permitted provided that the applicant obtains a Special Use Permit. To date, such a request has not been submitted by the School. However, it should be noted that in the event a Special Use Permit is requested by the applicant, Staff will consider potential noise impacts to surrounding neighbors when processing such an application.

Lighting

At the time the Planning Commission considered the applicant’s request, a concern was raised with regard to new exterior lighting and its potential to adversely impact neighboring properties. The regulation of exterior lighting was addressed by a condition related to the shopping center’s renovation project that regulates the placement and height of exterior lighting, as well as the type of lighting and wattage. As such, prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by Building and Safety for the school, Staff verified that the new exterior lighting for the school complied with the adopted conditions for the shopping center. It should be noted that the school requires less exterior lighting than the market would have, because the school does not typically operate during evening hours.

Enrollment

Pursuant to Condition No. 13 of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-08 (see attachment) the applicant submitted an enrollment report for the 2001-2002 academic year. According to the enrollment report, the school is currently operating at 301 students (preschool through Grade 6) and 38 faculty/staff members, which is 99 students less than the 400 maximum and 2 faculty/staff members less than the 40 maximum. Therefore, based on the above figures, the School is operating in compliance with the enrollment caps adopted by the Planning Commission.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Future Improvements

The applicant has recently expressed an interest to Staff in improving the School’s playground area. According to the applicant, the improvements to the grade school playground (immediately adjacent to the student drop-off) would include the removal of a portion of the asphalt for the placement of a grass lawn and the construction of a planter box along the wrought iron fence that abuts the student drop-off area. As for the preschool playground (located to the rear of the building), the applicant would like to construct a trellis or a similar structure that would provide shade for the children. Although no formal request has been submitted to the City, Staff considers the proposed future improvements to be minor in nature and believes that they would not adversely impact neighboring properties. As such, Staff believes that if such a request is formally submitted to the City, said improvements may be considered by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, in accordance with Condition of Approval No. 8 (see attachment).

31280 Palos Verdes Drive West

As previously stated, the applicant currently maintains entitlements to build another school on the nearby vacant property at 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West. Although, the applicant has expressed an interest in constructing another school at this location catering to children with special academic needs, these entitlements are due to expire on December 12, 2002. It should be noted that the original entitlements for this property were issued on December 12, 2000. However, a one-time, one-year time extension was granted by the Planning Commission on January 8, 2002, thereby extending the project entitlements until December 12, 2002. Pursuant to the Development Code, no further time extensions may be granted for these entitlements. Any development applications proposed to the City after the expiration date will require new entitlements, subject to review by the Planning Commission and the preparation of new environmental documents. To date, plans have not been submitted to Building and Safety for the construction of another school at this site.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that the Peninsula Montessori School is currently operating in compliance with the adopted conditions of approval for P.C. Resolution No. 2001-08.

ALTERNATIVES

The following alternative is available for the Planning Commission’s consideration in addition to Staff’s recommendation:

  1. The Commission may opt to extend the review period to address specific concerns at a future duly noticed public hearing.
  2. Add, delete, or modify any of the Conditions of Approval and continue this item to a date certain to consider a revised Resolution.

ATTACHMENTS

  • Conditions of Approval (P.C. Resolution No. 2001-08)
  • Vehicle information handout
  • Public Comment

NEW BUSINESS:



5. SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2002-00054): 5618 Sunmist Drive/ Joe (BY)

Request: A request by the applicant to modify an existing flat roof to a gable roof, at a maximum height of 24’-0", as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade to the highest ridgeline elevation and 19’-6", as measured from the highest ridgeline to the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure. Additionally, the application is to allow a 179 square foot addition located to the rear of the existing residence, at a height of 19’-6", as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade to the highest point in the addition and 15’-0", as measured from the highest point in the addition to the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant’s request to modify an existing flat roof to a gable roof, and to construct a 179 square foot addition located at the rear of the existing residence, via Minute Order.

MEMORANDUM

TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:APRIL 23, 2002

SUBJECT:SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2002-00054)

(5618 SUNMIST DRIVE; APPLICANT: MR. DER JOE)

Staff Coordinator: Beilin Yu, Assistant Planner

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the applicant’s request to modify an existing flat roof to a gable roof, and to construct a 179 square foot addition located at the rear of the existing residence, via Minute Order.

BACKGROUND

On January 29, 2002 the subject application, Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2002-00054), was submitted to the Planning Department by the property owner. The application is a request to allow the modification of an existing flat roof to a gable roof, and to construct a 179 square foot addition located at the rear of the existing residence. After reviewing the initial application, Staff deemed the project incomplete on February 25, 2002. On March 4, 2002 additional information was submitted to the Planning Department, and Staff deemed the project complete for processing on March 25, 2002.

On April 4, 2002 the required public notice was mailed to adjacent property owners from the subject property informing them of the proposed project and inviting any public comments. It should be noted that a notice was not published in the Peninsula News since the project does not require a public hearing and is agendized as a New Business item. As of the date this report was completed, Staff had received no written comments regarding this application. Pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, a decision must be made by May 23, 2002, which is sixty days from the date of completeness.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject property is an interior lot located on Sunmist Drive, in an area designated by the City’s Zoning Map as a RS-4 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district. The subject property is surrounded by developed single-family residential lots to the north, south, and west, and by a multi-family residential development to the east. The street of access gradually slopes up from south to north, as such the neighboring properties to the immediate north and west are at a slightly higher elevation than the subject property, whereas the properties to the south and east are at a slightly lower elevation than the subject property.

The subject lot was recorded as Lot 395 of Tract Map No. 27789. According to City records, the subject lot is improved with a split-level, 2,400 square foot (garage included), single-family residence, on an approximately 9,300 square foot lot. The existing residence is approximately 18’-0" in height, as measured from the lowest existing grade elevation covered by structure to the top of the highest existing roof ridgeline, and 13’-6", as measured from the point where lowest foundation meets finished grade.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project consists of the modification of an existing flat roof to a gable roof, at a maximum height of 24’-0", as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade to the highest ridgeline elevation and 19’-6", as measured from the highest ridgeline to the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure. Additionally, the application is to allow a 179 square foot addition located to the rear of the existing residence, at a height of 19’-6", as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade to the highest point in the addition and 15’-0", as measured from the highest point in the addition to the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure.

