Loading...
PC MINS 19950124APPROVED v 3/14/95 15101 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 24, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., by Chairman Mowlds at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Chairman Mowlds. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds. Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement/Planning Commission Secretary Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, Assistant Planner de Freitas, and Associate Planner Silverman. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF Director/Secretary Bernard noted the following: In lieu of Recording Secretary Drasco, Debbie Herrera would be assisting in the recording of this meeting, and the Staff would be handling roll call and formal business as required. B. COMMISSION Chairman Mowlds proposed that tonight's agenda be rearranged whereas the NEW BUSINESS ITEM VIII. B., the FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, would be reviewed first in order to accommodate the Public Works' Department during this inclement weather, followed by the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM VII. A., COASTAL PERMIT NO. 77 - REVISION, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1315 - REVISION, followed by CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM VI. A., CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 182 SIGN PERMIT NO 720 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO 667, followed by NEW BUSINESS ITEM VIII. A., SIGN PERMIT NO. 665, followed by CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM VI. B., PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS). Commissioner Alberio moved to accept the changes, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS B. FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM; Citywide, City of Rancho Palos Verdes. (TS) Commissioner Alberio moved to waive reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved, (7-0). d 6, 0 Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (7-0). Director/Secretary Bernard noted that by accepting the Staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission was adopting P.C. Resolution 95-02 indicating that the Planning Commission found that the City's Conceptual Five -Year Capital Improvements Program was consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and that Staff would be forwarding that recommendation to the City Council for consideration at their next meeting on February 7, 1995. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 77 - REVISION, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1315 - REVISION; Portuguese Bend Club,, Gail Lovrich (General Manager), 104 Spindrift Drive. (FF) Commissioner Alberio moved to waive the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (7-0). Assistant Planner de Freitas stated Staff's recommendation had been modified to include the City Attorney's suggestion that since the original Negative Declaration adopted for this project in 1989 could not be used for an amendment to the project, an additional .initial study and a new Negative Declaration would have to be prepared and adopted in order to move forward with this project. Chairman Mowlds inquired as to how long that would take. Director/Secretary Bernard's responded that there would be a minimum circulation period of 21 days and the earliest that this item could be placed on a Planning Commission agenda would be February 28, 1995. However, as the Staff Report stated, there was an Emergency Grading Permit which would allow immediate action, as necessary, as a result of the heavy rain storms and that Staff would be working with the Portuguese Bend Club to clarify the specifications for emergency grading. Chairman Mowlds asked if this issue should be continued until the end of the circulation period, and Director/Secretary Bernard responded that it might be useful to have some discussion and direction to Staff for preparation of the Negative Declaration. In response to Commissioner Alberio's inquiry as to why a new Negative Declaration was necessary, Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that it was to address any possible new impacts, although none were anticipated. He added that Dr. Perry Ehlig, the City's consulting geologist, was present to answer questions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 2 it 0 Commissioner Alberio inquired how the impact of the current rain storms would affect the ongoing repair work. Director/Secretary Bernard explained that an emergency grading permit had been in effect since last summer, related to the effects of previous year's rain storms, not the current ones, as well as the effects of a landslide three years ago which pushed the land down toward the Portuguese Bend Club. Mr. Bernard added that the City was required to follow CEQA guidelines in granting long-term approval. Commissioner Whiteneck inquired as to whether this long-term approval would lead to any final action to protect the residents from any further land movement. Secretary Bernard answered that in terms of the immediate impact, this approval would allow the residents to protect themselves. For a long-term solution, the City was currently involved with dewatering wells and a number of other proposed RDA projects regarding the long-term stabilization of the landslide. Commissioner Whiteneck asked about the status of these projects and Director/Secretary Bernard explained that they had not been adopted or implemented, but are being considered by the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council, with input from a panel of experts. Chairman Mowlds requested that Dr. Ehlig address the commission. Dr. Perry Ehlig, Professor of Geology, Cal -State Los Angeles. 