03/13/2001 Planning Commission Minutes 03/13/2001, 2001, March, Planning, Commission, Minutes, Meeting, Chairman Lyon explained that RBF Consultants had been hired by the City to prepare the Draft EIR for the Long Point project and he felt this was a very objective document. He stated that the Planning Commission was very interested in the public’s input on the Draft EIR and reminded the audience that this meeting was intended to hear the merits of the Draft EIR and not the merits of the project. He noted that the merits of the project would be heard at a future meeting. Chairman Lyon briefly explained the format and procedure that was to be used at the meeting. He further explained that all comments, both verbal and written, would be included in the Final EIR The 03/13/2001 RPV Planning Commission Meeting Minutes




MARCH 13, 2001





The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.




Deputy Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Snow led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.




Present:          Commissioners Cartwright, Long, Mueller, Paulson, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Clark, and Chairman Lyon.


Absent:           None


Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Deputy Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Snow, Assistant City Attorney Robert Pittman, Glen Lajoie of RBF Consulting, Rita Garcia of RBF Consulting, and Recording Secretary Peterson.




Chairman Lyon suggested hearing Agenda Item No. 3 before Agenda Item No. 2.  The Commission agreed.




Director/Secretary Rojas stated that there were 30 items of late correspondence received after the noon Monday deadline, and asked the Commission if they would like the correspondence distributed.


The Commission requested distribution of the correspondence.


The Commissioners discussed several items of correspondence and e-mail received regarding Agenda Item No. 3 including e-mail and letters from Barbara Gleghorn of SOC 2 and a mailer from the applicant of the Long Point project.




1.                  Minutes of February 27, 2001


Chairman Lyon noted stated that there were minor typos on pages 4 and 6 that he would submit those to the recording secretary.


There being no objection, the minutes were approved as amended, (7-0).




3.         Long Point Resort- Draft Planning Commission processing schedule


Chairman Lyon reviewed the schedule for the Long Point project in the staff report.


Vice Chairman Clark noted that all meetings, including the scheduled site meeting, were public meetings.


Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.


Mike Mohler (Destination Development Corporation) 11777 San Vicente Blvd Los Angeles, stated he wanted to make it clear that he was able to appear every two weeks before the Planning Commission.  He expected some thorough questions, but he has worked very hard to get to this point and he encouraged the Planning Commission to consider adjourned meetings if necessary.  He stated that he would respond to any questions within a matter of days of being asked.  If he felt that the question or subject would take more time to answer he stated he would inform staff and the Commission immediately.


Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.


The Commission discussed the schedule and reviewed and filed the report.




2.         Long Point Resort, Draft Environmental Impact Report:  Destination Development Corporation (applicant), 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.


Chairman Lyon explained that RBF Consultants had been hired by the City to prepare the Draft EIR for the Long Point project and he felt this was a very objective document.  He stated that the Planning Commission was very interested in the public’s input on the Draft EIR and reminded the audience that this meeting was intended to hear the merits of the Draft EIR and not the merits of the project.  He noted that the merits of the project would be heard at a future meeting.  Chairman Lyon briefly explained the format and procedure that was to be used at the meeting.  He further explained that all comments, both verbal and written, would be included in the Final EIR.     


Director/Secretary Rojas reiterated that this meeting was not to hear the merits of the Long Point project, but to hear comments on the Draft EIR. 


Deputy Director Snow also stated that the purpose of the meeting was to take comments from the Planning Commission and the public and that the comments would be responded to in the Final EIR.  This Final EIR will be brought back to the Planning Commission for consideration. 


Glen Lajoie, with RBF Consulting, stated that he was the project manager for the Draft EIR. He began by reviewing the history of the preparation and publication of the Draft EIR.  He noted the public review period would continue until April 6, 2001 and that all comments and responses would be included in the Final EIR.  Mr. Lajoie described the Draft EIR and the 13 separate impact subsections contained therein.  He briefly reviewed and described each of 13 issue areas identified in the Draft EIR, as well as the project alternatives. 


Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Lajoie to explain how the consultants derived the alternatives to the proposed project that were included in the Draft EIR.


Mr. Lajoie stated that CEQA guidelines require “No Project” alternative evaluation with any EIR.  Additionally through the process of consultations with City staff and review of the applicant’s development package, including possible design modifications that the developer was considering, the other alternatives were identified and incorporated into the Draft EIR.  Through the consultation process of the Notice of Preparation further definition and decisions were made in terms of alternatives to be reviewed.  He stated that alternatives in the document were pursuant to CEQA guidelines. 