Since the RS-2 zoning districts limits the "by right" height limit to sixteen (16) feet, as measured from the highest elevation of existing building pad covered by structure, and twenty (20) feet, as measured from the point where lowest foundation meets finished grade, the new roof design, which exceeds these standards, requires discretionary review. Pursuant to Section 17.48.050(B) of the City’s Development Code, architectural features, such as the proposed roof, exceeding the 16’/20’ height limit may be reviewed by the Planning Commission through a Site Plan Review application.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has determined this project to be categorically exempt under Class 1, Additions to Existing Structures; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Class 1 exempts projects consisting of alterations to the existing structure or topography that involve no significant expansion or use beyond that previously existing from the preparation of environmental documents. Since the site is developed with a single-family residence and the proposed project consists of a design modification to an existing roof, Staff has determined that the proposed project qualifies as a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA.

CODE CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS

According to the Development Code, architectural features shall include, but not be limited to, cornices, belt courses, garden windows and eaves. Since the proposed project is a roof design modification, and no modification is proposed to the second story footprint of the existing house, Staff believes it meets the Code’s definition of an architectural feature. Pursuant to Section 17.48.050(B) of the Development Code, roof mounted equipment and/or architectural features, such as the proposed roof design, may be permitted to exceed the "by right" height criteria with a Site Plan Review application, provided that the Planning Commission makes the following two findings:

  1. That the roof mounted equipment and/or architectural features may be erected above the height limits pursuant to the requirements of the Building Code.

According to the RS-2 Residential Development Standards, the proposed gable roof complies with all of the required zoning criteria, except for the height requirement. According to the architectural plans submitted to the Planning Department, the gable roof will be constructed at a height of 24’-0", as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade to the highest ridgeline elevation and 19’-6", as measured from the highest ridgeline to the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure. The proposed gable roof exceeds the "by right" height requirement by 4’-0", when measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade, and 3’-6", when measured from the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure.

If approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant must obtain building permits from the Division of Building and Safety through the plan check process. As part of the plan check process, the new gable roof will be reviewed for conformance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.), adopted by the City Council. The applicant will be required to submit engineered plans to the Division of Building and Safety, indicating how the roof will be constructed. Therefore, Staff believes that this finding can be made.

  1. That the roof mounted equipment and/or architectural features will not cause significant view impairment from adjacent properties.

Staff has analyzed the proposed project, as it relates to the surrounding neighborhood, and determined that the proposed gable roof, at a height of 24’-0", will not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. As stated in the site description section above, the subject property is surrounded by developed single-family residential lots to the north, south, and west, and by a multi-family residential development to the east. In addition, the neighboring properties to the immediate north and west are at a relatively higher elevation to the subject property.

The residential structures within the immediate vicinity located on Sunmist Drive are constructed on pad lots at slightly higher elevations than the proposed project’s lot. The majority of the homes within the surrounding neighborhood are two stories or split level homes, with the primary "viewing areas" located on the lower level. Since the building pads are graded so that they gradually increase in height from south to north, the primary living spaces, which are located on the lower level, are currently impaired by the adjacent homes at the lower elevation. As such, any views from the viewing area of the neighboring properties through the subject property are currently impaired by the existing structure.

Based on the above analysis, Staff determined that the proposed roof modification will not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The applicant is also requesting approval of a 179 square foot addition located to the rear of the existing residence, at a height of 19’-6", as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade to the highest point in the addition and 15’-0", as measured from the highest point in the addition to the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure. Staff reviewed the proposed addition for compliance with the RS-4 Residential Development Standards as shown in the table below.

Table 1

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

REQUIREMENT

EXISTING

PROPOSED

Front Yard Setback

20’-0"

15’-0"

15’-0"

Rear Yard Setback

15’-0"

37’-0"

37’-0"

Side Yard Setback (North)

5’-0"

18’-0"

18’-0"

Max. Lot Coverage

50%

31.6%

33.5%

Building Height

16’-0"/20’-0"

11’-0"/15’-6"

15’-0"/19’-6"

According to the above table, the existing structure complies with all the setback requirements, and the proposed addition fully complies with the RS-4 development standards.

In regards to lot coverage, according to the applicant, the existing residence’s footprint is 2,327 square feet (including garage), the entry porch is 178 square feet, and the detached storage shed is 105 square feet for a total footprint of 2,610 square feet. The existing driveway and outside parking area is 330 square feet, for an existing total lot coverage calculation of 2,940 square feet, which is 31.6% of the 9,300 square foot lot. The proposed addition results in an additional 179 square feet of lot coverage, for a proposed total of 3,119 square feet of lot coverage, which is 33.5% of the lot area. The maximum lot coverage allowed for properties located in the RS-4 zone is 50%, therefore the proposed structure will comply with the lot coverage requirement.

As mentioned in the project description above, the proposed addition will be constructed at a maximum height of 19’-6", as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade to the highest point in the addition and 15’-0", as measured from the highest point in the addition to the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure. As such Staff determined that the proposed addition will be constructed in accordance with the residential development guidelines of the City's Municipal Code.

On April 4, 2002 the required public notice was mailed to adjacent property owners from the subject property informing them of the proposed project and inviting any public comments. As of the date this report was completed, Staff had received no written comments regarding this application.

Staff conducted a site visit and a foliage analysis for the proposed project. According to Staff, it has been determined that the subject property does not contain any mature foliage that exceeds sixteen (16) feet in height or the highest roof ridgeline that significantly impairs protected views from neighboring properties. Therefore, no foliage on the subject property shall be trimmed or removed under this application.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above discussion, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve, with conditions, Site Plan Review (Case No. No. ZON2002-00054), allowing the modification of an existing flat roof to a gable roof, and the construction of a 179 square foot addition to the rear of the existing residence, via Minute Order.