1560 Via Del Rey, South Pasadena. Dr. Ehlig explained the process which caused land to slide down to the beach area, disconnecting the original attachment between Seawall Drive and Yacht Harbor Drive. He said that the purpose of the grading was to prevent a buildup of earth on the west side of the Portuguese Bend Club and that since about 1958 there had been periodic grading in order to prevent the slide material from encroaching upon the houses east of the landslide. He explained that from 1958 until the early 19801s, no grading permits were required and grading was performed as necessary, and generally involved moving dirt to the seaward side of the area and to the west. Dr. Ehlig felt that the Homeowners Association should have the freedom once again to perform grading when needed, without the need for a hearing or permit revision each time. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Dr. Ehlig if the landslide had always progressed towards the east and Dr. Ehlig replied that whenever the ground built up on the east side of the landslide next to the houses, it became like lava flow or like a glacier, spreading in the direction of low ground. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 3 Commissioner Wang asked Dr. Ehlig how many houses were affected currently and he said there were three. Commissioner Alberio asked about the effects of the recent, heavy rain and Dr. Ehlig replied that the slide had accelerated, but only slightly. He noted that the land was saturated with water at all times and that the recent rains had caused the water table to rise. Director/Secretary Bernard suggested that the Public Hearing be opened and continued to a date uncertain, in order to provide time to perform the Negative Declaration Initial Study and re - notice the hearing. Vice Chairman Hayes moved to Open the Public Hearing and Continue to a date uncertain, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 182, SIGN PERMIT NO. 720, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 667; Mr. and Mrs. William Myers, 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard (Mobil). .(TS) Planning Administrator Petru indicated that there were four pieces of late correspondence, including a map showing the location of Santona Drive in relation to subject property. Associate Planner Silverman presented the Staff Report. Chairman Mowlds called the applicant to the podium. Mr. William Myers, Applicant, 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Myers stated that his analysis indicated that the revenue of the proposed convenience store would be less than that the revenue from gasoline sales. Therefore, he felt that the convenience store should be considered an auxiliary use to the service station. He added that the addition of the convenience store was necessary to remain competitive in today's marketplace. Mr. Myers did not believe that substantially reducing the square footage of the store was a reasonable alternative, considering the expense of modifying the building (including compliance with the American Disability Act standards), coupled with new, extensive landscaping, which included upgrades to the existing planters and relocation of the fence to the property line. Mr. Myers also did not wish to reduce the size of the propane tank, as this would reduce his income. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 4 Mr. Myers then discussed the problems associated with the installation of a block wall to secure the back parking area. He felt that a solid wall would only further seclude the area and encourage teenagers to gather there to drink or smoke. However, he noted that he was not aware of any evidence that these types of activities had taken place recently and mentioned that he was proposing to install a chain link fence with wooden slats in it. Mr. Myers then discussed problems with gating or chaining the driveways. He said that the gates necessary to close each 25 - foot wide driveway would be unsightly and hard to conceal during normal business hours, and that chains would not be visible at night. He added that light post with a motion detector or adjustable timer could be installed at the back of the property, with directional lighting aimed towards the back of the station and away from the adjacent residents. Mr. Myers emphasized that he would continue to be sensitive to the needs of the adjacent residents. Ms. Phyllis Peterson, 28067 Santona Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Peterson did not object to the additional gas pumps, but was opposed to the convenience store and the sale of alcohol on the property. In addition, she felt that the sale of automotive products in a small area of the building was acceptable. Ms. Peterson was in favor of maintaining the existing balance between single family residences, apartments, condominiums and businesses in the community, and felt that there was no need for two convenience stores at the same intersection. Ms. Shelby Jordan, 29208 Posey Way, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Jordan, a resident for 12 years and a frequent, satisfied customer of the Mobil station, was in favor of the expansion of the service station. However, she was concerned about the sale of propane and thought that it should be carefully monitored. Although Ms. Jordan was not opposed to the convenience store, she would prefer that alcohol not be sold. Mr. Gene Pledger, 6517 Certa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Pledger informed the Commission that he had been a resident in the neighborhood since 1967 and a customer at the Mobil station, which he felt had been an asset to the community. He believed that if Mr. Myers was not able to expand his station as proposed, he might have to close the business. Mr. Pledger was concerned about the sale of alcohol, since alcohol was already available for purchase at the 7 -Eleven store across the street. He felt that a convenience store at the Mobil station would improve the current hazardous traffic condition created by left turns on Granvia Altamira into the 7 -Eleven store. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 5 Mr. Ken Moore, 6344 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Moore stressed that consideration of this project should not be a popularity contest, commenting that, as far as he knew, Mr. Myers had been a very good neighbor. Mr. Moore said that he would like to see the service station stay in business, as long as it did not create a detriment to the surrounding community. He was concerned with legal precedence in the state of California and asked the Commission how much liability the City would assume by approving the proposed project. He opined that, although the Planning Commission could argue that the future environmental impacts of the new land use could be mitigated and the City Council could ignore the State Attorney General's Office, the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes should not be exposed to environmental danger caused by the City'knowingly approving an project that exposed them to injuries resulting from irresponsible or criminal actions. If legal action was taken, he questioned the acceptable level of financial exposure for the City and how much the City's insurance rates would increase. Mr. Moore felt that several of the Planning Commissioners and City Council Members were not concerned with individual or class action lawsuits that may ultimately come down to a legal interpretation of Municipal Code, but if injuries occurred on the Mobil station property, those officials who had approved this expansion would be answering to a different set of laws. Mr. Moore noted that Vendome Liquor in Rolling Hills Estates had a security gate across the entire store front when it was closed because of the inventory of alcohol kept inside. He believed that this was an indication that problems could also arise at the Mobil station, if alcohol was allowed to be sold there. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the 7 -Eleven was gated at night and Mr. Moore stated that he didn't believe so. Mrs. Nancy Moore, 6344 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Moore pointed out that the City's Automotive Service Overlay District did not mentioned the sale of alcohol as being allowed at a service station, therefore, she requested that sale of alcohol be denied at the Mobil station. She also asked that the propane tank be denied because propane was very flammable and produced noise and bad odors. Mrs. Moore believed the proposed convenience store was too large, that the parking area and lights should be minimized and that the air and water facility should be at the front of the property, away from the adjacent residential neighbors. Commissioner Wang asked Staff about the sale of alcohol as it related to the Automotive Service Overlay District. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 6 0 Director/Secretary Bernard stated that Staff's research indicated that there was no state law prohibiting alcohol sales in residential districts. He added that the Planning Commission did have the option to disallow alcohol sales through the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Mary Jane Thompson, 28043 Santona Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Thompson stated that she had been a resident for 32 years and that she had provided the Commission with a map indicating the location of the Mobil station and the 7 -Eleven in relationship to Santona Drive. She noted that currently noise and odors from the Mobil station funneled down to the residences on Santona Drive. Ms. Thompson indicated that she had taken a petition around to 20 of the 21 homes on Santona Drive and that the primary objections mentioned were to the sale of alcohol and the propane tank. Mr. Thomas Thompson, 28043 Santona Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Thompson opposed the sale of alcoholic beverages and the installation of the propane tank. He realized that State laws regulated the dispensing of propane, but he was uncomfortable with what he considered to be "a large bomb sitting above him" at the Mobil station. Ms. Beverly Ingram, 28037 Santona Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Ingram stated that she did not pretend to understand all the regulations, but that she had chosen to live in a residential area and requested that the Commission protect the quiet, cleanliness and safety of her neighborhood. Mr. William Glantz, 28070 Santona Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Glantz stated that his home is about 40 feet below the Mobil station, and that when he bought his home the 7 -Eleven and the Mobil station had not yet been built. He objected to the block walls along the rear property lines, which have fallen down repeatedly, and the lighting on the property, which he had tried to screen with landscaping on his own property. He also mentioned that a bottle recently thrown from the Mobil station landed near him and his car, and that he was constantly picking up litter from the station. Mr. Glantz recognized that the City had a fiduciary responsibility to raise revenues, but he hoped the citizen's opposition to the convenience store would be considered. Mr. William E. Haynes, 28208 Ridgefern