Loading...
PC MINS 19941011APPROVED 11/9/94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 11, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M., by Chairman Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Joel Rojas. PRESENT: Commissioners, Ferraro, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio ABSENT: Hayes, Vannorsdall (both excused) Also present were Senior Planner Rojas and Assistant Planner de Freitas. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF Senior Planner Rojas stated that there were six items of late correspondence received after the commissioner's agenda packets were assembled and distributed for Conditional Use Permit No. 101 - Revision 11G11, Sign Permit No. 567 - Revision; BOSC Group, 28901 S. Western Avenue. These items of late correspondence had been placed before the Commission. B. COMMISSION - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR (no items) CONTINUED BUSINESS A. VARIANCE NO. 367 - REVISION, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1714 - REVISION; Mr. and Mrs. Milan Veteska, 5503 Graylog Street. (FF) A discussion, instigated by Commissioner Whiteneck, between several of the Commissioners and Staff concluded that P.C. Resolution No. 94-50 should specify exactly why Variance No. 367 - Revision and Grading Permit No. 1714 - Revision were denied. Assistant Planner de Freitas understood that Commissioner Whiteneck's intent was to intensify the fact that the Commission could not make the findings to support the project because this addition would be on an extreme slope. It was noted that, not only was the slope of the lot over 35% but that portions of the property had a slope of 60-70% and, in the back yard, there was a slope of up to 80%. Senior Planner Rojas suggested inserting additional clarifying language stating that this addition would be located on a slope that exceeded 35% and that this project was denied because the Development Code prohibits a home on an extreme slope. He added that the only way to approve building on an extreme slope was with a variance, which required that the Commission make four findings and, as the Commission did not make four findings, the application was denied. Chairman Alberio emphasized that, if there was an appeal to the City Council, there should be no ambiguity as to why this project was denied. Senior Planner Rojas clarified that with the Commission's action tonight, that will be made clear and that it would be read into the public record. Mr. Veteska was called to the podium by Chairman Alberio and Chairman Alberio asked if Mr. Veteska understood and he said that he did. Commissioner whiteneck moved that P.C. Resolution No. 94-50 be approved, as modified, seconded by Commissioner Wang, thereby Denying variance No. 367 -Revision and Grading Permit No. 1714 - Revision. Approved (5-0). B. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS) ; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Chairman Alberio suggested that the agenda be re -arranged to hear the Development Code Revisions at the end of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 101 - REVISION 11G11, SIGN PERMIT NO. 567 - REVISION; BOSC Group, 28901 S. Western Avenue. (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report, wherein he outlined the changes proposed to reverse the lack of success the shopping center has experienced. There was a discussion among the Commissioners, led by Vice Chairman Mowlds, regarding signage at the shopping centers in the City on Western Avenue, and it was concluded that the decision on this project, regarding signs, should be consistent with the Planning Commission's past, recent policy. specific examples referenced were signs at Hallmark, American Tire Company, and Lucky Market, projects which had come before the commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 2 Mr. Rich Atto, (applicant) The BOSC Group, 6905 Telegraph Road, #250, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301. Mr. Atto stated that he represented the company which owned the Terraces Shopping Center and he outlined the three areas of change. (1) REQUEST OF SITE MODIFICATIONS: Additional parking to be provided, demolishing of a portion of the third level building, an additional driveway on Western Avenue, and general, updated improvements. (2) NEW SIGNAGE PROGRAM: This would affect all tenant identification signs, three proposed monument signs, and directional signs to alleviate traffic problems. (3) LIMIT ON RETAIL USE: They are requesting that the Commission remove the condition limiting non -retail uses by providing adequate parking, and using a shared parking methodology. Jay Nelson, traffic consultant, was present and could provide details on shared parking. Mr. Atto pointed out that their goals are better tenant visibility, bringing new life into the center, and being more competitive with neighboring shopping areas, particularly those on the opposite side of Western which are in the city of Los Angeles (San Pedro), which has less stringent sign requirements. Mr. Sy Perkowitz, (applicant's architect) MPR, Architects, 911 Studebaker Road, Long Beach, CA 90815. Mr. Perkowitz mentioned that, because he resides in Palos Verdes Estates, he is familiar with the center. He explained that his recommendations included reducing some of the parapet walls and replacing them with wrought - iron railing, and removing the awnings from the first level to eliminate the "closed -in" feeling. Also, colors would be more muted and awnings on the second and third levels would have a uniform color, one for each level, for a clean, modern look. Signs would have a cleaner, more uniform look. An additional driveway was proposed to improve traffic circulation, as well as widening the south driveway, the heaviest area of congestion. Chairman Alberio agreed that widening the south driveway was a good idea and that an extra driveway would help congestion. He suggested re -striping to provide angled parking for El Pollo Loco and Blockbuster would help. Even though some spaces would be lost, access to the spaces would be easier. Chairman Alberio also mentioned the possibility of eliminating the left turn from Western Avenue into the center. Mr. Perkowitz felt eliminating the left hand turn would hurt the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 3 Commissioner Ferraro concurred on the congestion and said that, often., people double park because they cannot find a space and also the straight parking places were difficult to enter. She wondered if an escalator could be installed to the third level to encourage parking there, which was rarely used. Mr. Perkowitz said that he was not sure that the major expense of an escalator would be justified but that he would study this possibility. Chairman Alberio felt that lack of security was the reason people did not like to park on upper level, especially in the evening. Chairman Alberio asked if this plan was Phase I of the improvements and Mr. Perkowitz said no, that this was the entire proposal. Vice Chairman Mowlds agreed that parking could be an important aspect of a successful shopping center and mentioned the fact that a re -arrangement of the parking lot at Peninsula Shopping Center in Rolling Hills Estates almost collapsed the center until they returned to angled parking and provided another driveway off Hawthorne Blvd. Chairman Alberio stressed that angled parking would be needed only in the most congested areas and Mr. Perkowitz did not see a problem making that change. Mr. Jay Nelson, (applicant's traffic engineer) Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Mr. Nelson said he was present to answer questions regarding traffic and the shared parking methodology and agreed that angled parking was easier although there was a tradeoff because of a loss of spaces. Chairman Alberio asked Mr. Nelson if he felt elimination of the left turn might solve some of the traffic problems. Jay Nelson replied that they could discuss it with Cal Trans. Mr. Robert De Lossa, 2345 Sparta Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. De Lossa reported that he was speaking on behalf of other residents in Eastview against the proposed changes. He expressed opposition to adjusting the retail vs. non -retail percentage. He felt sure the Department of Transportation, or