Vice Chairman Clark asked about the alternative that included the presumed use of Coast Guard property.


Deputy Director Snow responded that the City had previously tried to initiate a dialogue with the Coast Guard regarding the property.  No answers were forthcoming, however.  With respect to the incorporation as an alternative, he explained that there is no requirement for property owner authorization for inclusion as an alternative for environmental analysis and comparative purposes only.


Vice Chairman Clark asked why an alternative to move city hall was not considered.


Deputy Director Snow did not know why it was not considered and that the city hall parcel was not part of the project, but he felt it was an alternative that could be added and considered if the Commission directed.


Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the Coast Guard antennas on the property and would they be in the way of the proposed project.


Deputy Director Snow responded that they are Coast Guard antennas and it was staff’s understanding that they were still in use. 


Director/Secretary Rojas added that the issue of the antennas was one that the applicant had taken into account, knowing that they may have to design a golf course around the antennas.


Commissioner Long stated that the proposed mitigation discussed in the Draft EIR for the effect of cycling paths involved proposing joint use pedestrian and cycling paths along Palos Verdes Drive South.  He asked if any consideration had been given to the danger of having such joint use paths in the area, where in all likelihood the bicycles would be traveling at a high speed and pedestrians perhaps should not be on the same path.


Deputy Director Snow answered that that was something that could be looked in and responded to in the Final EIR.


Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.


Mike Mohler (applicant) 11777 San Vicente Blvd., Los Angeles, began by addressing the question of the antennas.  He stated that the antennas do not interfere with golf play, as the nearest one would be located behind one tee proposed at the City Hall site.  Mr. Mohler showed slides of the proposed project.  He explained that prior to the Draft EIR being developed many discussions with Villa Capri and St. Paul’s Lutheran Church had taken place.  He noted that there may have been a prior commitment, which Destination Development Corporation had not been aware of, that a driving range would not be installed adjacent to Villa Capri.  Therefore, Destination Development Corporation supported Draft EIR alternative No. 5, which located the practice facility on the resort hotel area.  Mr. Mohler discussed jurisdictional waters in the biology section of the Draft EIR.  He stated that a wetland delineation had been commissioned, and should wetlands be delineated they will be avoided in the plan.  Mr. Mohler discussed gnatcatchers on the city hall site and disputed the Draft EIR’s discussion on the potential impact on the gnatcatcher.  He disputed the discussion and encouraged the writers of the Draft EIR to take a hard look at how additional fragmentation was framed.  He felt the Ocean Trails project was an example of a golf course that was living in harmony with open space.  He asked how the City assisted the Ocean Trails development with the donation of lands to assist in outside mitigation.  Finally, Mr. Mohler requested that representatives of Long Point be allowed to participate in the upcoming tour of the upper Point Vicente area being given by SOC II on March 17, 2001.


Vice Chairman Clark noted that the SOC II meeting was an open meeting and the public was invited.


Commissioner Vannorsdall asked how the developer was planning to accomplish more natural habitat with less area to work with.


Mr. Mohler answered that there were many slope areas on the City site that could be filled in and revegetated with natural habitat.


Commissioner Cartwright discussed relocating the driving range to Long Point property and asked who made the previously discussed commitments to Villa Capri and St. Paul’s.


Mr. Mohler stated that St. Paul’s was most likely uninvolved in past discussions that had occurred at Villa Capri.  He stated the discussions were with York-Long Point Associates.


Commissioner Paulson asked if the maintenance building would also be relocated to Long Point property.


Mr. Mohler did not feel it was necessary to relocate the maintenance building as it would be located in an area that was not affecting Villa Capri or St. Paul’s.  He added that what would be relocated was the driving range, all of the practice facilities, and the cul-de-sac improvements.


Barbara Gleghorn (representing SOC II) 28850 Crestridge Road clarified that the SOC II walkabout was open to all members of the public and welcomed all who wished to attend, including representatives for the applicant. Ms. Gleghorn then presented an alternative concept for the improved care of the open public land, which had previously been presented to the City Council on January 16, 2001.  The plan called for the preservation of the open space surrounding the City Hall area, and other features.