Court, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Haynes pointed out that, although he was a strong supporter of free enterprise and competition in business, there are basic principles that any business should follow if it's trying to improve itself. A business should provide for the needs to the community, provide remedies for public problems, and reduce the costs of services. Mr. Haynes stated that when a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 7 business owner does these things, they get more customers and their business prospers. In the case of the convenience store, he suggested that rather than providing a better service to the community, Mr. Myers was providing a redundant service, in light of the 7 -Eleven across the street and the other grocery stores in the area that sell alcohol. Rather than providing remedies to public problems, Mr. Haynes felt that the proposed project would increase problems in the area. As far as reducing costs of services, he noted that in the seventeen years that he has lived in the community, he had never bought a gallon of gasoline from Mr. Myers, because his prices are 5 to 20 cents a gallon higher than at the Arco station. Mr. Haynes felt that Mr. Myers should become more competitive with his prices and not deteriorate the neighborhood by adding another liquor stores. Mr. J.D. Greene ,'28041 South Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Greene stated that he was the owner of the 7 -Eleven store at the corner of Grandvia Altamira and Hawthorne Boulevard. He reminded the Commission that he spoke at the previous hearing, where he gave the Commission a letter voicing his objections to the proposed expansion. He wanted to reiterate that the main reason he objected to the convenience store was that it would adversely impact his business, to such an extent that he would be forced out of business. He did not feel that there was enough business in this area for two convenience stores. He also mentioned that his business had declined more than 10 percent within the last year, and that the business was down more than 20 percent in the month of January 1995. If Mr. Myers' store was reduced to four or five hundred square feet in size, Mr. Greene did not think that it would serve the community to have two unprofitable stores. Commissioner Ferraro asked Mr. Greene what percentage of the 7 - Eleven sales area was dedicated to the sale of beer and wine. Mr. Greene replied that he was not sure of the amount of sales areas, but indicated that the sale of alcohol accounted for about 10 percent of his total business. Commissioner Ferraro reported that she has counted the frozen or refrigerated lockers at the 7 -Eleven, and estimated that it accounted for about 6 percent of the store space. Mr. Greene said that he would guess that about 5 percent of the total 2,100 square feet of the 7 -Eleven store was devoted to the display and sale of beer and wine. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Greene if he had ever considered selling hard liquor. Mr. Greene said that he had not. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 8 Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if he would consider it, if the convenience store was approved at the Mobil station. Mr. Greene said that he might consider it, if hard liquor was being sold at the Mobil, in order to be competitive. A discussion between commissioner Wang and Mr. Greene revealed that the 7 -Eleven store shared the first floor of the building with other retail stores and second floor was devoted to commercial offices. Mr. Carl Muchnick, 6307 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Muchnick explained that he was not notified about the proposed changes at the Mobil station. He was told by Staff that, according to the law, only residents within 500 feet of the subject property must be notified in writing of the public hearing and the person who informed him of the meeting lived further away from the station than he did. Mr. Muchnick indicated that he had attended the last hearing, but there was a discussion regarding horses that went on for hours, and he had to leave because his wife was ill. Mr. Muchnick objected to the proposed convenience store, since it would result in traffic problems, additional lighting and alcohol sales. He felt that the addition of the convenience store was being proposed only to increase the landowner's business, with no regard for the needs of the community. He felt that if the owner/operator charged reasonable gasoline prices, the business would probably succeed without the convenience store. Mr. Muchnick also felt that there was not enough business to support both the 7 -Eleven and the Mobil station convenience store, and that one of the two businesses would fail. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Staff if notice of the public hearing had been published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and Associate Planner Silverman indicated that it had. Dorothy MacLellan, 6611 Monera, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. MacLellan indicated that she had lived in the neighborhood since 1962 and that she had been opposed to the 7 -Eleven store from the beginning because it had been a haven for drug users and dealers. She pointed out that of the 300 names on the petition supporting the project, less than five percent of the signers lived in the immediate neighborhood, and most lived in other cities. In addition, Ms. MacLellan believed that the petition did not explain the full extent of the project and did not mention the sale of alcohol or propane. She went on to state that she knew of at least one signer who would