PC MINS 19840522MINUTES
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
5/22/84
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Hesse Park Community
Building at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard by Chairman Harvey Brown.
COMMUNICATIONS Dr. Brown advised that the Trails
Plan is continued until May 29th
by request of those involved.
CONSENT CALENDAR Dr. Brown requested, and the
consensus of the Commission, was
to hold the minutes to the end
of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS It -was the consensus of the
Commission to move Item B first.
Variance 104 Assistant Planner Dino Putrino
Tondre/Schumacher presented the staff report. The
1805 Peninsula Verdes Drive applicant is requesting to retain
an existing 6 foot wooden fence �aall
adjacent to and above a block wall
along Western Avenue. The height
of this wall is 5' on the low side and approximately 2' on the,hi_gh side_
(subject property) and retains 3 feet of dirt. The overall height of the
two walls is approximately 9 feet measured on the low side (Western) and
under 6 feet on the high side.
He explained that the applicant's claim they have suffered from many dangerous
incidents and their safety and well being is threatened due to the location of
their property;they believe the wall is the best solution to the problem.
It is staff's opinion that the applicant is exposed to unusual conditions due
to property location and concurs with the applicant's solution to the
problem. Due to the other findings by staff, staff recommends that Planning
Commission adopt Resolution P.C. 84-17 approving Variance No. 104.
_JZ-� 4-/a-
Mrs. Wike asked if the t0_1+�t had a clear understanding that there was a
retaining wall, and this would be an additional wall.
Mr. Putrino said they had a clear understanding, and it was brought to staff by
code enforcement. The applicant was not aware that a permit was required for
a wall of such height and staff has made the applicant come to the understanding
that this is a wall adjacent to another wall and does exceed the height.
Dr. Brown opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak to the item.
Mr. McNulty moved to close the public hearing and seconded by Mr. Von Hagen.
Mr. McNulty moved to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 84-17 approving Variance No. 104
seconded by Mr. Von Hagen.
V
Minutes
5/22/84
Page Two
Dr. Brown felt the staff findings were not strong enough and recommended amending
the language. Finding #1 to read:...exposed to exceptional and extraordinary
elements producing significant and negative land use impacts resulting from
this site's location on a major street arterial.
Mrs. Wike said she visited neighbors in the area, and they were not as concerned
as the applicant. She believed the wall would not prevent stealing; it would
only prevent stealing the cars because of the iron gates.
Mrs. Ortolano said she is against a proliferation of 9' fences all along Western
but she thou ht there was some merit to the applicant's request. The placement
of the ihouse in-re-l-ationship..to Western
Avenue and; on -that, corne-r.makes Jt
appropriate to grant this most unusual request.
Mr. Von Hagen agreed with the findings of the staff.
Mr. McNulty had no problem with the findings.
Dr. Brown also moved amendment to Finding #2 ... adding extraordinary and exceptional
negative impacts.
The motion as amended passed unanimously.
Dr. Brown stated this issue is appealable to the City Council within 15 days.
EASTVIEW GENERAL PLAN Dr. Brown advised this item is a
continued public hearing. The staff
report was presented by Associate
Planner Alice Angus. She said the
considerations yet to be resolved are: appropriateness of a Fitness Studio and
similar uses in CG zone with a CUP, appropriate land uses and zoning on the
sanitation district site and setback standards for the CG zone. She discussed
a staff comparison sheet including the merchants' proposal.
Mrs. Angus commented on the merchants' proposal. She said it was difficult to
make a direct comparison because staff deals in terms of abutting types of
use instead of front, rear and side setbacks.
Commenting on the merchants' proposal, Mrs. Angus said the proposal is for a front
setback 20' from the edge of the curb. She said generally setbacks are from the
property line, so she has a problem with talking about curb line. Regarding side
and rear, the merchant's request is for no setbacks where commercial is adjacent
to other commercial or non-residential. Staff feels that some setback is
neeessary to provide a buffer for building and safety and fire safety
considerations. Side and rear setbacks adjacent to residential, the merchant's proposal
divides between single and multi story. Staff has a problem understanding why there
should be that differential. The Code does not have any differential based on the
height of the structures. In that same category, the merchants talk about no setback
0
Minutes
5/22/84
Page Three
if there are permanent walls.