what ever governing body would apply, would have to give approval regarding driveway changes and agreed that a left hand turn lane was needed. He cited a survey, performed about a year after the shopping center was complete, which reported that no left hand turn lane was required. He also stated his desire for a traffic light leading into the center and said, that, without a signal, additional tenants in the shopping PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 4 center would only worsen the congestion. He was against modifying the existing sign program to allow additional tenant identification and, even though he felt compassion for the owner, he likened the situation to a "child who killed his parents and then complained about being an orphan". He explained that, when the shopping center was approved, the neighborhood had many concerns and the City was definite about what was accepted. After the public hearings, the project was approved with stipulations and the developer elected to go forward even though it was an ill-conceived project. The concerns at the beginning were ingress/egress, insufficient parking, and signage. Mr. De Lossa added that the center was overcrowded and that the economic situation had intensified the lack of success. He mentioned that Audio Video International consistently violates signage. They have had placards as far as Gaffey and a parked van with a sign pointed to the business and that this past weekend, this merchant had 6' to 7' wide helium balloons. He felt that the center contributed to increased traffic and graffiti and the changes would make the situation worse. He reminded the Commission that Eastview was a very influential and difficult vote to attain and that opting to support a developer over the community would send a clear message that the City values potential business revenue more than the Eastview vote. Mr. De Lossa also disagreed that Rancho Palos Verdes should want to be like the City of Los Angeles regarding signage. Chairman Alberio asked Mr. De Lossa how many people he represented and he said about 200 minimum in the Caddington area. However, he acknowledged that he hadn't personally talked to all of them but people he had talked to felt that the Terraces had never been a viable property. Mr. De Lossa suggested that maybe the owner could offer a financially advantageous arrangement to Blockbuster and Trader ,Toe's to move upstairs. They have an established clientele and cause the biggest part of traffic problem. Commissioner Wang asked Mr. De Lossa if he represented a Homeowners Association and he said no, but that he had been consistently calling the Code Enforcement Department for Code violations about signage in the area. He was unhappy about the fact that only people within a 500' radius of this project were contacted, because he felt this project impacts thousands of people. As much as he realized that the City needs the revenue, he felt that the changes for this project were not acceptable. Vice Chairman Mowlds requested that Mr. Lassa explain that types of businesses he would include in the non -retail cap and why he would exclude that type of operation. Mr. De Lossa said that he would include accountancies, personal services, as opposed to retail merchandise sales. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 5 R Vice Chairman Mowlds asked him why he would change the non -retail cap. Mr. De Lossa replied that it was believed that a person coming to the shopping center for personal services, stays longer and, therefore, the traffic would be less. Vice Chairman Mowlds described the non -retail cap situation in Palos Verdes Estates in which there were many real estates offices in one center, which caused parking problems and he suggested that a usage factor for parking could be determined from the Urban Land Institute. Mr. De Lossa said, at this time, the retail vs. non -retail situation was not significant because there was nowhere near the saturation point in either area. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. De Lossa to identify the exterior modifications to which he was opposed. In the discussion, it was revealed that Mr. De Lossa was against increasing the Monument sign profiles to 251 but not against the hand rails or colored awnings, although he said that he did not believe the center suffers right now from an appearance problem. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. De Lossa's opinion about demolishing buildings to provide more parking space. Mr. De Lossa was not opposed to that part of the proposal but felt that there were better ideas not yet explored, namely, the left hand turn lane and moving Blockbuster Video and Trader Joe's. Vice Chairman Mowlds pointed out that tenant improvements are expensive and would be necessary for this move. Vice Chairman Mowlds and Mr. De Lossa discussed the situation with the balloons and the fact that Mr. De Lossa reported that there had been no Code Enforcement action. Chairman Alberio and Mr. De Lossa discussed the history of the site since Mr. De Lossa had lived in the area for the last 15 years and had attended the hearings when the Terraces was originally proposed. Ms. Jody Culver, 28918 Gunter Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Culver said she represented five families who abut the third level of the shopping center. She wanted the shopping center to be successful but questioned the proposed changes. Although lowering the percentage of retail vs. non -retail was acceptable, she did not believe either should be entirely eliminated. She was concerned about the kind of clientele the hypothetical billiards/sports bar PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 6 would attract, possibly gangs, and an estimated 94% capacity at 10:00 P.M. during the weekdays. She reported that, even in the past, several times the police had to be called and she stressed the need for better security. She said that people in the neighborhood go to bed early, between 9:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M., so sleep would be disturbed. She also objected to the Discovery Zone for children and worried about odors and noise from a restaurant, making reference to previous problems with Portofino's Restaurant, and the fact that a recent state law required that new restaurants had to provide a system to eliminate the odors and carcinogens. Ms. Culver's other objections included the fact that the requested signs were too high, the baby blimps being used now, and new air conditioners on the roof, which, are in conflict with regulations passed, stating that any new business may install any type of noise -generating equipment on the roof. Chairman Alberio asked Ms. Culver how she would feel about moving El Pollo Loco to the third f loor and she said she would not approve of that and that even Blockbuster's being relocated on the third level would create a lot of noise. Ms. Carol Castro, 28924 Gunter Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Castro reported that she lived in the neighborhood for 32 years so she was familiar with the old shopping center, was present during the hearings for the current shopping center, and did not think it was feasible to have a three level center because people would not walk up and down, regardless of the parking situation. She felt that the theater draws a bad clientele, which causes graffiti, and that more security was needed. She objected to the small blimp in direct view from her home and did not believe signs should be 25' tall to block views, and if illuminated, to diminish the night view. Chairman Alberio asked Ms. Castro about problems with the movie theater and she said she was at the opposite end of the shopping center from the theater so it caused no problems for her except for the sound of the cars. Commissioner Wang asked about Ms. Castro's view which would be lost and she said the view differed from where on the street a person lived, and that she was speaking in general. Ms. Nancy Cabatic, 28832 Gunter Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Cabatic stated that she had lived directly behind the Terraces for about a year and attributed the large amount of traffic on her street to the shopping center because if people missed the turnoff on Caddington, they turned onto Gunter and had to turn around because it is a cul de sac with no sign indicating that it is not a through street. She explained that her house has a sloped back yard and responsibility for cleanup of the slope was in question. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 7 • She said the last cleanup was in 1986, when the shopping center was built. She felt that illumination of signs would spoil the night view. She agreed with other speakers regarding the need for more security and was particularly nervous about people climbing up the slope into her back yard. She was not opposed to beautifying the shopping center and thought angled parking would help the terrible parking problem. Ms. Cabatic said that she would not drive to the center because of the parking situation and it was difficult to walk there on the steep hills with her two small children. She added that the health spa and Discovery Zone would attract more people to worsen the parking situation and felt that 30 more parking spaces will not solve the problem. Ms. Nina Yoshida, 28808 Gunter Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Yoshida said that she had lived in her home since 1972 and had gone through all the phases of this property. She agreed with everything said so far and added some additional thoughts. She was bothered by trash being picked up at the theater at 5:00 A.M. every morning and had spoken to the sheriff's office, but they were not interested. Other complaints included theater employees throwing trash into the barrels at 11:00 P.M., theater patrons crawling up her hill and yelling, the necessity for her cleaning up McDonald's trash, as well as beer bottles and cans. She reported vandalism, specifically, her husband's broken truck windshield, five vehicles in the neighborhood broken into, and stolen vehicles. She felt the problem section covered the five houses on either side of the intersection of Caddington and Gunter. Ms. Yoshida wrote a letter, just distributed to Commission, and did not discuss situations described therein. She concluded by saying that she was in favor of the shopping center but not at the expense of the nearby residents. Chairman Alberio asked Ms. Yoshida if she shopped there and she said she did not, and neither did many of her neighbors, because they felt they could get more for their money elsewhere. Vice Chairman Mowlds commented on items in Ms. Yoshida's letter. In reference to her request that trash should not be picked up on level three prior to 7:00 A.M. or after 6:00 P.M., the hours of operation for tenants is 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. and, on the third level until 11:00 P.M. Her proposal presented a conflict. Ms. Yoshida suggested the ordinance could be changed within 30 days after a public hearing. Vice Chairman Mowlds also mentioned her request for no cleaning of any kind inside or outside of the third level before 9:00 A.M. or after 9:00 P.M. and Ms. Yoshida replied that the theater cleaned all night, disrupting sleep in the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 8 Vice Chairman Mowlds commented that construction is allowed after 7:00 A.M., and asked if that was a problem for her. Ms. Yoshida thought that was reasonable. Chairman Alberio commented that the third level couldn't be different than other levels and Ms. Yoshida said they could all be changed. Commissioner Wang asked Ms. Yoshida if she had talked to the manager of the movie theater and she answered that she had never been able to make contact with the manager. She added that she had written to Code Enforcement about the theater personnel dumping their cleaning water onto the grass. Mr. Larry Gonzales, 28820 Gunter Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Gonzales said that he was born in San Pedro, had lived in Rancho Palos Verdes for 19 years so he was familiar with the history of site and was present at the original hearings when the shopping center was approved. He was not opposed to installation of railings and other changes to make the center more attractive, however, he listed the following as problems: parking, the left turn lane off Western, and the high signs, especially if they are illuminated. He added that his back yard was directly adjacent to the shopping center. He felt the real problem affecting the success of the center was the inability to attract tenants and he didn't think anything was going to improve this situation. He also mentioned a problem with the trees on the slope behind his house. In the past, he had trimmed the trees once a year to protect his view but recently had been running into opposition from the shopping center. He was wondering who is responsible for these trees. He agreed security was a problem and asked why residents up Caddington were not informed of the hearing because they are impacted also. Chairman Alberio replied that the hearing was noticed, using the proper criteria. Assistant Planner de Freitas concurred, stating that 800 residents were notified and that there was a public notice in the local newspaper. Chairman Alberio asked Mr. Gonzalez if he used the shopping center. Mr. Gonzales said he patronized E1 Pollo Loco and Blockbuster, the theater occasionally, Trader Joe's, and Mules. Mr. Rich Atto, Rebuttal: Mr. Atto thanked everyone for coming tonight because it was important to hear comments from the neighbors. It seemed to him that several of the problems were not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 9 planning issues, but applied to security and tenant policing and he wondered if this was the proper forum for discussion. He said that, contrary to what had been said, he believed the proposed changes would help improve some of the problems. He emphasized that this was an existing shopping center in the correct zoning district, and, as such, it was entitled to have certain types of uses. He disagreed that the shopping center was causing crime problems in the neighborhood because these were common problems, even in the most affluent neighborhoods and, felt that more tenants and traffic would help the security problem. He clarified that there was a misconception regarding the cap on usage and that it was on non -retail, not on retail use. In order to make the center viable, additional tenants were needed and signage was needed for identification. Mr. Atto expressed an interest in working together with the community to resolve problems. Chairman Alberio suggested that enforcement of rules through tenant leases would decrease some of the complaints and Mr. Atto agreed. Chairman Alberio said it would be helpful if the neighbors could come to Mr. Atto's organization with complaints. Mr. Atto concurred and stressed that they were accessible, through local management, and that input was welcomed. Chairman Alberio asked if Mr. Atto was willing to compromise and Mr. Atto replied that he had been compromising with Staff for three months and would continue to do so, as long as the compromises were reasonable. Vice Chairman Mowlds took exception to Mr. Atto's comment that many of the comments made by the neighbors were not planning issues. He added that, if Mr. Atto wished the Planning commission to review only strictly planning issues, the Commission could ask him to clear up all the violations, such as the inflatable blimp, and then come back to the Commission for review of the proposed changes. Mr. Atto reiterated that he welcomed information from the public but that he was asking for tools from the Planning Commission to address the neighborhood problems and enforce the rules in the center. Vice Chairman Mowlds replied that he already had the tools through tenant leases, because any landowner was obligated to make sure their tenants conform with the Code in the City in which they are doing business. Mr. Mowlds pointed out that other problems addressed in the City's Code include the decibel level of mechanical equipment on the roof and regulation of parking sweepers. He interpreted Mr. Atto's comments to indicate that the Commission did not have the authority to listen to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 10 neighborhood's complaints and that enforcement of the Code was the only action needed. Mr. Atto apologized and said that was not what he meant. He added that he had not heard