ATTACHMENTS

  • Conditions of Approval
  • Site and Architectural Plans



6. SELECTION OF TWO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE: (GP)

Request: A request of the City Council that the Planning Commission select two members to participate on the City Council appointed General Plan Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will be a 15-member committee comprised of representatives from various City advisory Committees and Commissions as well as representatives from various organizations on the Peninsula.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission select two members of the Planning Commission to participate on the General Plan Update Steering Committee.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning commission

FROM: Director of Planning, Building and Code enforcement

DATE: April 23, 2002

SUBJECT: Participation on the General Plan Update Steering Committee

Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Deputy Planning Director

RECOMMENDATION

Select two members of the Planning Commission to participate on the General Plan Update Steering Committee.

BACKGROUND

At its January 12, 2002 meeting, the City Council discussed master plan issues and specifically focused upon the City's General Plan. The City Council acknowledged that portions of the General Plan need updating and directed Staff to take the initial steps to assist the City Council in determining the direction and extent of the update. The City Council expressed that a thorough review of the goals and policies is a necessary first step, and that this would help to define the direction and extent of future updating work to be conducted by the Council, Staff and the community. A copy of the General Plan goals and policies, as adopted in 1975, is attached to this report. Further, the City Council expressed the importance of including public input, encouraging the use of local talent within the community, and forming a community-wide task force to assist in the preparation of the update.

On March 9, 2002, Staff presented a report to the City Council identifying a recommended process for initiating the General Plan update. At the meeting, the City Council agreed that a "Steering Committee" should be formed to review the goals and policies, define a process for obtaining public input, and make recommendations to the City Council. At the March 9th meeting, the Council directed Staff to further define the potential members and objectives of the Committee.

As shown in the attached table, on April 2, 2002, the City Council determined what Commissions, Committees and Organizations within the community should be represented on the General Plan Steering Committee. As shown, of the fifteen Committee members, the Planning Commission shall have two representatives. Additionally, the Council decided that one of the Planning Commission representatives shall act as chairman of the Committee.

DISCUSSION

As noted above and described in the attached table, the General Plan Update Steering Committee will be composed of 15 different members representing a good cross-section of the community.

The objective of the Steering Committee will be to review the General Plan Goals and Policies and to provide recommendations to the City Council as to which goals and policies should be maintained, deleted or modified. As discussed at the March 9, 2002 City Council meeting, the Steering Committee will also consider input from "grass-roots" citizen committees, which will be formed by residents to provide more raw citizen participation into the process. Additionally, Staff believes that by reviewing the goals and policies the Steering Committee would also be able to affirm the specific technical areas identified by Staff that need to be adjusted and/or updated in the General Plan, what portions Staff will be able to complete, and what portions a Consultant will need to complete.

The Steering Committee will be responsible for reporting back to the City Council as to which Goals and Policies need to be eliminated, revised or maintained, and if any new Goals and Policies should be proposed, and what technical areas need updating.

Although it is ultimately up to the Steering Committee to decide, Staff believes that the Committee meetings will a) be held on a regular basis (once or twice a month), b) be properly noticed to the general public, c) have a specific agenda format for each meeting, and d) be chaired by a selected Chairman and Vice-Chairman. It is estimated that the Committee will take approximately 4 to 6 months to complete their work.

As noted above, a copy of the General Plan goals and policies, as adopted in 1975, is attached to this report. As the Steering Committee progresses through its review of the goals and policies, Staff will be posting the Committee's progress on reviewing the goals and policies on the City's website so that the public can follow the progress.

CONCLUSION

Based on the preceding discussion, and as directed by the City Council, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission elect two Planning Commissioners to participate on the General Plan Update Steering Committee. Once all of the members have been selected, and the City Council is informed of the members, a first meeting date will be coordinated. Staff expects the first meeting to occur sometime in the month of May.

ATTACHMENTS:

Table noting participants of the Steering Committee
General Plan Goals and Policies (as approved 1975)


General Plan Steering Committee Representation List
As approved by the City Council on April 2, 2002

Number of Members

Commission/Committee/Organization

2

City's Planning Commission

1

City's Recreation and Parks Committee

1

City's Finance Advisory Committee

1

City's Traffic Committee

1

City's Equestrian Committee

1

City's Disaster Preparedness Committee

1

Council of Homeowner's Association

1

Council of Homeowner's Association (Eastview)

1

Peninsula Seniors

1

Peninsula Youth Recreation League Council

1

Docents

1

School District

1

Chamber of Commerce

1

Palos Verdes Land Conservancy

 


City of Rancho Palos Verdes
General Plan
Goals and Policies
(Adopted June 26, 1975)

Natural Environment Element

Goal:

A. It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to conserve, protect, and enhance its natural resources, beauty, and open space for the benefit and enjoyment of its residents and the residents of the entire region. Future development shall recognize the sensitivity of the natural environmental and be accomplished in such a manner as to maximize the protection of it.

Policies for Public Health/Safety Related to the Natural Environment (G.P. pages 44-45):

1. Permit development within the Sea Cliff Erosion Area (RM1), only if demonstrated through detailed geologic analysis, that the design and setbacks are adequate to insure public safety and to maintain physical, biologic, and scenic resources. Due to the sensitive nature of RM 1, this area is included as an integral part of a Specific Plan District and should be more fully defined.

2. Allow only low intensity activities within Resource Management Districts of extreme slopes (RM 2).

3. Require any development within the Resource Management Districts of high slopes (RM 3) and old landslide area (RM 5) to perform at least one, and preferably two, independent engineering studies concerning the geotechnical, soils, and other stability factors (including seismic considerations) affecting the site.