Staff does agree that 20' setback adjacent to Western does make sense due to
uniqueness of Western Avenue being a major state arterial. Staff also modify
the 40' abutting residential, staff recommends a landscape area 10 feet and an
additional setback area for loading or trash containers.
The fourth issue is sign standards for the commercial zone. Mrs. Angus stated the
City Attorney's input on SB142 has been received and it is okay legall_y as long _
as the amortization policy does not become more restrictive_.
Regarding illumination, staff feels that issue is not unique to Eastview area,
and it would be appropriate that it be brought up with another code amendment.
Mrs. Angus stated that the merchant's feel the proposed sign copy is ly
iscretio ay -Y The City Attorney does not think there is a problem, but he
will check further. Regarding size, staff has a problem with the 2 sq. ft.
without a maximum; it is too large and the small businesses would be at a
disadvantage. Staff also has a problem with the 30 foot maximum height signs;
structures may only be above 16' when approved by the Planning Commission. The
merchants' proposal is for no sign amortization and abatement. Staff feels
City's amortization is both legal and fair and should continue.
Mrs. Angus made the following recommendations:
Re -open the public hearing and take testimony. Decide whether or not to close the
public hearing.
1)Approve the addition of Fitness Studio, Dance School, Computer School,and
similar activity and education uses as a permitted use in the CG zone with
a Conditional Use Permit.
2)Decide on the appropriate land use and zoning for the Sanitation District Site.
3)Discuss Commercial (CG) development standards, and approve a separate
designation of setback abutting major state highway arterials with said
setback to be 20' and minimum landscaping of 5.
4)Discuss Commercial (CG) sign standards to which staff recommends no changes
Mr. Von Hagen referred to signs on the comparison sheet. Has there been any
thought to addressing the linear frontage of the lot rather than the building?
Mrs. Angus said the problem with that is dealing with a shopping center.
Mrs. Ortolano referred to May 17 letter from merchants. She asked if staff met
with the merchants.
Mrs.: Angus said since the last meeting, there has been one meeting with the
merchants.
There was discussion on sidewalk sales, Christmas displays, comparison of present
sign ordinance and proposed ordinance and setback requiremens, development stanards
and the Sanitation District Site.
0
Minutes
5/22/84
Page Four
0
Discussion ensued relative to giving direction on each item to staff and whether
to handle each item individually or as a whole.
Dr. Brown reiterated there are four major items that need to be addressed. He
saidtheCity relies on the City Attorney for legal advice and that he was aware
that outside officials have been approached in hopes of putting pressure on the
City. He felt that was fully inappropriate. It is strictly a City matter and
must be dealt with by the City within the limits of the law.
It was the consensus of the Commission to hear testimony relative to appropriateness
of the Fitness Studio. No audience comments. Commission was in agreement with
staff's recommendation.
Appropriate Land Use - Sanitation District Site
Robert West, 2037 Avenida Apprenda, RPV, represented the San Pedro Peninsula
Homeowner's Coalition and Rolling Hills Homeowner's Association. The general
consensus of the Eastview area residents are for the Sanitation District Site to
be zoned open space recreational. He related to statements made about crime in
the area and felt Eastview is not a high crime area and recited statistics from
the Palos Verdes Peninsula News Crime Report - April 21 -May 19.
David Roche, 1884 Peninsula Verde Drive, representing San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners
Association and Peninsula Verde Homeowners Association, supported a greenbelt park
but opposed any organized sports activity or commercial use for the Sanitation
District Site.
Mrs. Angus clarified staff's recommendation of the Sanitation District Site as
Specific Plan District (SPD) Residential/Recreation. The Parks and Recreation
Commfttee recommendation is also SPD but only includes recreation.
Steven Shore, 1486 Stonewood Court, San Pedro 90732 represented the Westmont
Homeowners Association #2, adjacent to Sanitation District. The Board is in
favor of a greenbelt area with no residential or commercial.
Walt Yeager, 27803 Montreina, RPV, member of the Rolling Hills Riveria Homeowners
Association, Vice Chairman of the Goals Committee, would like to see maximum
utilization of the property but would prefer a greenbelt park.
Lee Trudell, 26 Oceanaire, RPV, opposed a greenbelt park. He felt parks attract
elements outside of the Eastview area and that the City cannot afford to maintain
the parks it already has. He extended an invitation to Homeowners groups to
meet with him relative to his proposal for a driving range on that Sanitation site.