Commissioner Paulson asked about differences in terminology used in letters and correspondence received by the City.  He asked about open space and open space with open access to the public.


Ms. Gleghorn stated her vision was that the use concept be turned over to the Recreation and Parks Department and the Planning Department so that maximum public input could be received and a decision be made on the particular points, or any of the points raised by SOC II.  She stated that this was the people’s park and they needed to have input.  However, the first and foremost requirement under the SOC II proposal was to protect the habitat and wildlife, yet with public access integrated.


Commissioner Long asked if she or SOC II noted specific areas where the Draft EIR needed to look more closely at the impact that the development would have on the City property.


Ms. Gleghorn answered that SOC II was quite concerned over some particulars of the project in the Daft EIR.  She stated that many speakers at the meeting tonight would be speaking to specific points in the Draft EIR, and that additional written comments would likely be forthcoming.


Chairman Lyon stated a submittal of a summary of concerns would be very helpful.


Vice Chairman Clark asked Ms. Gleghorn if she had any specific comments regarding the alternatives listed in the Draft EIR under Sections 7-8 and 7-9.


Ms. Gleghorn responded that she did not have any specific comments at this time.


Jim Knight (representing SOC II) 5 Cinnamon Lane completed the SOC II  presentation with slides showing SOC II’s concepts of an extension or enhancement of the Point Vicente Park that would make the area more accessible to the public.  He discussed the many benefits to the City that this plan would present.


Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Knight if he had taken an opportunity to look at the Point Vicente enhancement alternative in the Draft EIR and if he had was he in agreement with the impacts as described.


Mr. Knight answered that he had looked at it and did not feel that it flushed out all of the benefits available.


Commissioner Cartwright stated that the report characterizes 13 different impacts and asked Mr. Knight if he was in agreement that these were the impacts and did he have any further suggestions for the Draft EIR.


Mr. Knight stated that he did have comments but he would wait until his public comment section to address those issues.


Commissioner Long was interested as to what SOC II might see as possible areas for active recreation uses.


Mr. Knight answered that there is a large level section next to city hall and one to the east that would remain grassy areas for active recreational use.


Commissioner Mueller asked how the SOC II proposed trails network compared to that of the Long Point projects plan.


Mr. Knight stated that the SOC II proposal only addresses the upper portion of the overall site.  He stated that he has not seen in the Long Point proposal any handicap access.


Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Knight if he was against a general plan change to allow a more formalized active recreation.


Mr. Knight stated that the SOC II proposal was not changing any use of the park, only enhancing it.


Commissioner Paulson stated that he interpreted Section 7.9 of the Draft EIR to say that if the SOC II alternative were adopted then the entire development would not take place.


 Rita Garcia of RBF Consulting answered that a combination of alternatives would result, and that further clarification of this possibility will be incorporated into the Final EIR. 


Commissioner Long stated that he would be interested in seeing the EIR incorporate the impact of losing the active recreation areas or potential active use areas in the upper Point Vicente area.




At 8:45 p.m. the Commission took a short recess until 9:00 p.m. at which time they reconvened.




Chairman Lyon reminded the speakers to please focus their comments on the issues in the Draft EIR or issues that should be included in the Draft EIR.


George Gleghorn 28850 Crestridge Road stated that he would address Section 7.2 (the No Project Alternative) of the Draft EIR.  He felt that it was a misnomer to call the section “no project alternative”.  He reviewed the alternative and felt that the term “more intensive development” used in the alternative required definition.  Mr. Gleghorn displayed a table comparing the current proposal and the proposal in Section 7.2.  He felt the Draft EIR should be more explicit so that comparisons could be made on each of the environmental impact subjects.  Regarding the conclusion in the Draft EIR on air quality, Mr. Gleghorn felt there should be quantitative data to support the conclusion.  He did not feel there was any basis for the statement in the Draft EIR that the existing entitlements would expose a slightly greater number of people and structures to potential adverse effects relating to geology/soils and asked for backup with quantitative data.  He discussed traffic and circulation and again asked for quantitative data to backup the conclusions made in the Draft EIR.  He felt that the Draft EIR was wrong or contradicted itself in many areas.  He felt it was biased toward the development of the project and seriously flawed.   






Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road discussed the previous Long Point approvals and her appeal to the Coastal Commission of the original Long Point project.




