PC MINS 19940614APPROVEDT)
7/12/94
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 14, 1994
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M., by Chairman Alberio
at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Whiteneck.
PRESENT: Commissioners Hayes, Ferraro (arrived at 7:05 P.M.),
Vannorsdall, Wang (arrived at 7:32 P.M.) , Whiteneck, Vice
Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio
ABSENT: None
Also present were Director
Enforcement Bernard, Planning
Rojas, Assistant Planner de
Klopfenstein.
COMMUNICATIONS
A. STAFF
of Planning, Building and Code
Administrator Petru, Senior Planner
Freitas, and Assistant Planner
Director Bernard mentioned that there were several pieces
of late correspondence regarding Public Hearing Item VIIB
(6324 Via Colinita) , landslide information from Ms. Lois
Larue, and an emergency Grading Permit for the Portuguese
Bend Club. All these materials had been placed before
the Planning Commission. Also, a revised copy of the
Development Code Revision Staff Report and attachments
were furnished to members of the Planning Commission with
"circle numbered" pages for easier review.
B. COMMISSION
Chairman Alberio detailed several miscellaneous pieces of
correspondence received by the Planning Commissioners,
including a thank you letter from the Salvation Army.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to re -arrange the
agenda to address the Development Code Revisions (Continued
Business Item A), after New Business.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. SIGN PERMIT NO. 683• Diversified Development Co., 2910
Redhill Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (28350 - 28500
Western Avenue)
vice chairman Mowlds moved,, seconded by commissioner Hayes to
approve the Consent Calendar. Approved, (6-0).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. EXTREME SLOPE NO. 35; ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 23; AND
GRADING PERMIT NO. 1723 Mr. and Mrs. Soderstrom, 3324
Crownview Drive. (FF)
Commissioner Hayes recused herself, due to a possible business
relationship with a family member of the applicant.
Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report.
Applications have been submitted for Extreme Slope No. 35 and
Grading Permit No. 1723 to allow a 61 deck projection over the rear
yard extreme slope, ten solar panels over the same extreme slope,
and a 61 downslope retaining wall for a semi -subterranean pool
equipment room. It was Staff's opinion that the sloping nature of
the applicant's lot severely limits the ability to make
improvements to the rear of the property without encroaching into
the extreme slope area. The extended deck and solar panels would
not cause any serious view impairment and would not be visible from
several neighboring properties downslope from the subject lot, if
they were screened with vegetation. It was also Staff's opinion
that the proposed improvements will cause no disturbance to the
slope.
Staff felt that Encroachment Permit No. 23 for the wall and
driveway gate located within the public right-of-way would be in
the best interest of the City since the proposed wall would act as
a physical barrier between the street and the extreme slope in the
front. The proposed wall and gate would not be detrimental to
public safety since they will not interfere with traffic flow or
visibility. An encroachment permit is necessary as there is no
feasible or practical location for the proposed fence due to the
transition slope from the front of the property and Crownview Drive
and the pad on which the residence is situated. However, one of the
pilasters on a portion of the entry gate, which are 6f, fall within
the public right-of-way. Since the height limitation is 4211, the
applicant will either have to reduce the pilasters or relocate them
so that they are on the subject's private property. For these
reasons, which are explained in more detail in the Staff Report,
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request, subject to
suggested conditions of approval.
Chairman Alberio Opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Charles Soderstrom, (applicant) 3324 Crownview Drive, Rancho
Palos Verdes. Mr. Soderstrom stated that he had no objection to
limiting the height of the pilasters and driveway gate to 42
inches, within the public right-of-way. He was also flexible on
placing the solar panels further down the slope on a flatter
section where they could be well screened and which would also make
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 2
�r •
them more efficient because they would receive more sun. Regarding
the 6' balcony extension, he proposed that the perimeter section of
the wall be screened, as recommended by the City Staff. However,
he stated that the stairway and the balcony would be structurally
stronger if they were bonded together without a planter area
between the stairs and the screen wall, as suggested by Staff, and
asked the Planning Commission to consider this change.