about the blimp until that afternoon and was he was willing to resolve complaints when he was notified. He suggested that management needed to work more closely with the Code Enforcement Department so that a complaint could be referred to management rather than having the City get involved. He emphasized their commitment to oversee the shopping center and said someone flew in, almost on a weekly basis, and that they were in constant communication with the property manager. Senior Planner Rojas stated that, although Staff supported most of Mr. Atto's requests, the City's paramount interest was making sure the neighborhood's concerns were addressed. As Vice Chairman Mowlds mentioned, most of the issues were already in the conditions for the original Conditional Use Permit, regarding the roof equipment noise, odors, trash pickup time, type of uses, sign illumination. He acknowledged an enforcement problem and commented that turnover in the ownership had contributed to the difficulty. Mr. Rojas said that he had spoken with Mr. Atto regarding the City's concerns with long term violations, and Mr. Atto expressed interest in working with Code Enforcement to better enforce the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Rojas said that, if the Planning Commission wished, additional conditions could be added to the Conditional Use Permit, regarding slope cleanup, theater security, and a graffiti control program. With respect to parking and traffic circulation, the City's traffic consultant, Steve Sasaki, had met with the applicant and was present, prepared to discuss possible solutions. Also present was Dean Allison, from the City's Public Works Department who acts as liaison with the Traffic Committee, who had discussed these traffic issues. Chairman Alberio expressed interest in hearing from Mr. Sasaki and Mr. Allison. He stated that, hopefully, there was now a landlord who would work with the community and suggested that security problems would be decreased with more occupancy. Mr. Atto agreed that vacancy was an invitation to vandalism. Commissioner Ferraro asked Mr. Atto if his company had considered moving Blockbuster and Trader Joe's to improve circulation problem and Mr. Atto responded that he was not sure they would want to relocate to the third level without proper signage. Commissioner Ferraro argued that they already had a loyal following. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 11 Mr. Atto pointed out that major retailers had their own criteria for determining location, and that he knew that Blockbuster, in particular, was very specific about their site location. Commissioner Ferraro was not convinced that the additional driveway would improve circulation and asked about re -striping. Mr. Atto indicated their willingness to consider alternatives and mentioned the comprehensive directional sign program. He suggested that requiring some of the employees of those busy second level operations to park on the third level might improve the parking situation. Commissioner Ferraro commented that security problems also hindered obtaining new tenants. Mr. Atto indicated that one problem with providing more security was the cost which would be decreased with more tenants to share the additional cost. He pointed out that one of the parking areas in the back at the south end at the third level was never used because it was isolated and hidden, however, with the demolishing of some of the buildings, the area would become more visible and useable. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked about the request to eliminate the non - retail cap and wondered if Mr. Atto would consider maintaining the non -retail cap and to restrict certain usages. He referred again to the problem in Palos Verdes Estates at Malaga Cove in which too many real estates offices caused a parking shortage. Mr. Atto resisted eliminating real estate offices as tenants because there was currently a real estate office in the center and remarked that the shared parking methodology would limit the leasing of the shopping center, related to the number of parking spaces needed and. available. He explained that if the center was only 85% occupied and those businesses needed all of the available parking spaces, no other tenants could be pursued. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. Atto if he was willing to limit his tenancy and he said yes and, that as tenants came and went, parking supply would be reviewed. Vice Chairman Mowlds said that would need to be spelled out in the conditions of approval and Senior Planner Rojas said that would be done. RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 9:15 P.M. and reconvened at 9:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 12 Mr. Dean Allison, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department. Mr. Allison said that the Traffic Committee had reviewed two issues: (1) the additional driveway, with minor re - striping on Western, and (2) on site parking and traffic flow. The Traffic Committee approved the driveway and, with respect to parking, asked the Public Works Department and Steve Sasaki, the City's Traffic Engineer, to work with the Planning Staff to determine alternatives. Chairman Alberio asked if Cal Trans had been contacted and Mr. Allison said that Mr. Atto would speak to Cal Trans after approvals were obtained from the City. Senior Planner Rojas agreed that this was the proper procedure. Mr. Steve Sasaki, Traffic Consultant for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Sasaki indicated that when he had considered the effect of congested south driveway, he did not have detailed information but that he was generally trying to create some sort of entry areas to reduce parking activities and congestion. Chairman Alberio asked to what degree the new driveway would improve congestion. Mr. Sasaki repeated that he did not have detailed data but felt it would definitely be a benefit. He added that he had recommended that the north driveway be closed but the Traffic Committee felt it should remain. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked about the benefits of diagonal parking. Mr. Sasaki replied that generally that was a good idea but felt that a more detailed study should be performed to make sure. Commissioner Ferraro asked why there was a recommendation to eliminate the north driveway. Mr. Sasaki explained that there was a problem with conflicting traffic coming in and out of that particular driveway. Commissioner Ferraro pointed out that there is a severe dip turning left off Western at El Pollo Loco, which caused cars to almost stop, backing up traffic. Mr. Sasaki was not aware of this condition and said it could be investigated. Commissioner Ferraro moved to Close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (5-0) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 13 Commissioner Ferraro saw the importance of appearance improvements, including removal of the parapet wall, and improving traffic circulation, including angled parking. She was not convinced that an extra driveway would improve congestion at the busiest end of the center. With respect to signage, she felt it was important to determine the height of the signs across the street at Harbor Cove Center for comparison and was not sure the Terraces signs needed to be 25' high. Since the movie theater was the only one in the area and residents were aware of its existence, she questioned the need for more theater signage. She realized, from personal experience, that more security was needed near the theater. She addressed the problem of needing more tenants to make the shopping center viable but some improvements would depend of the type of tenant moving in so this presented a dilemma as to which would come first. There was a discussion led by Chairman Alberio regarding the recent past policy of the Planning Commission regarding the maximum height of signs in shopping center. Specific projects mentioned were Hallmark and American Tire, and it was determined that the actual height of the sign was not the issue in those cases, but the size of the letters themselves. Assistant Planner de Freitas indicated that the existing sign at the Terraces approved in 1989, is under 161. In a later application, a previous owner submitted a sign permit