4. Allow no further development involving any human occupancy within the active landslide area (RM 4)

5. Develop, as a part of any specific area planning study, a more detailed definition of the limits and composition of any RMD’s related to Health and Safety with particular reference to the active/old landslide areas, the sea cliff erosion setback, and critical extreme slope areas.

6. Develop and enforce a grading ordinance with detailed controls and performance standards to insure both engineering standards and the appropriate topographic treatment of slopes based upon recognized site planning and landscape architecture standards.

7. Prohibit activities that create excessive silt, pollutant runoff, increase canyon wall erosion, or potential for landslide, within Resource Management Districts containing Hydrologic Factors (RM 6).

8. Encourage establishment of the rocky inter-tidal areas as a marine reserve and strict enforcement be applied to all regulations concerning marine resources (Resource Management Districts containing Marine Resources RM 7).

9. Encourage developments within or adjacent to wildlife habitats (RM 8) to describe the nature of the impact upon the wildlife habitat and provide mitigation measures to fully offset the impact.

10. Encourage developments within Resource Management Districts containing Natural Vegetation (RM 9) to re-vegetate with native material wherever clearing of vegetation is required.

11. Stringently regulate irrigation, natural drainage, and other water-related considerations, in both new development and existing uses affecting existing or potential slide areas.

12. Provide incentives to enable unique and innovative development exceptions in areas otherwise precluding development for health and safety reasons, if the development can establish its engineering feasibility beyond a reasonable doubt, and is otherwise compatible with the intent of the General and Specific Plans for the area.

13. Provide a listing of toxic chemicals used as fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides which are determined to be damaging to the environment, with particular concern for the marine environment, at current use levels within the City (based upon water sampling, etc.) to all potential major users in the City, with use criteria or prohibition clearly indicated.

14. Maintain the existing natural vegetation of the City in its natural state to the maximum extent possible in all existing and proposed developments, to the extent commensurate with good fire protection policies and encourage the re-establishment of appropriate native plants.

15. Require a master landscape plan for any proposed development showing the retention/enhancement of natural vegetation proposed, new complementing vegetation, and all efforts involving retention/enhancement/protection of hydrologic factors, vegetation and wildlife factors.

16. Require all projects with any natural resource management district factors falling within their project boundaries to deal with these areas in detail in an Environmental Impact Report.

Overall Policies (G.P. page 45):

1. Develop a resource management ordinance to accompany the zoning ordinance, grading ordinance, and any other regulatory vehicles.

2. Develop a specific set of planning and design criteria for natural environment considerations with new development, and in upgrading existing areas for use by architects, planners, engineers, and others in a handbook/checklist form.

3. Develop and integrate a specific review process covering the natural environment aspects of any proposed development with the normal review processes associated with proposed development.

4. Consider in more detail natural environment factors in subsequent specific area studies as an integral part of these studies.

5. Consider the establishment of baseline data for air and water quality in order to develop standards for future enforcement of regulations specific to Rancho Palos Verdes.

6. Consider the acquisition of rights over the offshore tidelands area related to the City’s coastline.

7. Encourage study of and funding to preserve unusual flora and fauna.


Socio/Cultural Element

Goal:

A. It is the goal of the City to preserve and protect its cultural resources and to promote programs to meet the social needs of its citizens.

Cultural Resources

Goal:

A. The City shall strive to protect and preserve all significant archaeological, paleontological and historical resources within the City.

Policies (G.P. page 50):

1. Monitor the State’s activities for developments that could provide funds for the acquisition, preservation, and/or maintenance of historic places and archaeological sites.

2. Encourage the identification of archaeologically sensitive areas and sites.

3. Require all projects for new construction, subdivisions, conditional use permits, and variances that occur in archaeologically sensitive areas to have a special archaeological component in their Environmental Impact Reports.

4. Forward Environmental Impact Reports to the University of California at Los Angeles, the Society for California Archaeology’s (SCA) Clearinghouse for this area, and to California State College at Dominguez Hills.

5. Allow salvage excavation of the site where some technique of preservation cannot be implemented.

6.Actively press for the Point Vicente Lighthouse to be included in the National Register of Historic Places.

Current social, service, and cultural organizations

Goal:

A. Work toward a coordinated program to aid in matching the facility needs of the many and diverse groups in the community with existing and future facility resources throughout the City.

Policies (G.P. page 51):

1. Provide leadership in coordinating a cooperative approach to solving the need for community meetings, cultural events, and recreational facilities.

2. Plan for a large community meeting facility in its Civic Center.

3. Encourage the building of meeting facilities by private or nonprofit groups. Existing and new businesses, churches, utilities, etc., should be encouraged to allow some use of their facilities by community groups.

4. Encourage the building of playing fields for multiple uses by various recreational groups on City land, school sites, and private land, which has not yet been programmed for development.

Social Services

Goals:

A. Encourage programs for community involvement, participation, and action to minimize the sense of isolation and powerlessness felt by many individuals in the community.

B. Encourage programs for recreation, social services, and cultural and educational achievement.

C. Encourage a framework for interaction among the four cities of the peninsula and between the peninsula and its surrounding communities to solve common problems.

Policies (G.P. page 55):

1. Encourage the development and expansion of meaningful geographic groupings and sub community committees to act as a vehicle for improved communications with citizens, the City staff, and the City Council. Individuals should be encouraged to become involved in the community through interaction, communication and participation.

2. Act to enhance mobility within the neighborhood, mobility within the City, and on the Peninsula as a whole. Dependence solely upon the private automobile is not satisfactory.

3. Bring the residents’ needs into the City’s planning process and attempt to ensure that citizens and their skills are utilized.

4. Encourage all groups within the City to establish representation on the sub community committees and other civic action groups. Efforts should be made to ensure that no programs are developed that will isolate any group and particular emphasis should be given to those who suffer from isolation due to age, health, disability and race.

5. Encourage the use of town meetings and forums within neighborhoods and citywide to address a variety of issues and subjects of community interest. Facilities for such events should be provided where possible, and annual citywide events should be encouraged.