Mr. Trent Hofferber, (landscape architect for the proposed project)
34167 Pacific Coast Highway, Dana Point, CA 92629. Mr. Hofferber
said that a planting plan would be submitted to the City for
approval for screening of the balcony extension wall and solar
panels.
Chairman Alberio asked if Mr. Hofferber was a licensed architect or
a landscaping architect and Mr. Hofferber said that he was a
landscaping architect.
Commissioner Vannorsdall wondered if the project involved grading
or was it on the original slope.
Mr. Hofferber said that no fill was proposed and that the pool area
was part of the original grading on the lot. He explained that the
new two-story house was a remodel of the old one-story structure,
using approximately the same building pad area and much of the same
foundation.
Commissioner Whiteneck wondered why the wall had to be in the
public right-of-way.
Mr. Hofferber explained that the right-of-way line and the top of
the slope were not in the same location. The proposed wall is
located at the top of the slope and the grade drops at a 1.5 to 1
slope behind the edge of the right-of-way boundary. Since the
front property line is located down the slope, moving the wall back
to the property line would put it about three or four feet below
the level of the street.
Chairman Alberio asked if they were concerned about the greater
expense of placing the wall on the front property line.
Mr. Hofferber replied that cost was not necessarily the most
important factor, but rather disturbance to the slope and
difficulty in construction. To accomplish an equivalent height
wall as viewed from the street, a 7' retaining wall would be needed
on the 1.5 to 1 slope, which would be visually unattractive.
Commissioner Vannorsdall noted the importance of preventing traffic
from accidentally driving over the hill.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 3
Chairman Alberio agreed, but added that the wall did not have to be
on City property to act as a traffic barrier. A retaining wall
designed by a structural engineer could provide the same degree of
safety, although this approach would be more expensive.
Vice Chairman Mowlds asked why it was necessary for the deck to
extend 6' over the extreme slope. He said that it appeared to him
that there was already a wall on the view side of the house.
Although he was not concerned with the pool equipment room being
located underground, he was worried about cutting into the extreme
slope to construct the room.
Mr. Hofferber said that they would be cutting into the extreme
slope and that the equipment would be set under what is now the top
of the slope.
Vice Chairman Mowlds asked why the landowner didn't put the pool
equipment and solar panels in other locations when they remodeled
the house. He added that often solar panels are placed on the roof
where they would be invisible from the street.
Mr. Hofferber said that he was not involved with the project from
the beginning and that he could not explain why the solar panels
were not to be placed on the roof.
Mr. Hofferber said that almost any location they considered for the
pool equipment required cutting into a slope. He added that they
considered cutting into the slope on the uphill side of the pool
terrace or putting it under the pool deck, as opposed to placing it
above grade adjacent to the pool. His decision was to mitigate
exposure and preserve as much deck area around the pool by placing
the pool equipment in a semi -subterranean enclosure under the pool
deck.
Vice Chairman Mowlds agreed that this was a good idea, but was
still concerned about visibility of the equipment.
Mr. Hofferber answered that it would not be unsightly because only
the two access doors would be visible. He added that the whole
slope would be planted for screening purposes.
Mr. Charles Soderstrom returned to the speaker's podium to answer
additional questions. He said that, during construction, he and
his contractor had considered placing the solar panels on the roof
but that there wasn't enough room to accommodate the panels in one
location and that they would have had to be spread out all across
the roof. For energy efficiency, the solar panels were being
placed near the pool area. The alternative would be to place them
further down the slope but this would involve his contractor's
having to plumb all the way down the hill to this location and run
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 4
the water back up to the pool. . Mr. Soderstrom concluded by saying
that he had tried to investigate all options in locating these
panels to satisfy everyone's interests and indicated that he would
do whatever he could to accommodate everyone.
