03/27/2001 Planning Commission Minutes 03/27/2001, 2001, March, Planning, Commission, Minutes, Meeting, Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He explained that the applicants were requesting a second 180-day time extension from the date of expiration, which was February 22, 2001. He explained that in a conversation with the City Attorney, he was informed that Section 17.86.070(b) clearly stated that only one time extension may be permitted for a 180-day period. Therefore, per the City Attorney’s direction the Commission may not grant an additional time extension. He explained that he had informed the applicant that if the time extension were to be denied, the Planning Director may be able to re-issue the planning application providing that there were no changes proposed in the plans, the project applications The 03/27/2001 RPV Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

MARCH 27, 2001



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


Associate Planner Mihranian led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.


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

Absent: None

Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Pfost, Associate Planner Mihranian, Associate Planner Schonborn, City Consultant Peri Muretta, and Recording Secretary Peterson.


Chairman Lyon noted that the Agenda was an amended Agenda and clarified the amendment.

Without objection, the Agenda was approved as presented, (7-0).


Director/Secretary Rojas distributed: 1) eleven items of correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 4; 2) three items of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 3; 3) materials relating to the Long Point project for the Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 2001; and 4) expense report forms.

Vice Chairman Clark reported that the California League of Cities Planning Institute in Monterey had been a very worthwhile and beneficial conference.

Chairman Lyon reported that he had received a number of letters regarding Agenda Item No. 4, but that these items were included in the staff report.


1. Minutes of March 3, 2001

Without objection, the minutes were approved as presented, (7-0).

2. Height Variation No. 888 and Site Plan Review No. 8637 – Time Extension: Sanjay and Kirti Celly (applicants) 27041 Whitestone Road.

Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He explained that the applicants were requesting a second 180-day time extension from the date of expiration, which was February 22, 2001. He explained that in a conversation with the City Attorney, he was informed that Section 17.86.070(b) clearly stated that only one time extension may be permitted for a 180-day period. Therefore, per the City Attorney’s direction the Commission may not grant an additional time extension. He explained that he had informed the applicant that if the time extension were to be denied, the Planning Director may be able to re-issue the planning application providing that there were no changes proposed in the plans, the project applications had not be expired for more than one year, and that half the application fees are submitted as filing fees. Therefore, staff recommended denial of the request for a second 180-day extension, thereby deeming Height Variation No. 888 and Site Plan Review No. 8637 null and void.

Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to deny the applicant’s request, seconded by Commissioner Long. The application was denied, (7-0).


3. Variance No. 480: John Steiner (applicant), 30822 Rue de la Pierre.

Commissioner Cartwright noted that his residence was more than 300 feet, but less than 2500 feet from the applicant’s property. However, he noted that Rue de la Pierre was considerably lower than his street and he did not feel there was any conflict in hearing the application.

Commissioner Long recused himself from hearing the application, as he had not had the opportunity to visit the applicant’s site.

Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining that the pool was proposed to be placed on a slope of 37 percent, which is considered an extreme slope. He noted that an extreme slope was any slope of 35 percent or greater. He stated that staff was required to make four findings in order to grant a Variance. He noted that staff could make only two of the four findings for a Variance, and therefore recommended denial of the Variance.

Chairman Lyon stated that one plan submitted showed a grade of 34 percent while a different plan submitted indicated a grade of 37 percent. He asked staff for clarification.

Associate Planner Schonborn stated that staff had verified the slope to be 37 percent, based on a topographical survey provided by the applicant.

Chairman Lyon asked staff if a Variance would be required for a slope of 34 percent.

Associate Planner Schonborn explained that a slope of 35 percent or steeper is subject to a Variance application.

Commissioner Mueller asked staff if they had considered what the original slope was at the site before the lot was developed.

Associate Planner Schonborn answered that that was very difficult to determine, however based on a site visit, he felt the slope was a manufactured slope that was created with the development of the tract. He stated that he had no way to determine if the original slope was less than 35 percent.

Commissioner Mueller asked if staff had given any consideration to the noise the pool equipment would create.

Associate Planner Schonborn stated that the Development Code regulates the location of pool equipment and the noise level that equipment can produce.

Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the deck at the neighbor’s house had been permitted through the city. He felt the deck was on a slope of greater than 35 percent.

Associate Planner Schonborn did not know if the deck had been constructed with a permit.