application for a 25' sign and the Commission denied the request and approved a 16' sign, which was never built. Commissioner Whiteneck believed that, in order for the shopping center to be successful, it would have to be acceptable to the community and communications would have to be established. He was in agreement with adding other conditions of approval as needed so that management knew their responsibility for policing the tenants, security and cleanup. He also felt it was important to make this facility compatible with the surrounding area. Commissioner Wang was pleased that the current owner wanted to revive the shopping center and that the neighborhood's concerns were being considered. She felt an on-site manager would be appropriate to improve communications with the surrounding residential area. She was in favor of angled parking and was sorry that there was a low occupancy rate. She believed that higher signs were important to compete with other neighboring shopping centers. Vice Chairman Mowlds felt that the determination on the signs should maintain consistency with recent Planning Commission decisions and, because, even though this is Rancho Palos Verdes, it is also Western Avenue, where shopping centers were considered with different criteria than, say, Golden Cove. He was not sure that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 14 the movie theater needed a separate sign and that the parking demand vs. usage needed to be clearly defined in the conditions of approval. He agreed with all the comments regarding traffic circulation and suggested that the owners obtain input from Peninsula Shopping Center in Rolling Hills Estates. With respect to the operating hours of 7:00 A.M. to Midnight, with restaurants, bars and the theater being open until 2:00 A.M., Mr. Mowlds requested that Staff investigate whether the theater needed to be open that late and suggested they check with Rolling Hills Plaza in Torrance to determine their closing time. Assistant Planner de Freitas pointed out that these operating hours were in the existing conditions of approval for the center. Vice Chairman Mowlds was aware of that but said that, when the owner requested revisions to his benefit, the city also was also provided with an opportunity to make changes for the benefit of the neighborhood. Mr. Mowlds also suggested that, under Condition No. 8, "prior to any work being done" be changed to "prior to any permits being issued". Regarding Condition No. 9, he suggested changing "all awnings shall be of the same color" to "all awnings shall be of the same color on any given level". For Condition No. 10, on page 5 of 5, under 13L regarding signs not being illuminated after Midnight, he indicated that it had been recently the policy that signs could be lit according to the Los Angeles City Code which, was all night. The reason for this was because people are out after Midnight and see certain businesses and come when they are open. At "KII, he felt the statement "no animated, flashing or audible fixtures or temporary banners, flags, balloons, and the like shall be permitted on any of the monument signs", should be revised to read "no animated.... shall be permitted", eliminating the words "on any of the monument signs" to be more restrictive. Assistant Planner de Freitas indicated that there was a condition in the previous sign permit that specifically addressed that issue. Vice Chairman Mowlds also believed there should be no flags, balloons, or temporary banners allowed. He felt someone wanting a temporary 30 -day banner should apply for a permit. Mr. Mowlds then suggested that the Public Hearing be re -opened and that the item be continued for two weeks, in order for the applicant to work with Staff. Commissioner Ferraro saw a contradiction because on Page 9, there was a reference to traditional neon illumination and on Page 5 of 5, there was a statement that no neon would be permitted. Assistant Planner de Freitas clarified that this was what the applicant wanted and the suggested conditions of approval said there would be no neon. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 15 Chairman Alberio agreed with the plan for the percentage of occupancy to be dictated by parking supply, to demolish buildings to increase parking and to add another driveway. Regarding signs, he wanted to compare the proposed signs with the current signs across the street but to take into consideration the concerns of the public, specifically regarding illuminated signs. The Conditional Use Permit regulates noise and the landlord would be responsible for enforcing their lease terms and communicating with Code Enforcement. Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to Re -open the Public Hearing and continue the item to October 25, 1994, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (5-0). Senior Planner Rojas indicated that the City would notice the meeting in the usual manner, including interested parties and everyone who spoke this evening. Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that the Homeowners Associations in the area be notified also. Senior Planner Rojas suggested that this mailing include all the Homeowners Associations along Western. Chairman Alberio requested that the traffic consultant investigate possible solutions to improve congestion at the south driveway. Vice Chairman Mowlds believed the traffic flow should be analyzed by providing a worst case scenario for density and then determining alternatives, possibly one-way traffic. Assistant Planner de Freitas asked the Commission if they wanted the City's Traffic Committee to review these issues or just the Traffic Consultant. Chairman Alberio replied that, since the Committee had already reviewed the situation, input from only the Traffic Consultant would be required, since he was the expert. Senior Planner Rojas added that, in addition to the proposed directional sign program, the consultant could look at specific options like diagonal parking and other types of restrictions on the driveways and traffic flow. Assistant Planner de Freitas asked if he understood correctly that the commission was not completely opposed to the 251 monument or should the 161 restriction apply. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 16 Vice Chairman Mowlds felt that consistency with previous commission action in the last couple of years should be maintained so that this applicant would be treated exactly the same. Assistant Planner de Freitas asked, with regard to illumination, what direction should be taken. He said that Vice Chairman Mowlds had suggested eliminating the condition restricting illumination after Midnight, while Chairman Alberio wanted to consider the impacts on the neighborhood. Chairman Alberio stressed that there should be a balance between the rights of the applicants and the neighbors. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked for information regarding previous decision by the Planning commission regarding other shopping centers. Senior Planner Rojas said that an analysis of the other signs would be provided. Commissioner Ferraro suggested that Harbor Cove be included in the analysis. Senior Planner Rojas made reference to Staff Reports from 1986 and 1988, which indicated that some movies were starting at 11:00 P.M. and ending about 1:00 A.M. and the condition stated that the theater had to be cleared by 2:00 A.M. He asked if this condition should remain or if Staff should research the situation further. Chairman Alberio asked that further research be conducted. Chairman Alberio was also concerned about other businesses which operate at late hours, specifically a pool hall, and was worried about the type of clientele which might be attracted by these type of businesses. Assistant Planner de Freitas clarified that the billiards/sports bar was a hypothetical tenant only and that none of these possible tenants had committed to signing a lease with the center as yet. Chairman Alberio did not want to approve this type of the activity because he felt it was not in the best interest of the community. Senior Planner Rojas replied that the initial conversations with the applicant raised some concerns that billiards would attract a bad element and the applicant explained that more upscale billiards clubs had become popular in cities throughout Southern California and the atmosphere was much different than the traditional pool hall. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 17 Commissioner Whiteneck asked for a definition of "upscale". Senior Planner Rojas said that the applicant had literature on this type of operation and the billiards/sports bar would still need to get an ABC license. There had been concern about off-site alcohol sales at Trader Joe's that was reviewed via a Conditional Use Permit Revision with and subject to a lot of public testimony and conditions. However, because the billiards club would only allow on-site consumption of alcohol, the Conditional Use Permit revision process would not apply. Vice Chairman Mowlds had comments regarding the movie theater's hours of operation. He felt that, if a 1990's decision was made stating that signs should be bigger because that's what other businesses have; on the same rationale, if other theaters did stay open until 2:00 A.M., then possibly the Terraces theater did not need to be open that late either. He suggested that Staff check with the theaters at Rolling Hills Plaza in Torrance, which did not seem to have the crime problem. Chairman Alberio asked if the property manager was in attendance and if there was an office on the premises, with someone present at all times. Mr. Atto identified the management company as Pacific West Asset Management Corporation and indicated that Ms. Cindi Ybarra was the property manager, who was not on-site at all times, but visited frequently. Chairman Alberio asked where Ms. Ybarrals office was and Mr. Gerry Flanigan, a representative from the management company said her office was in Irvine and that there is a 24-hour emergency number which works well for maintaining contact with the residential community surrounding the Terraces. He explained that the company managed 38 shopping centers, 28 of them in Southern California, ranging from upscale to not -so -upscale neighborhoods. He added that Ms. Ybarra was very experienced in property management. Chairman Alberio asked if the landowner and the property manager were both empowered to make decisions. Mr. Flanigan said yes, and that they were in close communication with the owner. RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 9:40 P.M. and reconvened at 9:50 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 18 0 CONTINUED BUSINESS (continued - according to reorganization of agenda) B. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS); City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Vice chairman Mowlds remarked on Mr. Richard Barals testimony at the last meeting and discussions regarding the number of horses allowed on a certain amount of land and how this would be affected by the proposed language that would require two abutting parcels owned by the same person to be counted as one lot for the purposes of determining the maximum number of horses; whether or not land designated as horse property can be used for other facilities, such as tennis courts or swimming pools; boarding horses not belonging to the landowner; and the fact that the Planning Commission is interested in input from horse owners regarding these subjects. Mrs. Kay Bara, #1 Peppertree, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Bara understood that, if a landowner no longer wanted to keep horses on their property in a Q zone, they would not be allowed to build a tennis court or a swimming pool in place of horse facilities. She was opposed to requiring a business license for boarding horses, other than the landowner's, because usually the number of horses was small and no profit was being made. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked for her recommendation on the Code. Mrs. Bara wanted it to be left as it is. She saw nothing wrong with horses using sloped areas, and felt that most of the restrictions were being recommended in order to rid the City of horses. She pointed out that the city would receive no money from the proposed licensing, only the SPCA, and because no diseases are passed from horses to humans, there was not a health problem. She believed that the purpose of licensing and business license proposals were to build a data base to be used to discourage citizens from owning horses. Ms. Pam Turner, (representing Palos Verdes Peninsula Horseman's Association) 5700 Ravenspur Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Turner also felt that horse ownership was being attacked. She emphasized that Rancho Palos Verdes was a community with a history of horses and a rural lifestyle. She thought that the City Council and Planning Commission seemed very unfriendly to horses, and that the equestrian lifestyle was important to a lot of people. She felt that not all horse owners were creating problems for the City and that it was wrong to take away rights of taxpaying citizens. She wanted to leave the Code as it is now and felt that licensing horses was ridiculous. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 19 1 L a 0 0 Chairman Alberio asked how many members belong to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horseman's Association. Ms. Turner estimated about 200 to 500 members but offered to obtain an exact count if the Commission wished to have the information. Chairman Alberio surmised from Ms. Turner's statements that she thought there was too much government control on this issue. Ms. Turner said yes, because she did not believe the government should interfere with lifestyles. She felt that there was proper fly control and hauling away of manure and disagreed that landowners were making a business of boarding of horses, but were merely breaking even. A discussion ensued between Vice Chairman Mowlds and Ms. Tuner regarding how much land would be needed per horse and Ms. Turner was not prepared to answer immediately but offered to investigate and provide information later. When Mr. Mowlds asked for her general opinion, she indicated that she thought the current Code was correct. Ms. Linda Rawlina, 29624 Grandpoint, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Rawling stated that she had lived in the City for 20 years but not in a Q zone. She informed the Commission that she bought and boarded her first horse in the same facility, a private home and that, currently, she and her husband own two horses, one boarded at a commercial stable and another at a private home. Her concern was not for the owners of horse property but for people who need boarding for their horses. She objected to the stringent requirements regarding the number of horses allowed per parcel because it reduced the number of available boarding spaces. Ms. Lisa Gladstone Albrecht, 5 Cinnamon Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Albrecht asked about the reason for the worry about horse density and asked if it was based on concern for the neighbors or the health of the horses. Vice Chairman Mowlds replied that he was concerned about density as it related to the usage on the lot, noting the requirement for 400 square feet per horse for a corral. Ms. Albrecht believed the current Code was correct. She felt that there were no problems created by simply too many horses. Ms. Carole Lebental, 26934 Whitestone Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Lebental indicated that she had lived in the area since 1966 and chose to live in Rancho Palos Verdes because of the horses. Even though she did not purchase horse property, she knew there would be horse facilities nearby. Therefore, she objected to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 20 restriction that a landowner could board only his own horses. She pointed out that horseback riding is a companion sport and that it is natural to want to ride with other people. She felt there could be as many horses as there were stalls, providing there was sufficient turnout area. Ms. Ora Jean Stevenson, 30136 Via Rivera, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Stevenson stated that she owned a horse but does not reside in the Q district. She agreed with previous statements objecting to only a landowner's horses being boarded on their property as long as other City guidelines were being followed. Ms. Karen Devanee, 28121 Highridge