6. Develop an ongoing centralized civic information service of events, issues and services for the citizens. The City should encourage, through this service, the use of existing civic and private assistance organizations.

7. Encourage the development of job opportunities for youth within the City. The City should actively work toward providing meaningful opportunities for older citizens so that they will choose to remain in the community.

8. Develop recreational programs that will address the recreational needs of all citizens, both individually and in groups. This should include the development of a set of criteria, which will enable the City to project and evaluate the implications of its decisions as to the long-range effectiveness of these programs.

9. Identify, in partnership with other agencies and organizations, the major human services areas and the respective roles of each agency in the planning, administration and delivery of those services.

10. Establish, in partnership with other agencies and organizations, procedures for the better coordination of human services delivery. Specifically, the City should assume responsibility for acting as a clearinghouse for up-to-date information on the current state of human services.

11. Develop, in partnership with other agencies and organizations, mechanisms for the better coordination of human service planning efforts. Specifically, the City should assume responsibility for acting as a clearinghouse for information exchange relevant to human service planning activities throughout the community.

12. Place special emphasis on the cultural, educational, and recreational needs of individuals, families, and the community and encourage the expansion of existing programs in these areas.

13. Encourage the South Bay, Harbor, and Peninsula cities to share in the identification of common problems and work toward the development of solutions and services of benefit to each. This should include the encouragement of dialogue between the professional City employees of the four cities.

14. Take leadership in the formation of a four-city Peninsula commission dedicated to the expansion and strengthening of common Peninsula city bonds and which should further serve to develop an attitude of mutual respect among communities.


Urban Environment Element

Goal:

A. It is the goal of the City to carefully control and direct future growth towards making a positive contribution to all elements of the community. Growth in Rancho Palos Verdes should be a cautious, evolutionary process that follows a well-conceived set of general guidelines which respond to both holding capacity limitations for the region and environmental factors on the peninsula.

Activity Areas

Goals:

A. It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment; to enhance the visual char4acter and physical quality of existing neighborhoods; and to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the community.

B. The City shall discourage industrial and major commercial activities due to the terrain and environmental characteristics of the City. Commercial development shall be carefully and strictly controlled, and limited to consideration of convenience or neighborhood service facilities.

C. The City shall encourage the development of institutional facilities to serve the political, social, and cultural needs of its citizens.

D. The City shall endeavor to provide, develop, and maintain recreational facilities and programs of various types to provide a variety of activities for persons of all age groups and in all areas of the community.

E. Agricultural uses within the City shall be encouraged, since they are desirable for resource management and open space.

Compatibility of Adjacent Activity Areas to Rancho Palos Verdes

Policy (G.P. page 58):

1. Work in conjunction with neighboring cities when development plans are submitted to either this City or the other cities which generate impacts into other organizations.

Housing Activity

Policies (G.P. page 78):

1. Retain the present predominance of single-family residences found throughout the community, while continuing to maintain the existing variety of housing types.

2. Require all new housing developed to include suitable and adequate landscaping, open space, and other design amenities to meet the community standards of environmental quality.

3. Encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design.

4. Prepare development codes with quality standards, but flexible to new technology and techniques of building.

5. Support and assist in enforcement of "open housing" regulations to prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.

6. Cooperate with County, State, and Federal agencies, monitoring all housing programs offered, and studying their desirability for implementation in the City.

7. Cooperate with other governmental entities to explore the possibility of obtaining rent and purchase subsidies for low-income housing in the City and South Bay region.

8. Initiate strong code enforcement programs so that scattered housing problems are solved rapidly to prevent even small-area deterioration.

9. Discourage condominium conversion since this further limits the economic range of housing.

10. Require all developments that propose open space to be held in private ownership to provide legal guarantees to protect these areas from further development.

11. Control the alteration of natural terrain.

12. Encourage energy conservation in housing design.

13. Require proposals for development of areas which impact corridor related views to analyze the site conditions and address the preservation of such views.

14. Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents.

15. Enforce height controls to further lessen the possibility for view obstructions.

16. Require proposed housing to show how it ensures the existence of neighboring site privacy, while simultaneously providing privacy to the occupants of the proposed units.

17. Make an effort through zoning, cooperation with other governmental entities, and acquisition to preserve the rural and open character of the City.

18. Allow no further development involving any human occupancy within the active landslide area.

Commercial Activity

Policies (G.P. page 85):

1. Place commercial activities under the same building orientation controls as residential activities in regard to topographic and climatic design factors.

2. Require the commercial activity where a commercial area would be nonconforming with adjoining activities, to provide the necessary mitigating measures, including landscaping, etc.

3. Make special efforts to ensure safe conditions on ingress and egress routes to commercial areas for both pedestrians and vehicles.

4. Require that scenic view disruption by commercial activities be taken into account not only in the physical design of structures and signs, but also in night lighting of exterior grounds.

5. Require commercial sites to limit the exposure of parking and exterior service areas from the view of adjoining sites and circulation routes.

6. Study parking areas as to the degree of use for the total area. Where a portion of the parking area is determined to only serve short-term seasonal demands, alternative surface treatments such as grass should be employed.

7. Require adequate provisions be incorporated into commercial site design to reduce negative impacts on adjoining residential areas.

Institutional Activity (Public, Educational and Religious)

Policies:

1. Locate schools on or near major arterials or collectors, buffered from residential uses, and provide adequate parking and automobile access.

2. Make every effort to preserve the Coast Guard Station as a historical and cultural resource in the event that it is deactivated.

3. Continue to work closely with the School District in coordinating planning and programming.

4. Encourage implementation of plans for pedestrian and bicycling networks linking residential areas with schools for the safety of children.

5. Encourage additional institutions of higher learning and research, particularly those related to oceanography.

6. Review the location and site design of future institutional uses very carefully to ensure their compatibility with adjacent sites.

7. Encourage mitigation of the adverse aesthetic impact of the County communications tower, as changing technology and economics permit.