Paul Payne (Villa Capri HOA) 52 Via Capri, thanked Mr. Mohler for his commitment to remove the driving range from behind the townhomes.   He stated that he had additional concerns regarding noise, security, and errant golf balls which he felt the developer could address.  He asked that the Planning Commission pay close and particular attention to concerns relating to hydrology, preservation of native habitat, and the use of public land for private development.  He stated that the HOA would like to see the plan move forward.


Jim Hathaway 28955 Crestridge Road objected to the use of city land for a private resort.   He questioned how the Draft EIR could mitigate all of the potential problems created by the development.


Bob Nelson 6612 Channelview Drive (Seabluff HOA) stated that the HOA had unanimously voted to support the project in all ways possible.  He felt that benefits in Draft EIR were:  1) an 80% increase in native habitat; 2) Eleven miles of new, accessible trails along currently inaccessible cliffs; 3) The demise of the Marineland parking lot; 4) Significantly cleaner runoff once the area is changed into a golf course; 5) New parks along the ocean side of Palos Verdes Drive; and 6) Beautification of Marineland as well as the back of the city hall area.


Vic Quirarte  29369 Quailwood Drive, stated that the majority of residents did not want to see development on the City property.  He was concerned with removal of the natural habitat and wildlife.  He discussed errant golf balls at the church and Villa Capri area.  He stated that screens would be required which would obstruct views.  He objected to the statement that 50 percent of the tee times at the golf course would be blocked off for customers of the Long Point Resort.  He did not think this was in keeping with public accessibility to the golf course.  Regarding runoff, he stated that chemicals involved in maintaining greens at golf course would be far worse than anything currently involved in the runoff.


Norma Knowles 30021 Avenida Esplendida, stated that the hotel was something the area has long needed.  She did not feel there were enough public golf courses available for the growing demand of golfers.  She noted there would be many trails open for joggers and walkers that are currently not available.  Ms. Knowles reviewed the Deed of Trust granted by the Federal Government and felt that the development was in accordance with the spirit of the Deed of Trust.


Joseph Picarelli 30311 Via Borica (representing St. Paul’s Lutheran Church), stated that the church council had unanimously voted to support the Point Vicente Park enhancement alternative.  He stated that there was a tremendous amount of concern regarding errant golf balls which he did not feel could be satisfactorily mitigated as well as the disruption of Sunday worship services and other church functions.


Angie Papadakis 28655 Roan Road, felt the environmental impact of the project was that the project would beautify the area.  She felt Rancho Palos Verdes needed a hotel.  She did not think the hotel and golf area would cause any significant environmental impact, as Marineland had previously occupied the site.  She noted the trade off made available in that there would be private land that is presently closed to the public that would be open to the public through trails.    


Jim Knight 5 Cinnamon Lane, stated that the Draft EIR bases it’s figures, impacts, and mitigations on acreage that includes City owned land that the developer does not own or have control over, or even know if it will be included in the project.  He felt the proper scope of the project should be based on private property excluding public lands.  He disputed the statement in the Draft EIR which said the project increases the quantity of habitat.  He pointed out that quantity has nothing to do with quality.  He mentioned concern regarding water quality in natural drainage areas and potential impacts to habitat on upper Point Vicente  


Todd Anderson 2 Mason Gate Drive, stated he was speaking on behalf of the Girls Softball League on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.  He felt there was a tremendous opportunity to expand the development to include additional softball fields on the lower Point Vicente property.  He stated that this was addressed in the Draft EIR Section 7.4 option A (relocated practice facility Alternative option A).  He felt this option was consistent and compatible with the City’s intent to open and expand the Interpretive Center, as they could have shared parking and restroom facilities.  It was also consistent with the intended use as seen by the Coastal Commission and a use with was very much needed on the peninsula.


Rowland Driskell 30 Via Capri, indicated that a petition had circulated among the homeowners at Villa Capri regarding the SOC II proposal and he displayed a chart showing the vast majority of residents who were in favor of the SOC II proposal.  He was very concerned with the water issues involved with the golf course project and noted that the golf course would tremendously increase the water use.  He felt the gnat catcher habitat would be in danger from errant golf balls.  He noted that the tranquility of the surrounding neighbors would be lost due golf activity all day every day.  He felt the Draft EIR did not sufficiently address the traffic noise and air quality issues involved with the proposed project.  He felt the project was not safe for the owners at Villa Capri and questioned who would pay for the broken windows and doors and injuries.  He felt the wildlife could not co-exist with the golf course.  He stated that he would like to see the resort built, but only on private property.