He discussed lighting for the proposal and distributed photos.
Jay Hodge, 28602 Friarstone Court, Rancho Palos Verdes, spoke in favor of a greenbelt
park. He said the site is the only site for a park. He opposed commercial use.
Dr. Brown stated he was swayed by the arguments for open space and recreational
and was not concerned about the crime question. He felt a SPD with open space was
an appropriate designation and did not feel it committed the City to putting a park
there but it allows an option to go in that direction. It also allows a mix of uses
if that is necessary.
Minutes
5/22/84
Page Five
Director Hightower clarified the Parks and Recreation Committee was concerned
about cost of development and operation/maintenance of all 10 acres for a park.
They understood from staff there needed to be more time for discussion with
both the Sanitation District and other people on uses and that is the reason
for the Specific Plan District. They were somewhat interested in the idea of
an agricultural use, e.g., a tree farm, as well as some recreation with the
open space being more encompassing than just park.
Mrs. Ortolano opposed any mixed residential use for that property but agreed with
merits of adopting SPD for recreation.
Mrs. Wike felt the residential use should be deleted from the use of the property.
Mr. McNulty agreed with the Commission due to the overwhelming support of the
community. He indicated nothing is for free, if a park is wanted, money will have
to be found.
Mr. Von Hagen agreed with the consensus of the Commission.
Dr. Brown moved the site be designated SPD -Open Space Recreation, seconded by
Mrs. Ortolano and passed unanimously.
Development Standards
Dr. Brown asked if there is a request to continue the matter relative to the Development
Standards.
Pat Gough, 28900 S. Western, RPV, needed clarification of setbacks. He said the
ordinance was not clear. He asked for an ordinance that was readable and understable.
He asked for a continuance and suggested having a committee to review the zoning
ordinance and make a recommendation to staff.
Dr. Brown recommended that Mr. Gough get together with staff to clarify his specific
requests.
Barbara Kennard, 3402 Deluna, RPV, addressed setbacks speaking as an individual.
She recited a prepared speech which was then submitted to the Commission relative
to the setback issues.
Discussion ensued relative to single family RS4 and multi -family zoning.
Nels Ostrem, 445 W. 7th Street, Suite F, San Pedro, landowner and developer said
that he has been in legal compliance for 27 years and with this proposal will be
put in a nonconforming status. He believed this was inverse condemnation.
Dr. Brown reiterated that the proposal of development standards would take effect
if there was destruction of greater than 50%.
Mrs. Ortolano asked if he proposed a future committee for study.
Mr. Ostrem said they only had 45 days to study the matter and recommended giving
more time rather than it becoming a legal matter. He suggested work and
cooperation.
�5
Minutes
5/22/84
Page Six
Dr. Brown said our City A't'torney will make the decision as to what we can or
cannot do legally
Ralph Horowitz, 1115 23rd Street, Santa Monica, co -ower with Barbara Kennard
of the shopping center at 28717 Western Avenue discussed involuntary fires
and involuntary consequences. He felt the risks faced should be examined more
closely. He referred to his shopping center on Caddington being an irregular
lot; to rebuild according to the 40' sideyard standards, he would lose almost
all the shopping center.
Mrs. Victoria Marino, 29221 So. Western Avenue, RPV, member of a sub -committee
of the Eastview Goals Committee, submitted -a letter from Judy Marshall and David
Rucks who do not feel they were asked to represent merchants on the Eastview
Goals Committee. She requested the letters be entered in the file.
Dr Brown asked for a decision or direction on the issue of the Development
Standards in the Commercial General zone, the Commission has received a fair
amount of information this evening and it is the Commission's task to make a
decision tonight or to continue the matter.
Mrs. Ortolano found persuasive the statement that if you impose a more stringent
redevelopment requirement on a 25% addition, that the status quo is encouraged
but she was not comfortable with proposals requesting no setbacks at all There Z/,P(1/8'y
is no unity in the groups V-O'z oc 4� g-�
Dr. Brown aired his concern relative to continuing the public hearing. Because
the material has not been analyzed, he was not adverse to continuing the meeting
to June 12. If any further information is to come to staff, it should be received
within a week to 10 days to allow staff sufficient time to respond to it. At
that time, a decision should be made.