Road, #411, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Devanee reported that she owned a horse, did not live on horse property, therefore she boarded at a private residence. She did not believe that boarding at a home created a profit center, only that landowners were kind enough to help others. She felt that some horse owners would not be able to keep their horses if forced to pay expensive fees at the commercial stables. Ms. Toni Deeble, 3 East Pomegranate Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Deeble indicated that she had lived in the Q district in upper Portuguese Bend for 18 years, loved horses but currently did not own any, and was opposed to the commercial boarding of horses at residential homes adjacent to her back yard. She said she had bought horse property so that she could board her own horses and that she was currently being subjected to a lot of flies, human diseases, and the odor from manure not being hauled away. She reported that corrals were not being kept clean and that the residents were not complying with the sanitary requirements because they were only renting the space to others. She wanted to keep her neighborhood residential, and noted that there were plenty of vacancies in commercial stables, and that the Pony Club was available for children. She stressed that she was in favor of the Pony Club. She mentioned that her Homeowners Association had sent a letter requesting input from the membership and that responses were due on October 20, 1994. Therefore, she requested that discussion of the Code revision be postponed until after that date. She acknowledged that her next door neighbors did not cause a fly problem because they kept their horse areas clean and, therefore, she had no problems with them. Commissioner Wang asked how many letters were sent out. Ms. Deeble replied that the Association did a mass mailing to all members but she was not sure of the exact number. Vice Chairman Mowlds informed Ms. Deeble that boarding horses was currently allowed but that possibly she had identified a different problem, that of cleanliness. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 21 Ms. Deeble believed that horse owners would keep a clean corral, but a landowner using the area as a commercial boarding venture would not. Vice Chairman Mowlds believed that the Code should address acceptable standards of cleanliness. Ms. Deeble said it did but that the Code was not being enforced. Mr. Robert R. Maxwell, 7 Pomegranate Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Maxwell was also opposed to commercial boarding in Portuguese Bend and requested that the Commission postpone a decision until input is received from the Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association on October 20. He reported that about 200 letters were sent and expected the response to be about 150. He felt that the present Code was acceptable because it did not allow the commercial boarding of horses. Mr. Don Fraiser, 26 Peppertree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Fraiser informed the Commission that he had owned horse property in the City since 1948 and, although he was not a horse owner and had no intention of owning a horse, he had neighbors who kept horses on their property. He admitted he had concern at first when nearby residents began keeping horses about 12 years ago, but that he had experienced no problems with flies or odor. He assumed that horse owners could suggest regulations and an inspection procedure to enforce proper maintenance. He was not in favor of the City's forbidding boarding because he did not want to take horse riding from the children. Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes. Sunshine suggesting comparison with the City of Rolling Hills which also has equestrian zones. Although she felt the current Code was not perfect, she was concerned that new language would bring interpretation which would intensify the problems. Specifically, she questioned why the name "Q District" was proposed to be changed to "LA District" because there could be confusion over the definition of a "large animal", whether it might be a horse, cow, goat, or a miniature horse. She was concerned with the new language concerning abutting lots and the 35% slope issue. She believed that control on number of animals allowed should take into consideration the health of the animal and suggested that, in respect to screening, the old language should be retained to indicate landscaping could be used to assist in screening rather than to expect total screening because that would be impossible for this kind of activity. She also favored home occupation opportunities. Mr. Richard Bara, #1 Peppertree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Bara stated that the City Council was in favor of leaving the Code PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 22 0 as it is and apologized to the Commission and, specifically, Vice Chairman Mowlds, for not providing proposed language as he said he would at the last meeting. He agreed that the term "Q" was preferable to "large animals". He repeated his concern from the last meeting that the timing must be correct in order to have the Development Code match up with the licensing ordinance from the City Council. Mr. Bara agreed that "assisting in screening" was less confrontational. He noted that the complaints had come from the Portuguese Bend area and it appeared that the residents in that area were attempting to take care of the problem through communication. - He did not believe that most of the boarding facilities should be considered commercial as most homes had only two to ten stables. In respect to how much land a horse needs, he explained that the number of horses on a property could vary from month to month. He was glad these hearings were being held because he felt his rights were under attack. He was concerned about horse owners not living in the Q District being provided with boarding facilities and was very interested in seeing the Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association survey results. Mr. Sepp Donahower, 3 West Pomegranate Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Donahower remarked that his family had been residents and multiple parcel owners in Portuguese Bend for 45 years, and horse owners for the last 25 years. He mentioned that his father had established the Pony Club and that, because of opposition, he had used all the land he owned, along with 10 acres of leased land, in order to meet requirements. His assessment of significant issues were flies and odor as well as traffic on the Portuguese Bend roads by non-residents of the Portuguese Bend area. He mentioned that there had been offers to pay for road and gate maintenance. He felt that the survey from the Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association could possibly provide tainted information because names and phone numbers were provided to answer questions from Association members and these people were not identified as complainants. Ms. Lois Knight Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue spoke in favor of horses and found it wonderful that they were present in the City, especially for the children. She encouraged the Planning Commission to use their influence with the City Council to do everything possibly to help those who love horses and to preserve the equestrian way of life in Rancho Palos Verdes. She suggested that the City of Rolling Hills Estates be consulted for input. Vice Chairman Mowlds remarked that he personally had been involved with Development Code revisions since the process began three years ago and he wanted to state, for the record, that he had never reviewed certain sections of the Code until the current revision proceedings. Along with horses, affordable housing, and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 23 regulations affecting the sizes and height of houses, were new items given to the Commission and the Planning Commission Development Code Subcommittee as part of the current revision process. The controversy surrounding horses concerned licensing and this idea came from the City Council. The Staff Report said that the Commission asked for information from the City Council on these subjects, but that was not true. The members of the Planning Commission