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

John Steiner 4950 Verdugo Road, Los Angeles (applicant) stated that he was the contractor for the project. He stated that he had contracted the services of a local geologist to study the feasibility of placing the pool on the slope. He noted that the geologist had concluded that proposed project was considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, and would not adversely affect the adjoining properties. Mr. Steiner felt the project could be done and asked the Planning Commission to give him the opportunity to do it.

Commissioner Vannorsdall asked for clarification on the dimensions shown on the plans.

Jim Weir (representing Anthony/Sylvan Pools) clarified the dimensions of the pool and the setback from the street as well as the setback from the house.

Michael Steiner 4059 Verdugo Road, Los Angeles, discussed the four findings required to approve a variance application. He stated that he did not feel this was an unusual piece of property. He also argued that a swimming pool should be considered when discussing the preservation and enjoyment of a piece of property. He noted that the pool would be placed in fill material but would be constructed in such a way that it will be a freestanding structure. He stated that the geology report included recommendations on how that was to be accomplished.

Hector Sartori 30822 Rue de la Pierre (owner) stated that would like a swimming pool at his house not only to improve the lives of his family members, but also to improve the value of his home and that of the neighbors around his home. He stated that he was very aware of the added noise a pool might add to the neighborhood and would take every step and precaution possible to make sure his neighbors were pleased.

Commissioner Cartwright stated the findings for a Variance were very important, and are rarely granted. He felt a Variance should only be granted when there are special characteristics that make the property unique. He noted that staff could not make this finding in this case. He asked Mr. Sartori why he felt this finding could be made or why it should be waived.

Mr. Sartori responded that he had a piece of property that had a large slope in the backyard. This allowed for very little improvement in the backyard. He felt this was an opportunity to improve the backyard in a way that could not be done otherwise.

Chairman Lyon asked Mr. Sartori when he moved into his home.

Mr. Sartori responded that he purchased the property on December 19, 1999.

Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Sartori if he had considered other properties with pools before purchasing this property.

Mr. Sartori answered that he had looked at many properties, but purchased this one because of the view and the quiet neighborhood.

Henry Liverpool 30828 Rue de la Pierre stated he was the immediate neighbor to the Sartoris. He felt the swimming pool would be an improvement to the neighborhood. He noted that most of the neighbors who had the same type of slope had ice plant or weeds growing on the slope. He felt a pool was a good use for the area and thought other neighbors may decide to build pools in the future.

Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if there was a copy of the geology report available that he could review.

Mr. Steiner presented a geology report for Commissioner Vannorsdall to review.

Commissioner Lyon closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Paulson asked if many of the properties on Rue de la Pierre had the same slope of 35 percent or greater.

Associate Planner Schonborn stated that many of the slopes were similar to the subject property, however the only way to know the exact slope was to have each one surveyed.

Commissioner Paulson noted that even though the slope may exceed the City requirement by only 2 percent, he felt that the Development Code was very specific on the requirement.

Chairman Lyon did not feel it was within the discretion of the Planning Commission to waive one of the findings of a Variance. He noted that staff could not make two of the required findings and he had not heard anything that would indicate any of the Commissioners could make such findings.

Vice Chairman Clark stated that the Planning Commission had in the past approved Variances that the staff did not feel the required findings could be made. He felt that 35 percent was a threshold, and the issue was that this slope was only 2 percent from this threshold. He stated he was sympathetic to the applicant’s proposal and gave considerable weight to the neighbor who supported the project.

Commissioner Vannorsdall noted in reading the geology report, that even though the geologist felt the pool could be built, he felt that given the soils conditions at the site it would be a high-risk project.

Commissioner Cartwright asked staff how many letters they had received regarding the project.

Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff had received three letters regarding the project.

Commissioner Paulson asked staff if there had ever been a Variance application for a swimming pool in that tract.

Associate Planner Schonborn replied that there had not been a Variance application for a pool in that tract.

Vice Chairman Clark asked if there had been similar circumstances, meaning pools built on a slope of greater than 35 percent in neighborhoods which there were no other pools on the slopes, in which the Variance had been applied for and approved.

Associate Planner Schonborn stated that he would have to check the records, but thought there were two Variances for pools on slopes that had been approved, however he clarified that he had not performed site visits to verify this.