Peter Von Hagen was under the impression that Mr. Kanaster represented the merchants
and was disturbed that no proposals have been submitted by him. He was not opposed
to the continuance. He felt the principles were clear cut. He did not feel it
should be a monumental task to deal with this Commercial General District on
Western Avenue.
Mrs. Wike was in favor of closing the public hearing and making a decision at the
next meeting.
Mr. McNulty favored a continuance. He believed valid concerns had been raised, therefore,
he was in favor of leaving the public hearing open but proposed action to be taken on
the 12th.
The Commission concurred to continue the hearing to June 12 on the Development
Standards.
Mrs. Ortolano requested staff to gather and put the material into manageable form.
b
Minutes
5/22/84
Page Seven
Sign Standards
Mrs. Mavis Northern, 270 S. Bristol, Suite 201, Costa Mesa, represented
Diversified Properties as property manager for Westmont Plaza. She explained
that Mr. Kanaster was no longer representing the merchants, and they sought
help from the Sign Users Council of California. She spoke primarily about
demographics relative to sign use. She did not think commercial use in RPV
could compare to that on Western Avenue in the Eastview area. She addressed
the issue of tax revenue to the City and the importance of the visibility of
signs.
Leron Gubler, 1303 Dodson, San Pedro, represented the San Pedro Peninsula Chamber
of Commerce. He was concerned about the community and spoke about economics. He
said 2/3 of the City's business income comes from Eastview; he felt the City should
be more lenient for the following reasons: 1) Eastview is isolated from the City
and not competing with Golden Cove, 2) Western is a major state highway, 3)
competition across Western Avenue, 4) small businesses depend on walk-in traffic.
He thought the proposed sign ordinance would create serious difficulties for
the area.
Margot Chapman, 333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, representative of Security
Pacific Bank, believed signs are an important factor to businesses.
Pat Gough, 28900 So. Western Avenue, RPV, believed the proposed sign ordinance was
discriminatory against smaller merchants and asked for a continuance.
Jack Foretich, 28352 S. Western Avenue, RPV, representative of an insurance agency
in Westmont Plaza, inquired about sidewalk sale permits.
Mr. Robert Keenan, 13031 San Antonio Drive, Norwalk, represented Western Avenue
concerned merchants and the Sign Users Council of California. He referred to the
economic value of signs and proposed an ad hoc committee with someone from the
Planning Commission, staff, an owner and a merchant, to consider the economics.
He also spoke about the value of location and visibility.
Mr. Sam Mednik, owner of Harbor Heights Shopping Center, said without the signs
he would not have a business. He built his center 25 years ago when it was the
only business on Western Avenue, and had complied with all the rules. He felt he
was now being penalized.
Burley Ray Johnson, 28115 Montereina Drive, RPV, requested a continuance so that
the merchants could prepare a proposal. He said there was not a clear understanding
of the sign ordinance and the general issue is of upgrading and no-tinflicting
hardship. 04,
acs t_�
It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the Sign Standards until the
June 12th meeting.
REPORTS
Staff
01M
q
Minutes
5/22/84
Page Eight
Commission
Dr. Brown stated that the minutes are not
full enough in getting across the
reasoning behind the actions taken. He
requested that'i"nformat.ion on why_the oil ission voted the way they do be written
t
into the minutes. He was concerned with the appeals to Council.
Minutes of April 24, 1984 Dr. Brown requested an addition to the minutes
relative to Variance 100, Gardner, to read:
Commission agreed with staff findings relative
to public safety and attractive nuisance
as valid issues.
Mrs. Ortolano corrected page 3, Variance No. 99, to read... concrete driveway.
Mr. Von Hagen noted correction on page 2 of Mr. Dan Melilo's address to read;
43 1/2 Avenida Corona.
Relative to the May 8, 1984 minutes, Mrs. Ortolano requested page six be corrected
to read: Neither the Steinbachs nor the City were aware of this at the time.
Mr. Von Hagen moved to approve minutes of April 24 and May 8, 1984 as amended.
Seconded by Mr. McNulty and passed. Mrs. Wike abstained from approval of the
April 24, 1984 minutes.
ADJOURNMENT
1:00 a.m.
D