were very concerned that horse owners receive fair treatment, including those which need to have their horses boarded, however, he felt it was important that horse density did not become a problem. Mr. Mowlds emphasized that the Commission did not come up with the currently drafted words and he felt the speakers had given good reasons not to change the Code. Commissioner Ferraro indicated that, when this chapter came before the Planning Commission before, she questioned the statement that three parcels should be treated as one, if owned by the same person. She noted that the City Council had asked why the Planning Commission sent this language to them and, in her opinion, somewhere between the Planning Commission and Staff and City Council, there was some confusion. The Council was not comfortable with the changes involving a 35% slope and about abutting parcels, so she did not understand why it was coming back again to the Planning Commission. Chairman Alberio stated that the Commission's job was not to point fingers at anybody but simply to review the new development code and, in this case, to balance the inequities between the horse owners who need boarding space, the residents in the Q District who do not have horses and those who do. It seemed to him that the problem with keeping the horse stables and corrals clean had been articulated very well and that these problems could be regulated. Chairman Alberio moved to continue the Public Hearing until the next Planning Commission meeting on October 25, 1994, seconded by Vice Chairman Mowlds. Approved (5-0). Senior Planner Rojas commented that the revisions to this chapter of the Code initially only included two changes proposed by Staff. One of these was to exclude lot area that is over 35% slope from counting toward the minimum required lot area for the keeping of horses and the other involved counting abutting parcels under one ownership as one parcel for purposes of determining how many horses would be allowed. These proposed revisions were conceptually reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission Sub -Committee and the draft language presented to the Planning Commission for review. Upon review of the draft language, the Planning Commission requested that the City Attorney review the proposed language involving the abutting lot revision. At a later meeting, the Planning Commission requested that Staff present unresolved issues PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 24 0 to the City Council for direction. Staff reviewed previous Planning Commission and Planning Commission Development Code Sub - Committee minutes to determine which issues needed to be addressed by the City Council. Staff came across a previous Sub -Committee discussion which questioned the number of horses that the City Council would allow. As a result, this specific horse question was included in the Staff Report presented to the council with the proposed revisions to the horse chapter included as an attachment. Citizens who saw the draft revisions commented to the City Council regarding the 35% slope and the issue of abutting lots and the Council agreed to have these new restrictions deleted. Staff was prepared to delete the revised language but at the last Planning Commission meeting the Commission requested that, instead of deleting any language, that the Commission be allowed an opportunity to present additional language. As a result, Staff has left the language in but would agree to take out this language because it might be difficult to enforce. Regarding the horse boarding ordinance, if it is adopted by the Council, changes to this chapter that coincide with the horse boarding ordinance would have to adopted concurrently. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked for an explanation of the 35% slope issue. Senior Planner Rojas explained that Staff suggested that any portions of a parcel in a Q zone which consisted of a 35% slope or greater would not count toward the 15,000 square feet needed to keep horses and that Staff was prepared to remove this language if the Commission wished. Chairman Alberio asked if this new language recommendation came from either the Rolling Hills Estates or Rolling Hills Code and Senior Planner Rojas said it did not. Chairman Alberio suggested that the Commission receive input from the public and provide a recommendation to the City Council who would make the final decision on this chapter. Senior Planner Rojas clarified that Staff's current recommendation was that the 35% slope and abutting lots language be removed. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked about screening required in section 17.46.060 (B) (3) and Senior Planner Rojas believed that the old language which read "assist in screening" should be retained. Commissioner Ferraro concurred. Vice Chairman Mowlds remarked that the 'IQ" designation was changed to 'ILA" to include a reference to all large animals. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 25 Commissioner Ferraro thought it should be left as "Q" Chairman Alberio brought up the subject of landowners boarding only their own horses. Commissioner Ferraro's opinion was that this was not a significant issue if overall density was limited. Chairman Alberio thought that probably neighbors would not object to boarding as long as there were no flies or odor. He asked Sunshine to return to the podium to address this subject. Sunshine replied that the County takes care of this problem. Senior Planner Rojas noted that housekeeping was already mentioned in the Present Code on "circle" page 97, B1 and that community concerns would be addressed simply by better enforcement of this section. Sunshine remarked that horses weren't the only source of flies. Senior Planner Rojas said that, regarding commercial boarding, the City attorney had drafted language modifications to Chapter 17.46 that would be incorporated into the Code if the Council adopted the proposed horse boarding ordinance. He made reference to a conversation with Rick Otto, the City's project manager for that issue, and Mr. Otto said the ordinance would be going directly to the City Council for a public hearing which will give the citizens who spoke before the Planning Commission an opportunity to speak before the City Council also. If the proposed horse boarding ordinance is adopted, the Development Code would reflect that ordinance. If it was not, the City Attorney's suggested changes to Chapter 17.46 would be removed. During a discussion between Chairman Alberio, Vice Chairman Mowlds, and Senior Planner Rojas, it was confirmed that only 5,000 square feet was needed to keep a horse on an undeveloped lot but, on an developed lot, 15,000 square feet was required. Mr. Donahower was allowed to return to the podium. He felt it was not cost effective to have horses separated on two adjoining lots owned by the same person, six and six, and that it would be counter productive to the net result everyone was looking for. Senior Planner Rojas repeated that the issue regarding abutting lots would be difficult to enforce. On the Terraces item, Senior Planner Rojas reported to the Commission that, according to Assistant Planner de Freitas, after speaking to the Terraces owner, Public Works and the Traffic PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 26 ON Consultant, it became evident that the traffic studies requested by the Commission might not be completed in time to report back to the Commission by October 25, 1994, and asked if the continuance date should be changed. Chairman Alberio wanted the item to come back on October 25, Senior Planner Rojas asked if the parking analysis could be excluded from the October 25th Staff Report and Chairman Alberio said yes, that this subject could be discussed at a later time. NEW BUSINESS (no items) ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of October 25, 1994, B. COMMISSION - None 0 COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) - None ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ferraro moved, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck, to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 12:30 P.M. to its regular meeting on October 25, 1994. (A.JD MMMS DISK #5 - MINIO 11) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 27