Vice Chairman Clark wondered what the merits were for the approval of those pools. He felt this might provide the basis for consideration of this swimming pool. He felt it might be appropriate for the Planning Commission to continue the item to provide the opportunity for staff to look at the records more thoroughly to provide any additional supplemental information to the Commission in making this decision.

Chairman Lyon felt that the past Planning Commissions must have had to make the appropriate findings to grant a Variance for the swimming pools.

Chairman Lyon asked staff when the survey of the applicant’s lot was done.

Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff had received the survey in November 2000.

Commissioner Paulson moved to deny the Variance as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright.

Chairman Lyon agreed that the Variance should be denied, however encouraged the applicant to have the slope re-surveyed to ascertain the true slope on the property.

Vice Chairman Clark did not think he could support the motion since staff felt there were other pools built under similar circumstances. He felt more research was necessary prior to making a decision.

Commissioner Paulson repeated the motion to deny Variance No. 480 as recommended by staff thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 20010-4. Approved, (5-1) with Vice Chairman Clark dissenting.


At 8:25 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:40 p.m.


Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road asked the Planning Commission not to let Destination Resorts build a golf course on City property.

  1. Indian Ridgecrest Gardens (Conditional Use Permit No. 210 et al) Draft Supplement to FEIR No. 27 Indian Ridgecrest Gardens L.P.

Chairman Lyon began by stating that all comments received before April 19, both verbal and written, would be responded to in the Final EIR.

Senior Planner Pfost presented the staff report. He gave a brief history of the project. He explained that the City had entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with the developer and the City currently owns the property. Mr. Pfost explained the current proposed project and noted that the project had been revised as recently as last week. He stated that the purpose of this meeting was to take comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR, even though the project may be revised in the future.

Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the property was currently zoned Institutional and if the property would have to be rezoned for this project.

Senior Planner Pfost stated that the property was zoned Institutional and Open Space Hazard. He explained that the proposed project was not a request to change the institutional designation, but a request to change the location of the Open Space Hazard line. He further explained that an Institutional Zone allowed for the building of senior housing.

Peri Muretta, preparer of the Supplemental EIR, presented a brief history of the original EIR and the supplements to that certified EIR. She explained that this supplemental EIR looked at environmental issues particular to this project. Therefore, environmental issues that were already included in the original EIR certified in 1989, that are not significantly different, are not reanalyzed in this document. She explained that the Notice of Preparation determined four environmental issue areas that needed to be addressed in this supplement: grading and geology, transportation/circulation, biological resources, and visual aesthetics. Ms. Muretta explained the issues addressed in the supplemental EIR and the mitigation measures proposed.

Chairman Lyon asked what the true legal requirement was that was imposed on the City in terms of affordable housing units.

Senior Planner Pfost answered that there were two areas to look at as required by the State, the City’s requirements under the Housing Element and requirements through the Redevelopment Agency. He explained the Housing Element and what it required. He noted that the Housing Element required 8 low-income houses and 5 very low-income houses to be planned for in the next five years. He also noted that if these units were not constructed by 2005 the City would not be penalized and would only need to show the reasons the units were not developed. Mr. Pfost also explained that every City accrues money through its Redevelopment Agency that is set aside specifically for affordable housing. He explained that the City has reached a point that these funds need to be spent or portions will be lost to the County.

Chairman Lyon noted that 13 affordable housing units were proposed as part of this project and asked about the affordable housing units proposed at Ocean Trails.

Senior Planner Pfost replied that the Ocean Trails project was required to provide for 8 affordable housing units. He stated that the City Council had directed this project to provide 13 affordable housing units.

Chairman Lyon asked if any other locations had been considered as alternatives for this project.

Senior Planner Pfost explained how the City acquired this property and the different options the City considered.

Chairman Lyon asked why the City bought the property and if the City planned on continuing to own the property and lease it to the developer or if the City planned to sell the land back to the developer.

Senior Planner Pfost answered that it was his understanding that the intent of the City was to sell the property to the developer if and when the project is approved. He also stated that it was not the City’s intent to manage the units, but to have someone else manage the units to ensure the affordability continues.

Commissioner Cartwright questioned the transportation/circulation study. He noted the letters received regarding the cumulative impact of the project on traffic. He asked why the traffic study did not include a cumulative study.