Recreational Activity

Policies (G.P. page 99):

1. Provide access to all public recreational land.

2. Continue to sponsor recreation programs within the City considering the diversity of needs.

3. Encourage local, public, non-profit recreation and cultural activities, which provide outlets for citizens on a non-discriminatory basis.

4. Establish ordinances to require builders and developers to provide lands and/or funds for acquisition and development of land for recreational use. These lands and/or funds shall be based on a standard of providing 4 acres of local parkland per 1000 population.

5. Seek County, State, and Federal funds or sharing funds to acquire lands.

6. Encourage landholders to contribute lands to the City for recreational use.

7. Work through the State and Federal government in support of legislation resulting in governmental acquisition of coastal land.

8. Encourage local citizens groups to participate in the planning, development, and maintenance of recreation facilities to the extent possible.

9. Engage in further study of recreational activities on a neighborhood level following the General Plan.

10. Investigate the interim use of vacant school sites for recreational use.

11. Encourage public use of institutional recreational facilities, where possible.

Agricultural Activity

Policies (G.P. page 100):

1. Encourage implementation techniques for preservation of agricultural activities.

2. Assist in the protection or conservation of agricultural sites.

3. Encourage continued operation of existing produce and flower stands, not necessarily in present locations and structural types, but in concept, related to local agricultural use.

4. Preserve flower farming wherever possible, in order to provide aesthetic appeal and visual accent.

Infrastructure

Goals:

A. It shall be a goal of the City to ensure adequate public utilities and communications services to al residents, while maintaining the quality of the environment.

B. It shall be a goal of the City to provide residents with a safe and efficient system of roads, trails and paths.

C. It shall be a goal of the City to encourage the increased mobility of residents through the development of an adequate public transportation system.

Resource System

Policies (G.P. page 107):

1. Cooperate with California Water Service Company and the Los Angeles County Fire Department to improve water service (pressure and flow) in areas of inadequate service.

2. Encourage the investigation and use of alternative water and energy sources.

3. Promote, practice and encourage workable energy conservation techniques.

Disposal/Recovery System

Policies (G.P. page 112):

1. Take an active interest in waste management and recycling programs and offer assistance to groups attempting to offer solutions to the problems of waste.

2. Require sanitary sewers in all major new developments.

3. Encourage the retention of all remaining natural watercourses in their natural state.

4. Require developers to install necessary flood control devices in order to mitigate downstream flood hazard induced by proposed upstream developments.

5. Require that all flood control/natural water source interfaces and systems be treated so that erosion will be held to a minimum.

6. Encourage the investigation of methods to reduce pollution impacts generated by development runoff.

7. Encourage the Sanitation District to upgrade all wastewater discharged from the Whites Point outfalls to a minimum of secondary treatment.

8. Require the installation of sewers in existing development if alternative sewerage systems endanger public health, safety and welfare.

Communication Systems

Policies (G.P. page 115):

1. Investigate the potential of cable communications systems as a source, which could disseminate information and issues to communities and/or the City as a whole.

2. Encourage the underground installation of cable communication network in all new developments.

Transportation Systems

Policies (G.P. page 137):

1. Design public access into residential areas to control non-local traffic.

2. Require any new developments with new streets to provide adequate right-of-way widths for possible future needs to provide for traffic patterns necessary to accommodate future growth needs.

3. Prohibit future residential developments from providing direct access (driveways) from individual units to arterials.

4. Encourage, together with other Peninsula cities, Southern California Rapid Transit District to improve public transportation on the Peninsula and to provide access to other destinations in the region.

5. Explore the establishment of an independent bus system or contract for service with an independent municipal transportation agency if RTD service remains unsatisfactory.

6. Design path and trail networks to reflect both a local and regional demand, while maintaining the unique character of the Peninsula.

7. Require, wherever practical, all path and trail networks to be in separate rights-of-way.

8. Coordinate and cooperate with adjacent cities, the County and other appropriate agencies and organizations in the development of path and trail networks is encouraged.

9. Prohibit motorized vehicles from using designated paths and trails, except in the case of emergency or maintenance vehicles.

10. Require that all new developments establish walkway, bikeway and equestrian systems where appropriate.

11. Further investigate possible funding sources for acquisition, development and maintenance of paths and trails.

12. Make use, where appropriate, of existing rights-of-way and easements.

13. Provide safety measures on paths and trails, particularly on bluffs and ridgelines, and include such measures as key design factors.

14. Encourage the R.T.D. to provide bike racks (or similar) on buses.

15. Encourage the establishment of a program designed to educate users and non-users of path and trail networks in terms of safety and courtesy.

16. Insure public access to the Rancho Palos Verdes shoreline.

17. Explore alternative methods of implementation for the stables proposed in this Plan.

18. Require adequate off-street parking for all existing and future development.

19. Investigate current and future parking characteristics and develop appropriate ordinances which regulate overnight street parking, parking of recreational vehicles, etc.

20. Require, wherever possible, pedestrian access to new developments for children to schools.

21. Require detailed analysis for all proposals to convert local public roads into private streets or retain new local roads as private property. Conditions for establishing private streets should include: (a) The road is a truly local road and is not needed as a thoroughfare in the collector and arterial road network, (b) An assessment district or a C.C.&R. district is established which will allow the district to levy taxes or legally enforceable assessments for road maintenance, (c) Provisions are made to guarantee the proper up-keep of the streets, (d) Dedication of non-vehicular easements may be required.

Infrastructure

Policies (G.P. page 138):

1. Explore the possibility of eliminating major or critical infrastructure facilities and networks that serve other parts of the City from landslide areas.

2. Prohibit the extension of any infrastructure component into any area known to be unstable or of major environmental significance.

3. Consider, at such time that a service or services do not adequately meet the needs of Rancho Palos Verdes, which utilities might better be a function of the City or other public agency.

4. Underground all new power lines and communications cables and implement programs to place existing lines and cables underground.