Ian MacDonald 47 Oceanaire Drive, stated that he was a member of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy and was in agreement with the Long Point resort as proposed by the developer.  He felt the Draft EIR was well thought out and he favored development at the site.


Bruce McGowan 700 Yarmouth Road, Palos Verdes Estates, stated that he was in favor of the development and felt the Draft EIR clearly showed there was a massive increase in the public ability to enjoy both the former Marineland site and the City land. 


David Tomblin 30105 Avenida Espendida, felt that it would be detrimental to the City if the site were not developed.  He felt a joint venture of this magnitude would allow all residents to use the City property.  He felt that the EIR should address impacts to recreation which would be avoided by the project, in that there would be positive recreational impacts. 


Dena Friedson 1737 Via Baronada, PVE, stated that she was a member of SOC II.  She discussed the proposed grading addressed in the Draft EIR and the types of trucks and number of truck trips required for this amount of grading.  She did not think the Draft EIR satisfactorily addressed the mitigation measures required for the damage caused by the grading activity including construction noise impacts to sensitive habitats.  She also felt the City should be wary in allowing golf fairways and holes in a geologically questionable location.  She did not think the Draft EIR sufficiently addressed the netting that would be required to achieve golf safety.  She felt the World War 2 bunker and Nike site should be preserved for historical protection.  She felt the SOC II proposal was environmentally superior.


Joan Carbonel 30202 Avenida Selecta, stated she supported the project and the community access to trails and vistas that do not currently exist.


Stasys Petravicius 15 Seacove, felt the Draft EIR too easily mitigated the problems associated with the project.  He felt the major land use change to the upper Point Vicente park could not be mitigated.  Therefore, he supported the SOC II proposal, for which mitigation would be needed.


William Tolliffe 6347 Tarragon Rd, felt the project proposal would result in fragmented habitat.  He also commented that the plants and wildlife would be subject to disturbance by errant golf balls, golfers in search of lost golf balls, abnormal water, the use of herbicides and pesticides, and the activities of maintenance crews and machinery.  He stated that the grading and watering of the golf course would alter the established drainage patterns and affect soil stability.  He felt that further analysis of golf course watering, drainage patterns and loss of percolation area was needed.  He noted that the driving range presented a danger of flying golf balls to residents and churchgoers as well as motorists.  He felt that tees should be at least 300 yards from the roadway. He felt the proposed tunnel needed further study, as it would create traffic and utility problems during its construction, and could be too steep for golf carts. 


Barbara Sattler 1904 Avenida Aprenda, stated that the biological resource section of the Draft EIR referred to several surveys that had been done.  She felt the complete detailed reports of the surveys should be available, but are not, in the appendix.  She questioned how the surveys were performed.  She felt the cumulative affect of multiple developments occurring in Southern California could be devastating to many species of wildlife.  She felt that some of the conclusions of less than significant impact in the Draft EIR seemed to be based on mitigations outlined in the LPHCP (Long Point Habitat Conservation Plan), however she noted that the LPHCP had not been presented to the public, was not a part of the EIR, and had not been approved as a habitat protection plan.  Therefore, she felt that no satisfactory mitigation should be assumed based on the LPHCP.  She opposed using public land for golf, and did not want the zoning changed. 


Alfred Sattler 1904 Avenida Aprenda, stated that he supported the SOC II alternative, and discussed the preservation of wildlife and habitat.  He felt the no project alternative (existing entitlements on Long Point) and the SOC II proposal combined should be an alternative.


Lily Van Patten 16 La Vista Verde, read a statement from Daphne Clarke who was not able to attend the meeting.  Ms. Clark did not feel the upper Point Vicente Park land should be included in the NCCP plan, which she understood was for private property.  She supported a plan for the Long Point property that did not include the use of public land for private financial gain.   