Senior Planner Pfost stated that the traffic study had included a variety of projects that had been approved, and pointed out a table in the Supplemental EIR listing all of the developments included in the traffic study.

Commissioner Cartwright asked about the status of the extension of the art center and the development of the property directly adjacent to the subject property.

Senior Planner Pfost stated that there had been no application for the expansion of the art center. Regarding the property adjacent to the subject property, Senior Planner Pfost indicated that an application had been received but was deemed incomplete approximately 12 months ago.

Commissioner Paulson asked for a clarification of the Open Space Hazard Area on the boundary adjustment.

Senior Planner Pfost explained the Open Space Hazard Area and referred the Commission to a diagram in Volume 1 of the Supplemental EIR.

Commissioner Paulson requested this diagram be enlarged and displayed at the next hearing regarding the project.

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

Charles Brumbaugh (applicant) reviewed the history of the project. He presented a drawing of the proposed new design of the project. He stated the project was designed to lessen any impact the project may have as one drives up Crenshaw Blvd. He noted this new design places the mass of the structures toward the back on the hillside which will cause much less of a visual impact. Mr. Brumbaugh described the different components of the new project, including a library, office space, restrooms, and parking. He stated that there had been extensive geotechnical analysis of the site and he was confident that the project site was a safe site to build on. He reviewed traffic impacts and pointed out that the Art Center had not submitted any application for expansion and the project adjacent to his had been incomplete for the last year.

Gene Kiyotoki (architect) reviewed the design of the buildings and other features included with the project. He stated his hope and concern was that they had designed a project that was compatible with the surrounding area.

Greg Delgado 11 Lariat Lane, RHE (representing JCC Homes) stated that JCC Homes had entered into a tentative agreement to build the project and was available to answer any questions.

Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Delgado if he had ever built a project similar to this one.

Mr. Delgado answered that JCC Homes had built a number of larger buildings, including a 65 and an 89-unit project, and felt the size of this project was in the scope of what they do.

Commissioner Long asked Mr. Brumbaugh if this project will offer a shuttle bus service.

Mr. Brumbaugh answered that the project will provide a van service for the residents. He explained that the van had been budgeted to operate approximately 24 hours per week.

Commissioner Long asked Mr. Brumbaugh what percentage of the resident’s transportation needs would be met by the van service.

Mr. Brumbaugh stated that he could not answer that question, but realized that a large number of tenants would not need the service at all.

Commissioner Long asked what type of rent would be charged for the units.

Mr. Brumbaugh responded that the affordable rent on the one-bedroom units would be approximately $375 per month and market rate for one bedroom was $800 to $1,000.

Commissioner Paulson asked if there was an age requirement to be allowed to live in the facility.

Mr. Brumbaugh answered that the age requirement was 55 or older.

Jim Hathaway 28955 Crestridge Road discussed page 3.2, grading mitigation measures 1 – 4 and page 3.3, traffic mitigation measures 1 – 3. He did not think the EIR should be approved until those items were completed, as their implementation would cause other environmental impacts which need to be considered and included in the EIR. He asked in what ways impacts could be less than significant if the mitigation plans have not been generated. He discussed page 3.6. He felt the EIR should include a minimum density alternative which would comply with the requirements stated in the staff report on low cost housing. He noted the requirement was for 5 low cost housing units, yet this project was proposing 13. He felt that on page 4.1, Table 4-1 was an exaggeration. He felt the land use and planning should be addressed and the EIR should state how this project is compatible with the General Plan. He felt the EIR should state in detail how the project is compatible with the land use surrounding the site. He asked that the EIR state in detail how the project is compatible with the General Plan in regards to mass and density of 22 units per acre. He asked the EIR show how the project will not induce area growth. Mr. Hathaway asked that the EIR should be updated to reflect the current state of problems with the local electric power supply, and the EIR should address what mitigation affects be undertaken prior to approval. He noted the final sentence in the EIR under Grading and Geology. He strongly disagreed that cumulative impacts from the proposed project would not be significant. He noted that the peak hours were not defined in the EIR. He stated development of the site would result in the loss of the habitat that will further contribute to the loss of open space habitat in the region. He felt the EIR Table 5-1 should be modified to state that the grading/geology, transportation/circulation, and biological resources impacts could all be much less if a properly designed institutional use, such as a museum or park, were used as the no project alternative.