5. Continue to encourage the establishment of undergrounding assessment districts by homeowners, in areas of existing overhead lines.

6. Investigate funding sources to be used in local undergrounding programs for areas of existing overhead lines.

7. Allow new development to only occur where adequate infrastructure systems can reasonably be provided.

8. Require adequate landscaping or buffering techniques for all new and existing facilities and networks, in order to reduce the visual impact of many infrastructure facilities and networks.

Safety

Goals:

A. It shall be a goal of the City to provide for the protection of life and property from both natural and man-made hazards within the community.

B. It shall be a goal of the City to provide for the protection of the public through effective law enforcement and fire protection programs.

C. It shall be a goal of the City to develop and enforce health and sanitation, emergency communications, and disaster preparedness programs to ensure the overall health and safety of all residents.

D. It shall be a goal of the City to protect life and property and reduce adverse economic, environmental, and social impacts resulting from any geologic activity.

Policies (G.P. page 175):

1. Promote the education and awareness pertaining to all hazards, which affect Rancho Palos Verdes residents.

2. Adopt and enforce building codes, ordinances, and regulations which contain design and construction standards based upon specified levels of risk and hazard.

3. Encourage cooperation among adjacent communities to ensure back-up law enforcement assistance in emergency situations.

4. Cooperate with the fire protection agency and water company to ensure adequate water flow capabilities throughout all areas of the City.

5. Cooperate with the fire protection agency to determine the feasibility of utilizing the existing helicopter "pad" at the Nike Site for a water refueling location.

6. Develop stringent site design and maintenance criteria for areas of high fire hazard potential.

7. Implement reasonable house numbering and consistent street naming systems.

8. Coordinate with the Fire Department to determine the feasibility of providing emergency access to the end points of long cul-de-sacs (in excess of 700 ft.).

9. Ensure that services are provided to deal adequately with health and sanitation problems.

10. Ensure that local, County, State and Federal health, safety, and sanitation laws are enforced.

11. Ensure that adequate emergency treatment and transportation facilities are available to all areas of the City.

12. Promote development and maintenance of liaison with various levels of health, safety, and sanitation agencies.

13. Encourage the availability of paramedic rescue service.

14. Be prepared to implement contingency plans to cope with a major disaster.

15. Maintain liaison with other local, County, State and Federal disaster agencies.

16. Regulate the activities, types, kinds, and numbers of animals and balance the interest of animal owners and persons whose welfare is affected.

17. Ensure the protection of compatible levels of wild animal populations.

18. Encourage liaison of animal regulation activities with adjacent cities.

19. Give consideration to alternative animal control and enforcement methods and to facilitate for shelter, medical treatment, and training.

Sensory Environment

Goals:

A. It shall be the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes through proper land use planning and regulations, to provide for a quiet and serene residential community with a minimum of restriction on citizen activity.

B. Palos verdes peninsula is graced with views and vistas of the surrounding Los Angeles basin and coastal region. Because of its unique geographic form and coastal resources, these views and vistas are a significant resource to residents and to many visitors, as they provide a rare means of experiencing the beauty of the peninsula and the Los Angeles region. It is the responsibility of the City to preserve these views and vistas fro the public benefit and, where appropriate, the City should strive to enhance and restore these resources, the visual character of the City, and provide and maintain access for the benefit and enjoyment of the public.

Noise Aspects

Policies (G.P. page 187):

1. Mitigate impacts generated by steady State noise intrusion (e.g., land strip buffers, landscaping, site design).

2. Develop an ordinance to control noise.

3. Regulate land use so that there is a minimal degree of noise impact on adjacent land uses.

4. Contain through traffic to existing arterials and collectors so that local roads are not used as bypasses or short cuts so as to minimize noise.

5. Require residential uses in the 70 dB(A) location range to provide regulatory screening or some other noise-inhibiting agent to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance.

6. Control traffic flows of heavy construction vehicles en route to or from construction sites to minimize noise.

7. Maintain current and up-to-date information on noise control measures, on both fixed point and vehicular noise sources.

8. Require strict noise attenuation measures be taken in all multi-family residential units.

9. Coordinate with all public agencies, especially our adjoining neighbors, who might wish to enter into a joint effort to study and/or control noise emissions.

10. Review noise attenuation measures applicable to home, apartment, and office building construction, make appropriates proposals for the City zoning ordinance, and make appropriate recommendations for modifying the Los Angeles County Building Code.

11. Encourage the State and Federal governments to actively control and reduce vehicle noise emissions.

12. Encourage State law enforcement agencies such as the California Highway Patrol to vigorously enforce all laws that call for the control and/or reduction of noise emissions.

Visual Aspects

Policies (G.P. page 192):

1. Develop controls to preserve existing significant visual aspects from future disruption or degradation.

2. Enhance views and vistas where appropriate through various visual accents.

3. Preserve and enhance existing positive visual elements while restoring those, which are lacking in their present visual quality.

4. Make a further study on the visual character of neighborhoods following the General Plan in order to assess visual elements on an individual neighborhood basis.

5. Develop well-located vista points to provide off-road areas where views may be enjoyed. These should have safe ingress and egress and be adequately posted.

6. Develop and maintain, in conjunction with appropriate agencies, public access to paths and trail networks for the enjoyment of related views.

7. Require developers, as developments are proposed within areas which impact the visual character of a corridor, to address treatments to be incorporated into their projects, which enhance a corridor’s imagery.

8. Require developments within areas which will impact corridor-related views to fully analyze project impacts in relation to corridors in order to mitigate their impact.

9. Require developments which lie between natural areas to be maintained and viewing corridors to show how they intend to mitigate view disruption.

10. Develop a program for the restoration of existing areas, which negatively impact view corridors through the urban design element (e.g., landscaping and under grounding).


Land Use Plan

Goal:

A. It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to provide for land uses which will be sensitive to and enhance the natural environment and character of the community, supply appropriate facilities to serve residents and visitors, promote a range of housing types, promote fiscal balance, and protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.