Chairman Alberio Closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Vannorsdall said that he would like to see the solar
panels moved and suggested that they be moved to the east side of
the hill. He agreed that the retaining wall along the road
probably couldn't be moved because a barrier was needed to stop
traffic. However, he felt that the 61 pilaster should be moved
back onto the property or reduced to 4211 in height.
(At this point, 7:32 P.M., Commissioner Wang arrived)
Commissioner Ferraro made reference to a letter received right
before the meeting from a resident near the subject property who
indicated they had wanted to install solar panels in the past and
were not allowed to do so.
Director Bernard replied that, because the letter was just received
that night, Staff had no way of knowing what the problem might have
been and Chairman Alberio agreed that the facts were not known.
Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Staff to explain the deck extension over
the extreme slope. He felt the plans did not contain enough cross
sections, having been drawn by a landscape architect, rather than
an engineer.
Assistant Planner de Freitas answered that the only projection
being proposed over the extreme slope was for the semi -circular
deck situated between the two large columns at the back of the
house. The architect had not indicated on the plans how the deck
would be supported.
Vice Chairman Mowlds said that the drawing did not indicate
compliance with the Code, which required decks to cantilever over
the extreme slope, with no support members into the slope.
Planning Administrator Petru said that the Code stated that decks,
including cantilever, may extend a maximum of 61 into the extreme
slope. It did not require the deck to be completely cantilevered,
although it would be preferable to minimize disturbance to the
slope.
Vice Chairman Mowlds said that the drawing indicated that the deck
would be supported by an 81 wall.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 5
Assistant Planner de Freitas said that was why Staff had included
vegetation screening of the wall as a condition of approval.
Vice Chairman Mowlds said that he did not recall seeing that in the
conditions of approval.
Director Bernard confirmed that this was the intent, but possibly
it was not stated clearly enough.
Vice Chairman Mowlds said that he was not happy with the wall in
the right-of-way, but felt this was not a severe problem so he
would defer to the wishes of the other Commissioners.
Chairman Alberio said that he also would like to see the wall moved
out of the right-of-way; that he would prefer relocation of the
solar panels; and, that he agreed with Vice Chairman Mowlds
regarding the deck extension. He stated that he wanted the
architect and the owner to work with Staff to address these
concerns.
Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to Continue this item to June 28, 1994
to allow the applicant time to meet with Staff to address the
concerns of the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner
Ferraro. Approved (6-1), with Hayes abstaining.
Director Bernard suggested that the item be continued to July 12,
1994, because the Staff planner assigned to this project already
had three other items for the June 28, 1994 meeting.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was that this would be
acceptable and the motion was changed to indicate a continuance to
July 12, 1994. The substitute motion was approved (6-8-1), with
Commissioner Hayes abstaining.
Assistant Planner de Freitas clarified, for the benefit of the
applicant and the architect, that the concerns of the Commission
were (1) screening of the balcony; (2) relocation or reduction in
height of the wall in the public right-of-way; and, (3) relocation
of the solar panels.
Planning Administrator Petru stated that Staff would work with the
applicant for the relocation of the solar panels, but indicated
that the Code limited the extension of the solar panels into the
extreme slope to 121, measured either from the top of the slope or
the toe of the slope. If a greater distance was proposed, a
Variance would be required.
Commissioner Hayes returned to the dais.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 6
0
n
B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23912, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NO. 661, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1727, AND GRADING PERMIT NO.
1743; Richard Ducharme, 6324 Via Colinita. (KK)
Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report. The
request is to allow the division of a 33,853 square foot lot into
two parcels to accommodate two single family homes. The applicant
proposed to extensively grade the property in order to create
building pad areas for future home development. Much of the
proposed grading activity would occur in slopes which exceed 35% in
steepness, including the installation of two eight -foot high
upslope retaining walls on each lot. Code allows only one eight -
foot high upslope retaining wall per parcel.