Bill Brandlin 5201 Middlecrest Road began by pointing out that the EIR stated the closest home to the development was approximately 500 feet away. He disagreed, saying the closest home was on the east side of Crenshaw Blvd, less than 200 feet away. He noted a statement in the EIR saying there was no proposed development adjacent to this project. He felt this was misrepresented and noted that there was an application to develop the project currently at the City. He felt this was significant in that the traffic density would be significantly higher. Mr. Brandlin also felt that there were no affordable housing units necessary to be built, as they had until 2005 to build the units and even then the City would not have to build them. He noted there were other options available. He also noted that, with Ocean Trails building 8 affordable housing units, only 5 should have to be built at this project.

Ross Anderson 28870 Crestridge Road stated he was concerned with a number of issues, but would confine his comments to geology. He noted that the Hilltop Association, of which he is a member, has retained legal council and has also retained an environmental firm to study some of the technical issues contained in the EIR. He stated that they would submit more precise and accurate observations in the coming weeks. He felt exceptions were being made to the General Plan in allowing a project this size to be located on this piece of property. He noted the presence of a passive landslide a few hundred feet away. He felt the Indian Peak slide, coupled with the fact that this project hovers above a pre-school, that there is a passive landslide to the west of the project, and the extreme slopes on the property may not be dangerous individually, but he felt the cumulative risk was quite large from a geological viewpoint.

Leonard Freeland 28809 Crestridge Road pointed out that at an earlier discussion with the developer, the developer had mentioned that this project was not economically feasible. He felt this was very important in view of the fact that the developer has stated in the past he will sell this project in a few years. Mr. Freeland stated that all of the amenities discussed are nice but do not pertain to the few units that are going to be the low income units. He did not feel that much of the original EIR written in 1988 was pertinent today. He stated that he had been in the financial area of projects for many years and these types of projects, where there is low income housing, were a product for Wall Street to sell on a tax loss basis.

Marlys Lindenmuth 6104 Scotmist Drive stated she liked the area in its natural state. She felt there was enough traffic along Crenshaw Boulevard. She stated that most people lived up here for the beautiful open spaces. She felt the City should let the County have any excess money from the City’s Redevelopment Agency.

Monica Mortensen 5419 Meadowcrest Lane explained that a law had recently passed in the State of California that did not allow living designation to seniors only. She stated that once seniors were living in the homes they could then have their children, grandchildren, or whomever live with them. She felt this greatly affected the density of the area.

Yola Gerst 28829 Crestridge Road wondered why no other property had been considered for this project. She noted that this was a very dangerous and busy intersection presently and the project would only make the problem worse.

Glenn Arbuthnot 28856 Crestridge Road felt the EIR was based on a lot of predictions and assumptions and studies done in 1988. He felt decisions should be based on current facts. He discussed the traffic study done two years ago in 1999. He noted that the study was done in the middle of the summer when traffic is usually low. He also felt the land was going to slide and that there was technology available to measure whether the land has moved since the last time it was tested.

Chuck Taylor 5441 Middlecrest Road stated that his house was close to 100 feet from the proposed project. He did not want this type of project in his backyard. He stated that in the traffic study, the EIR did not include the reopening of Ridgecrest School. He noted that the school reopening has greatly impacted the traffic in the area. Mr. Taylor did not understand why the City Council had entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with a developer of this inappropriate project. He stated that when entering Rancho Palos Verdes the first thing one would see was this high density, inappropriate project.

Linda Puentes 5575 Mistridge Drive stated this project would be directly behind her property and she would see it every day. She was concerned that there had been no flags on the site showing the proposed project. She too was very concerned with the added traffic from this project. She stated that she had moved to her home specifically for the open space and the quality of life.

Maxine Trevethen 5649 Mistridge Drive did not think the proposed project should be approved and it did not meet the needs of the seniors on the Peninsula. She stated that as a senior, she would not be interested in living in a 600 to 700 square foot cubicle. She too was very concerned with the traffic in the area. She did not think the traffic study took into consideration all of the other projects, both pending and approved, along Crestridge Road. She felt a wiser course of action would be to subsidize the rent of qualified people in existing apartments.