Fiscal Element

Goals:

A. It shall be a goal of the City to hold the property tax to a minimum and to continually explore and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of alternate or new sources of revenue.

B. It shall be a goal of the City to explore cooperative financing strategies that might be undertaken in association with other jurisdictions.

C. It shall be a goal of the City to take maximum advantage of regulatory legislation to obtain contributions, dedications and reservations (i.e., easements).

D. It shall be a goal of the City to ascertain that all revenues generated by growth are sufficient to cover costs related to growth.

E. It shall be a goal of the City to thoroughly evaluate capital acquisition and operating expenditures and their impacts before implementation of programs.

Policies (G.P. page 241-242):

1. Consider the cost effectiveness and community benefits of all new major services and facilities.

2. Require that wherever appropriate, special benefit services be paid for by the users in the form of specified fees or taxes.

3. Work toward integration of common services among the four Peninsula cities for improved cost effectiveness.

4. Consider the financial impacts of City decisions on other jurisdictions serving our residents.

5. Encourage State legislative action to provide equitable distribution of tax revenues commensurate with the City’s responsibilities.

6. Obtain a fair share of revenues available from other government sources with due consideration being given to the impact on local control and obligations incurred.

7. Continually evaluate the merits of contracting for services versus in-house staffing.

8. Encourage private contributions and donations to the City as alternatives to public funding.

9. Assess current administrative and enforcement capabilities before imposing new regulations to insure that such new regulations can be effectively administered without undue costs.

10. Utilize regulatory methods in a fair and equitable manner to reduce public costs.

11. Consider the financial impact of City decisions as they affect costs other than taxes to our residents.

12. Finance recurring expenditures from recurring revenues.



7. AMENDMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES (JR)

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Revise Section 1.2 (Quorum) of the Planning Commission’s Rules and Procedures to incorporate recent changes in State law regarding eligibility of voting based on proximity to a subject application; and 2) Provide Staff with direction as to any other amendments to the Rules and Procedures.

TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: APRIL 23, 2002

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S RULES AND PROCEDURES

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Revise Section 1.2 (Quorum) of the Planning Commission’s Rules and Procedures to incorporate recent changes in State law regarding eligibility of voting based on proximity to a subject application; and 2) Provide Staff with direction as to any other amendments to the Rules and Procedures.

DISCUSSION

On January 1, 2002, a new State law went into effect regarding the voting eligibility of local officials on matters within a certain proximity of their residence. As a result, Section 1.2 of the Planning Commission’s Rules and Procedures needs to be amended to incorporate the new State law. Staff is currently working with the City Attorney on the new language and will present the new language at the meeting.

Attached for the Commission’s review is a copy of the Rules and Procedures that were adopted by the Planning Commission in 1997. The Commission may wish to take this opportunity to review the Rules and Procedures and direct Staff to make other amendments.


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:

Staff



8. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 14, 2002.

PLANNING COMMISSION
PRE-AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002


CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2002


CONTINUED BUSINESS:(NO ITEMS)



2. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 941 and GRADING PERMIT NO. 2286: 3261 Crownview Drive / Iskander (KF)

A request to allow the construction of a new, 3-story, 4,257-square-foot (including 917-square-foot garage) single-family residence, which is proposed to measure 3.00’ from the highest point of existing grade covered by the structure, and 26.00’ from the finished grade adjacent to the lowest foundation. The project also proposes 2,131 cubic yards of grading for the residence and driveway.


3. COASTAL PERMIT, VARIANCE, SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND HEIGHT VARIATION (CASE NO. ZON2001-00032): 120 Spindrift Lane / Maniscalco (BY)

A request to allow the construction of a new garage and a 526 square foot addition to an existing single family residence and the replacement of an existing carport with a new 480 square foot garage. The proposed addition is proposed to be located above the proposed garage, at a height of 18.08’, as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade (102.51’) to the top of the highest ridge (120.59’), and 11.27’, as measured from the highest elevation of the existing pad covered by structure (109.32’) to the highest ridge.


PUBLIC HEARINGS:



4.HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2002-00029): 6 Headland Drive / Shanazarian (DB)

A request to construct a 3,301 square foot addition to an existing 4,721 square foot single-family residential dwelling unit. The Height Variation and Site Plan Review are to allow the proposed addition that will measure 25.9’ from the lowest elevation where the finished grade is adjacent to the building foundation/slab (702.6’) to the highest roof ridgeline (728.5’), and 16.5’ from the highest elevation where the finished grade is adjacent to the building foundation/slab (712’) to the highest roof ridgeline. The Grading Permit is to allow for 447 cubic yards of cut and 310 cubic yards of fill, a total of 757 cubic yards of grading. The Minor Exception Permit is to allow 41% lot coverage (40% is maximum allowable) in the RS-2 zone.


5. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 899, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2151: 3787 Coolheights Drive / Nassari (AM)

A request to allow the construction of a new 5,409 square foot (garage included), two-story, single-family residence on an unimproved lot. The proposed residence will be constructed off the existing building pad at a height of 26’, as measured from the highest pre-construction grade elevation (752.00’) of the building pad, to the top of the highest roof ridgeline (778.00’) of the proposed structure. Additionally the applicants propose to conduct 819 cubic yards of associated grading (combined cut and fill calculations) and construct a new 6’ high combination fence/wall along the front property line with a Minor Exception Permit.


NEW BUSINESS:



6. INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY TABLE: City / (JR)

A review and discussion of the Institutional Memory Table prepared by Staff that is intended to provide a brief summary of Planning Commission decisions.

*Please note that that the actual Agenda may well expand, or possibly contract, based upon conditions (such as Continuances of public hearings, Withdrawals, etc.) prior to this meeting.

Date prepared: Thursday, April 18, 2002

Commission


ADJOURNMENT:

The next meeting is an adjourned meeting with the City Council and Finance Advisory Committee
is scheduled for Tuesday, May 7, 2002, 6:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.