Staff felt that the total of 3,040 cubic yards of grading (1,560
cubic yards on Parcel 1 and 1,480 cubic yards on Parcel 2), and the
installation of two upslope retaining walls on overly steep cut
slopes (200% in steepness) on each lot in order to provide a
driveway and building pads on each lot, was excessive for the
primary use of the lot, which is single family residential.
Using the slope density analysis prepared by the applicant (shown
on a photo board circulated among the Commissioners), Staff
calculated the area on each proposed parcel that has an existing
slope less than 35% in steepness. Staff found that Parcel 1 would
have approximately 3,324 square feet and Parcel 2 would have
roughly 6,488 square feet of contiguous area with a slope of less
than 35%.
However, the Planning commission should consider the fact that the
access driveway and required setbacks areas would reduce the
buildable area available for the residences and, with a substantial
portion of the buildable area taken up by setback and driveway
areas, more grading into the extreme slope would be necessary to
accommodate future residences.
In addition, each driveway would require a maximum gradient of 20%
along its length. Although the proposed driveways do not exceed
the Code maximum gradient requirement, Staff felt that they would
be too steep, since both driveways propose two very sharp turns and
that they would be subject to erosion because there were no
retaining walls proposed.
Staff and the project architect explored the possibility of a
shared driveway access as a possible method to reduce the total
amount of grading for the project. Unfortunately, the Palos Verdes
Art Jury's CC&Rls prohibit shared driveway access from one lot to
another. In' addition, Staff considered taking access to the
property from Palos Verdes Drive East, where the grade difference
between the roadway and the property is less severe. However, the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 7
City's Public Works Department indicated that it would be less
desirable from a traffic safety standpoint.
Since the subject property is located in the Miraleste area, the
written consent of the Palos Verdes Art Jury would be required
prior to the recordation of any parcel map. Staff indicated that
the Art Jury recently reviewed the proposed subdivision and denied
the application, due to excessive grading; however, they would
still consider a redesigned project.
Although the subdivision complies with the Development Code's
requirements for minimum lot size, dimensions, open space and
buildable area, Staff felt that the grading was excessive and was
not sensitive to the existing topography of the site. The City's
deadline to make a decision on the project was June 28, 1994.
Staff recommended that the applicant provide Staff a 30 -day time
extension and continue this item to July 12, 1994, to allow Staff
time to work with the applicant to re -design the project.
Commissioner Hayes felt it was important to determine whether or a
home could be built on each of the two proposed lots.
Vice Chairman Mowlds said that the Commission usually required a
conceptual footprint to be shown on each lot when a lot split was
proposed.
Commissioner Whiteneck wondered if any thought was given to
dividing the lot horizontally, opposite of what was proposed.
Assistant Planner Klopfenstein answered that the upper lot would
not have the minimum 3,000 square feet of buildable area with a 35%
slope or less, if the property was split horizontally.
Director Bernard added that dividing it horizontally would mean
that access for the upper lot would have to be taken from Palos
Verdes Drive East, which was not recommended by the Public Works
Department.
Chairman Alberio Opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Jim Marquez (architect for the applicant), 1860 S. Elena
Avenue-, Suite A, Redondo Beach, CA 90277. Mr. Marquez stated that
the applicant took the subject property in payment of a debt and
was interested in subdividing the lot to make it easier to sell.
He felt that the steep slope was not as great an issue as 1) access
to the property; 2) whether setbacks could be met; and, 3) how the
homes would be placed on the terrain. He noted that the Public
Works Department had advised against access off Palos Verde Drive
East, but had not prohibited it. He said that the applicant was
willing to accept conditions to remediate grading and to determine
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 8
appropriate access.
Vice Chairman Mowlds confirmed that Mr. Marquez represented the
applicant and asked if the applicant was willing to extend this
project until the middle of September 1994. Mr. Marquez said that
this would be acceptable.
Chairman Alberio asked Mr. Marquez if having the property split
into two lots might make it even more difficult to market.
Mr. Marquez replied that the property would be more marketable if
potential buyers knew that the Planning Commission and the Art Jury
reviewed and approved a lot split.