Barry Holchin 3949 Via Valmonte, PVE, stated that he was the conservation chair for the Palos Verdes/South Bay Sierra Club.  He stated that he supported the Point Vicente Park enhancement alternative as an environmentally superior alternative.  He opposed any alternative that proposes development of the public land.  He stated that short term and long term air quality impacts in conflict with the AQMD and RCPG were anticipated with this project.  He noted indirect impacts on electricity and natural gas consumption from this project were considered significant.  He felt that energy conservation should be an integral part of the project design including, but not limited to, design of all structures to use passive solar heating where possible, use of alternative energy sources whenever possible, and use of fluorescent lighting wherever possible.   He stated that wildlife movement must not be disrupted with fragmentional barriers and coastal access must be maintained.  He asked that a trail committee established for the project that includes representatives from the Sierra Club. 


Jess Morton 787 W. 4th Street, San Pedro, stated that he was speaking for the Coastal Conservation Coalition.  He stated that he would submit detailed, written comments of concerns at a later date.  He discussed Section 5.3-1.  He stated his serious reservations with the section in that there were many misspellings and inconsistent taxonomy.  He felt there were many species not included in the analysis or the analysis done was inadequate.  He specifically noted the El Segundo Blue Butterfly, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act, and which he believed to be known on the Point Vicente Park property.  He did not feel the species was addressed properly in the Draft EIR.  He discussed Section 5.3-2 relating to habitat conservation plan as an alternative to the NCCP.  He felt that any implication that a habitat conservation plan could be presented as some sort of active working document is mistaken.  He felt it was very unlikely that while the NCCP was being considered any habitat conservation plan would be considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or California Fish and Game.  He discussed Section 5.3-3 regarding wildlife movement.  He felt that the upper Point Vicente area was crucial for the Palos Verdes Peninsula and was not adequately addressed in the NCCP.  He concluded by stating that if the upper Point Vicente area was included in the project the cumulative impacts could not be mitigated.


Angelika Brinkmann Busi 2141 W. 35th Street, San Pedro stated she was speaking on behalf of the South Coast California Native Plant Society.  She stated this was the first EIR she had reviewed that did not include a list of plants currently found on the site.  She noted that the Draft EIR stated that surveys have been done, however the surveys and results were not included in the Draft EIR or appendix.  She too noted many misspellings of plant names in the report and many erroneous definitions.  She also felt the Draft EIR contradicted itself in many areas and pointed out the definition of "wildlife corridor” and it’s use in the report as an example.  She stated that a survey of the gnatcatcher had been recently done and was not included or mentioned in the Draft EIR.  She thought Dr. Atwood’s past studies of gnatcatchers should be referenced, as the upper Point Vicente site has a high fledgling production rate.  She felt the proposed habitat design and the NCCP preferred designs were not her preferred designs.


Holly Cain 52 Avenida Corona felt the Draft EIR used “no significant impact” too freely throughout the report and felt impacts should be looked at much more carefully.  She supported no golf course development on the upper Point Vicente area and supported the SOC II proposal.  She felt that impacts to historical resources, risk of hazardous materials from pesticides and loss of existing pedestrian trails would all be significant.


Robert Haase 20 Seacove Drive felt the Draft EIR was not sufficiently specific, did not supply quantities, and did not supply facts.  He felt that public parkland has long been recognized as being essential for mans well being, spiritual as well as physical.  He did not feel the public land should be given to a private developer for financial gain.  He felt the City should not consider the Draft EIR, and that the process was a charade. 


Ann Shaw 3006 Via Borica stated she was a member of SOC II.  She noted Section 7.1 (the no development alternative).  She did not feel proper mitigation was discussed for the two golf holes that were so close to Palos Verdes Drive South (holes 3 and 4) under Alternative 5 supported by the Developer.  She felt liability could result from the project as proposed, and that safety issues of the alternative 5 design should be reassessed. 


Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.


Vice Chairman Clark stated that in reviewing the traffic analysis in the Draft EIR he did not see any consideration of egress onto First Street in San Pedro.  He felt that should be addressed in the EIR.  He further did not feel the alternative for the proposed project to be built only on Long Point property was sufficiently addressed in the Draft EIR. 


Commissioner Long stated the role of the appointed Planning Commission, and stressed the need to look at the required findings for the proposed project.


Commissioner Mueller questioned whether the traffic analysis included employees, delivery vehicles and trips, and other operational impacts, as the term “patrons” seemed limiting.


Commissioner Paulson questioned why certain survey data was not included in the Biological sections of the document.


Commissioner Cartwright noted the lack of input from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game as of this time.




Vice Chairman Clark moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall.  The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.