Ray Mathys 5738 Whitecliff Drive stated he had written a letter to the Planning Department concerning the proposed project, but he would discuss only the issue of traffic considerations at this time. He questioned whether the traffic survey included service vehicles and visitors to the site. He was also concerned the close proximity of the proposed driveways to Crenshaw Boulevard was bound to create conflict with the traffic on Crestridge Road. Mr. Mathys estimated there were 12,000 to 15,000 vehicles passing through the intersection of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Blvd each day. He felt the noise and exhaust levels created by vehicles accelerating to climb the hill could be intolerable to anyone living in the project.

Robin Rahn 28846 Crestridge Road stated that Planning Commission had just denied a property owner the right to build a swimming pool on a slope of 37 percent, yet felt many of the slopes surrounding this project were far greater than 37 percent. He did not know how the Planning Commission could then support this project if the slopes were indeed greater than 35 percent. Mr. Rahn said that the main reason he was objecting to the project was the traffic and safety issues. He explained that his son and many other children cross the street twice a day to and from school. He asked the Planning Commission to look at the traffic going up and down the street today during peak hours, which he considered from 7 a.m. and 8:30 a.m.

Dale Hanks 5225 Middlecrest Road stated his concern was for the safety of the residents of the project. He felt that residents trying to make a left turn from the blind corner onto Crestridge Road will be putting themselves at a great risk. He felt it was essential that this project be designed in such a way so that left turns were prohibited from the project.

Peter Hazelrigg 5208 Middlecrest Road objected to the size of the project and felt the original EIR should be looked at and updated to fit the current project. He objected to the added traffic and the dangerous intersections that are in the area. He wondered why a senior center could not be built on this site. He felt the City could give the land to the seniors to build a senior center, there could be overflow parking for the art center, and there would still be open or park space.

Luella Wike 29172 Oceanridge Drive asked if the developer had done a market survey to determine the need for senior housing for Rancho Palos Verdes, and if the City Council had intended this project to be used for Rancho Palos Verdes residents or for any senior citizen from off the hill. She wondered if the developer was expecting the two bedroom units to have two occupants or three or four people per unit. She was very concerned that there was not adequate parking for the number of residents. Ms. Wike asked who would manage the project after it was built and if the City was planning to oversee the affordable housing units. She discussed her concerns with geology, especially where there is an encroachment into the open space hazard area. She felt if the land was disturbed by grading there was a potential for a landslide. She stated that she did not want horse trails to be included with this project. She was very concerned about the traffic and the cumulative affect of all of the projects along Crestridge Road. She asked where the fire lanes were to be located. Finally, she asked if the 13 low cost units would be compatible with those at full price.

Barbara Arbuthnot 28856 Crestridge Road objected to the impacts of the project, both visual and aesthetic. She felt the location and configuration of the building made it appear to be a three story structure from both Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Blvd. She objected to the new design in that there were no elevation sketches. She felt the new design was impossible for anyone to truly evaluate in terms of aesthetics. She too was concerned with the cumulative effect on traffic in the area.

Chairman Lyon thanked the audience for their comments and stated that their comments and concerns would be addressed in the Final EIR.

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.


5. Indian Ridgecrest Gardens Draft Planning Commission Processing Schedule: Indian Ridgecrest Gardens

6. Long Point Resort – Revised Draft Planning Commission Processing Schedule.

Chairman Lyon felt it would be best to discuss both items together as the schedules were interdependent.

Staff distributed to the Commission a consolidated schedule.

Chairman Lyon discussed the schedule and noted there were a total of 6 meetings tentatively scheduled for Long Point and a total of 4 meetings tentatively scheduled for the senior housing project. He stated that this schedule was prepared knowing that some Commissioners could not attend all of the scheduled meetings.

The Commission discussed different dates and different options that could be used for the meetings. The Commission agreed that the Saturday meetings would be best held at 1:00 p.m. and not go beyond 4:30 p.m. They also discovered that they did not have a quorum for the Saturday, May 12 meeting and they deleted it from the schedule and agreed to reschedule that meeting at a later time if deemed necessary.

Commissioner Long wanted to make a comment regarding the Long Point project. He noted that he would be interested in knowing whether an alternative had been considered that involved development on the site coupled with a golf course outside of the Long Point property on other property owned by the developer, such as property in the moratorium area.

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road stated that Mr. Hon had previously owned the Long Point property and had considered putting a golf course on the Filliorum property but concluded that it would require too much grading.

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.


There being no objection, Chairman Lyon adjourned the meeting at 11:17 p.m.