Chairman Alberio said that it was important to make sure that
buildable lots were created.
Vice Chairman Mowlds and Commission Hayes wanted to make sure that
Mr. Marquez understood how important it was that the footprints of
the two houses be shown and that possibly more time might be needed
because the new Development Code was not yet in print.
Mr. Marquez said that they could develop a conceptual plan for each
lot.
Commissioner Hayes asked Mr. Marquez if the object of the lot split
was to generate more income for the owner and Mr. Marquez indicated
that it was.
Commissioner Vannorsdall was concerned about steepness of the
driveways and he encouraged Mr. Marquez to decrease this steepness,
especially in light of the sharp curves in the driveways.
Mr. Howard Miller, 4512 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos
Verdes. Mr. Miller said that he owns the property immediately
south of the subject property and that he was opposed to dividing
the lot. He said that the lot had most recently been acquired in
1976 for $65,000 and evidently that owner had transferred the lot
to a corporation to pay a debt. He objected to a Seattle firm
proposing this lot split simply to recoup money they may have lost
in a trade and was concerned about the loss of one of the best view
lots in the area. It was his opinion that the applicant's
representative was hired merely to split the lot, not to guarantee
that two houses could be built on the two new lots. Mr. Miller
also discussed the fact that the Art Jury would have to approve the
project.
There was a discussion between Vice Chairman Mowlds and Mr. Miller
regarding the Homeowners Association and the Art Jury's involvement
in these types of projects in this part of the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 9
Commissioner Hayes moved to Continue this item to September 13,
1994 seconded by Vice Chairman Mowlds. Approved (7-0).
Planning Administrator Petru mentioned that a written agreement for
a time extension would be required from Mr. Marquez. In answer to
Mr. Marquez' request for information regarding what was required of
him before the September 13, 1994 meeting, Chairman Alberio
informed him that he should speak to Staff.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
There was a recess from 8:20 to 8:32 P.M. during which the Planning
Commission presented a gift to Director Bernard and his wife Laurel
for their first baby, Tanner Beecher Bernard, who was born on June
2, 1994.
NEW BUSINESS
A. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 24• Dr. and Mrs. Habbal, 30063
Cartier Drive. (KK)
Commissioner Hayes moved to waive reading of the Staff Report,
seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (7-0).
Dr. Souheil Habbal, (landowner) 30063 Cartier Drive. Dr. Habbal
commented that the Staff was very helpful, even though they went to
the City after the fence was built. He explained that, after 16
years of marriage, he and his wife had a son. Within the first
year, his son suffered a concussion from a playground fall and, at
14 months, wandered out of their yard, but the Sheriff's Department
was able to locate him. He explained that, because of these
circumstances, he and his wife have grown overprotective of their
son. Dr. Habbal stated their son had to play in their driveway
because their backyard was too steep. Therefore, a fence was
necessary at the front of the property and it had to be high enough
so that the boy could not climb over it. He explained that they
had contacted a contractor who assured them that any fence under 61
in height complied with the Code. Dr. Habbal stated that this man
was a friend of the family and was a reputable contractor.
Dr. Habbal and his wife were unaware that they were not in
compliance until they received a notice from the City stating that
they had to apply for a permit. He said that there was no way that
they could build a fence any farther away from the street, because
of the steep slope between the front property line and the house.
Dr. Habbal stated that their fence is a low profile, attractive
fence which is less than 61 high and that there is landscaping
covering it. There are no visibility or accessibility problems and
the neighbors are not affected. He repeated that a fence of 4211
would not have been sufficient to protect their son. He mentioned
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 18
that, before they built the fence, they had put their home on the
market for about six months but there was no interest; therefore,
they were forced to stay in their home and make it safe for their
son.
Commissioner Wang said that she viewed the property from only the
front and asked if the backyard was steep and faced Hawthorne
Boulevard.
Dr. Habbal said she was correct and access to the backyard was
difficult, as it could be reached only by steps from inside the
house. They had built a playground on the slope, but there was no
place for their son to ride his bike.
Chairman Alberio stated that there was no problem with the height,
but encroachment into the public right-of-way was a problem. He
felt that the contractor and the Habbal family should have realized
there was a problem because this fence was the only one in the
neighborhood which encroached so far out into the front of the
property.
Vice Chairman Mowlds said that he agreed with Chairman Alberio and
said that it was unbelievable that the contractor did not notice
that all the other fences in the area were set back. He added
that, although Dr. Habbal said that the fence presented no problems
with the neighbors, a neighbor brought this matter to the attention
of the City's Code Enforcement Department. Vice Chairman Mowlds
disagreed that this was a low profile fence and he felt that the
fact that all the other fences and shrubbery were set back off the
road contributed to the feeling of openness and the beauty of the
street.
Dr. Habbal responded that there was enough landscaping on the
property to hide the fence.
Vice Chairman Mowlds said that he believed the more landscaping on
the fence, the more it would stand out, and Chairman Alberio
agreed.
Chairman Alberio asked Dr. Habbal how long the fence had been
constructed and Dr. Habbal said that it was built in October 1993.
Commissioner Hayes moved to Deny the encroachment permit, seconded
by Vice Chairman Mowlds.
Commissioner Ferraro asked for clarification as to whether the
applicant could come back with a new proposal to move the fence
back to the front property line.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 11
Director Bernard explained the applicant's two options: 1) Dr.
Habbal could appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City
Council; or, 2) apply for a Minor Exception Permit for approval at
Staff level, which would require moving the fence back to the front
property line.
The motion was approved (7-0).
Planning Administrator Petru said that a Resolution would be
brought back on June 28, 1994, and the 15 -day appeal period would
begin on that date. She also indicated that Dr. Habbal could speak
to Staff if he had further questions.
CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S
MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS) ; City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR)
The reading of the Staff Report was waived by the Commission.
17.26.040 (A) (1 and 2) (Institutional District - General Development
Standards)
Commissioner Ferraro wanted to confirm that the figures of 1125, 55,
2011 were just being underlined and that there was no change to the
standards.
Senior Planner Rojas said there was no change.
17.28.040III [Cemetery District - Deliveries and Mechanical
Equipment]
Vice Chairman Mowlds observed that this portion of the Code stated
that trash sweepers could not exceed a noise level of 65 dBa, and
doubted if this would be a practical standard.
Director Bernard said that the 65 dBa noise level was selected
during the review of the Automotive Overlay District before the
City Council and Planning commission. It is recognized that
adjustments will have to made throughout the Development Code once
a Noise Ordinance is adopted for the City.
17.32.030(F)(1 and 2) [Open Space Hazard District]
Commissioner Ferraro asked why these two subsections were being
deleted and Commissioner Hayes and Chairman Alberio said that it
was being rewritten to be more clear.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 12
17.38.020 [Specific'Plan Districts - Establishment]
Commissioner Wang asked about consistency in capitalization of the
words "City Council" throughout the Code.
Senior Planner Rojas explained that a contract service would be
used by the city Clerk to reprint the entire Development Code as
part of the Municipal Code. According to the City Clerk, since a
consistent format is used throughout the Municipal Code, they do
not capitalize many of the words that Staff does.
Planning Administrator Petru added that the City would have copies
of the Development Code, printed by the City, available for
distribution to the Planning Commission and the public, which will
incorporate the capitalization usually used by the City Staff.
17.40.040(C) (3) [Natural Overlay Control District and Regulations -
Performance Criteria]
Commissioner Hayes mentioned that the word "that" in the phrase
"that one acre" should be changed to "than".
Senior Planner Rojas indicated he would make the change.
17.40.050(B) (1) [Socio -Cultural Control District and Regulations -
Application]
Commissioner Ferraro stated that the word "of" in the phrase "of
file with the Director" should be changed to "on".
Senior Planner Rojas said the change would be made.
17.40.050(B) (7) [Socio -Cultural Control District and Regulations -
Application]
Commissioner Hayes said that, since paragraph #8 had been deleted,
paragraph #7 should end with a period.
Senior Planner Rojas indicated he would make the change.
17.40.074(F) [Automotive Service Overlay Control Districts -
Operations]
Commissioner Hayes said that 50 decibels was indicated and she was
under the impression that this was going to be changed to the State
requirement of 65 decibels for businesses.
Director Bernard clarified that, in the Overlay District itself,
the Council established design and operational guidelines.
However, in establishing these guidelines, each of the sites was
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 13
required to come back for a Conditional Use Permit wherein specif is
standards (either stricter or more relaxed) could be established on
a case-by-case basis. Therefore, guidelines were suggestions for
standards, but a Conditional Use Permit established specific
standards.
17.42.040(B)(7) [Open Space - Development Standards]
Vice Chairman Mowlds asked why the 30% common open space
requirement was exclusive of bluff top areas dedicated for public
use. Planning Administrator Petru explained that it was a
requirement of the Coastal Commission, in approving the City's
Local Coastal Plan.
17.42.040(E) [Residential Planned Development - Parking
Requirements]
Commissioner Hayes asked about the minimum of two garage spaces and
whether or not this was going to be changed to three spaces.
Vice Chairman Mowlds agreed that this should be changed so that
three spaces would be required for houses over 5,000 square feet in
size.
Senior Planner Rojas explained that this portion of the Code
referred to multi -family residential development standards.
17.46.02(A) [Equestrian Overlay District - Uses Permitted]
Commissioner Ferraro asked why a change was being made to limit the
numbers of horses a landowner can have if they owned more than one
parcel of land.
Senior Planner Rojas said that this was a suggestion which came
about through Staff discussions earlier this year. The Development
Code Sub -Committee had agreed to limit the number of horses allowed
on multiple lots under the same ownership. However, he said that
there may be legal concerns with this approach and that he would
like the City Attorney to review the language because there are
situations in which this might not be workable. For example, in
cases where a property owner owned two adjoining parcels and rented
them to two different people, each renter should be able to have
six horses on each parcel.
There was considerable discussion among members of the Planning
Commission and it was decided to obtain advice from the City
Attorney on this matter.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 14
17.46.020(C)(1) (Equestrian Overlay District - Uses Permitted)
Commissioner Ferraro questioned the fact that property owners or
lessee would no longer be permitted to board horses that did not
belong to them.
Senior Planner Rojas said that this was linked to a separate Code
Amendment that was being formulated by the City Clerk's office
regarding the licensing and boarding of horses in the City.
Vice Chairman Mowlds said that the concern was that someone would
run a commercial venture in a residential zone.
Senior Planner Rojas explained that the separate Code Amendment was
intended to establish a business license and/or a special boarding
license for residents wishing to board horses on their property.
Commissioner Ferraro said that she did still did not understand why
this was being done and Director Bernard said it was at the
direction of City Council.
The public hearing on the Development Code Revisions was continued
to June 28, 1994.
Director Bernard mentioned that, according to the June 28, 1994,
pre -agenda presented to the Planning Commission, there would be
final draft language for some of the sections as well as new
sections to review at the next meeting.
REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. STAFF
1. Pre -Agenda for the June 28, 1994, meeting.
B. COMMISSION - NONE
COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items)
Dr. Souheil Habbal, 30063 Cartier Drive, commented on the Planning
Commission's decorum toward applicants.
Chairman Alberio thanked Dr. Habbal for his comments and assured
him that public comments of this nature were always welcomed.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Hayes moved,, seconded by Vice chairman movids, to
adjourn at 9:17 P.N. to the next regular meeting on June 28, 1994.
(A JD MIN#3 - MIN6 14)
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 1994
PAGE 15