not have given his approval had he known that these two activities were being proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 9 A. D. MacLellan, 6611 Monera, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. MacLellan explained that when he and his family moved to the neighborhood in 1962, the area was controlled by the County and that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was formed in order to provide for local control. He was dismayed to find that the concerns of the local residents were again being disregarded, but in this case by the City itself. Mr. MacLellan objected to another convenience store across the street from an existing one, as well as the possibility of the sale of hard liquor, due to the impending closure of Vendome Liquor. In addition, he did not feel that the proposed changes at the Mobil station complied with the intent of the Automotive service Overlay District. Les LaFernara, 28117 Ellas Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. LaFernara stated that the first notice for this project made no mention of the fact that Vendome Liquor was closing and that Mr. Myers was going to take over that liquor license. He felt that the Planning Commission had been selective about the information furnished being furnished to the public. Mr. LaFernarals main concern was that the City could be sued for millions of dollars if an accident occurred when someone was exiting the Mobil station onto Hawthorne Boulevard and indicated that cars on Hawthorne Boulevard are usually traveling about 55 miles per hour. He asked the commission to give this possibility some serious thought. Chairman Mowlds said that Mr. LaFernara had evidently heard a rumor that Vendome Liquor was moving into the Mobil station, yet the applicant had indicated earlier during his testimony that this was not true. Mr. Mowlds asked Mr. LaFernara he had evidence that the commission was not aware of. Mr. LaFernara said that he had only heard a rumor that Vendome Liquor was closing and that their license was going to be purchased by the applicant. Chairman Mowlds called for the applicant for rebuttal. Mr. William Myers: Mr. Myers reiterated that he felt he had been a good neighbor during the last 16 years he had operated the Mobil station and had tried to address problems as they arose. He said that it appeared that the neighbors were concerned that the proposed changes to the station would bring crime into the area. Mr. Myers pointed out that he felt not only a responsibility to the community, but also to his employees, and if the project was approved, he planned to install security cameras in the convenience store, in addition to the City's requirement that there be at least two employees until 11:00 P.M. when the station closed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 10 Mr. Myers explained that propane was an alternate fuel and was still used in many vehicles, as well as for barbecues. He added that it was not common for propane tanks to explode and that he was proposing a relatively small tank, depending on the regulations of the Fire Department. He assured the Commission that he had attempted to keep the surrounding areas free of litter and would continue to do so, not only on the service station, but also behind the fence. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Myers about the rumor regarding the closure of Vendome Liquor and the liquor license being purchased by Mr. Myers. Mr. Myers said that it was merely a rumor, and that he knew nothing about their ownership or operation of Vendome Liquor. He indicated that he had no intention of entering into any business relationship with Vendome Liquor or any other liquor store. He added that he intended to sell only beer and wine, as the application states, and that it was his understanding that a license for hard liquor required a different kind of permit. Vice Chair Hayes asked Mr. Myers if he would comment on the statement that the 7 -Eleven was a "haven for drugs". Mr. Myers replied that, to his knowledge, there never had been any drug activity at that location. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Myers to be more specific in terms of the square footage of the convenience store, as compared to the gasoline sales areas and service bays. Mr. Myers stated that the size of the convenience store was substantially smaller than the gasoline sales area and the service bays, and that gasoline would constitute about 90 percent of his business. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Myers that if, for some reason, he were to eliminate some portion or all of the automotive repair element of his business, would he increase the size of the convenience store. Mr. Myers responded that he had no intention now, or in the future, of eliminating the automotive repair portion of his business. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Myers what he would do to minimize the problems associated with any activity in back of the lot along the fence. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 11 Mr. Myers stated that he would be willing to remove the existing telephone booth because he felt that it might reduce the amount of traffic and litter. He added that a five or six foot gap between the wall and the landscaping on the hill had created a hidden area for teenagers to congregate, but he believed that the chain link fence, although slatted, would provide better visibility and decrease substantially these type of problems. He pointed out that Staff has suggested that the installation of motion -detector lights adjacent to that area would light the area when needed, with a minimum of disturbance to the residents. RECESS AND RECONVENE The Commission recessed at 8:30 P.M. and reconvened at 8:47 P.M. Planning Administrator Petru noted that another petition in opposition to the Mobil station had been received at the beginning of the hearing, for a total of 83 people in opposition to the proposed project. Chairman Mowlds suggested that because of the large audience for this item, there may be people who wished to provide further comments on this project, to be followed, if necessary by rebuttal from the applicant. Mr.William Glantz, 28070 Santona Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Glantz, stated that the issue of maintaining the property had been addressed by Mr. Myers only after numerous complaints from the adjacent residents and, most recently, after the submittal of the current application. He said that the fence along the rear property line was in a bad condition and that a fire hazard had been created due to the overgrowth of weeds that were on the hill bordering approximately four houses. Mr.Glantz said that he had been reminded that evening about an incident about 8 to 10 years earlier in which two molitov cocktails were thrown from the gas station in the middle of the night and landed about 10 feet from his neighbor's house. Carl Muchnick, 6307 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Muchnick was concerned that even if Mr. Myers was sincere about being a "good neighbor", what consideration could the residents expect from any future owner of the Mobil station. Ken Moore, 6344 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Moore indicated that the residents in opposition to the project did not want to be forced to appeal an approval to the City Council. He also indicated that there may be a need for a temporary restraining order, in anticipation of further legal action, including a lawsuit requesting the removal of current Council members. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 12 William Myers, disagreed with Mr. Glantz's previous comments that he had only recently been cleaning up litter. In regard to the fence, he was presently in escrow with Mobil Oil and could not repair or replace the fence until the escrow closed. He acknowledged that the surrounding hillsides did tend to get dry and could be a potential fire hazard, but that the hazard could be reduced by regularly watering the slope or removing the weeds. Mr. Myers further stated that he was never informed of a molitov cocktail being thrown from his station. Commissioner vannorsdall asked Mr. Myers if the surrounding hill area was part of his property. Mr. Myers said it was not his property, but belonged to the downslope residents. Vice Chair Hayes moved to close the public hearing, seconded by commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner vannorsdall asked Mr. Myers if he knew how much gross income the proposed convenience store was going to generate, as opposed to the gasoline station. Chairman Mowlds interjected that the permit application for the Mobil station did not require that information. Commissioner vannorsdall felt that this issue should be considered in the decision making process. Commissioner Wang felt, after seeing the large size of the subject lot, that she had come to the conclusion that the property could accommodate a convenience store as large as the one being proposed. She also felt comfortable with Staff's recommendations with regard to the setback requirements for the propane tank and Staff's analysis regarding the potential for any impacts to residents' views. Mrs. Wang believed that Mr. Myers was sincere in his commitment to remain a good neighbor, but that she also understood that he, like all business -owners, wanted his business to be profitable. Commissioner Wang also sympathized with the surrounding neighbors, especially with respect to the issues of increased traffic, noise, and litter, and expressed her hope that all parties involved could work together to resolve these issues. However, she was still undecided on the issue of the sale of beer and wine. commissioner Whiteneck stated that his primary concern was with the sale of beer and wine, but not with the proposed convenience store in general or the potential increase in traffic, because he felt the station would be able to accommodate the increased activity. With reference to the proposed propane tank, commissioner Whiteneck believed that all safety concerns would be dealt with, adding that he was familiar with propane, having PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 13 bought propane at a Union station on Palos Verdes Drive South and Hawthorne Boulevard for many years, where there had been no incidents. Commissioner Ferraro expressed her concern with the issue of whether or not the proposed convenience store was "ancillary" to the service station use. She reported that she had recently visited the Mirage Car Wash in Lomita, which she has been told was one of the largest lot areas containing a similar station. She noticed that most of the products being sold there related to cars, including air fresheners or cleaners, sunglasses, etc., and that, even though there were a few items that were not directly related, such as cards, pens and limited food items, they justifiably accommodated customers who were in a hurry. Mrs. Ferraro believed that the proposed convenience store would not be an auxiliary use, but a new use. commissioner Ferraro also noted that the Development Code addressed the issue of proliferation of convenience stores, and since there was an existing 7 -Eleven store across the street, this project seemed to be proliferation. She did not object to the additional gas pumps, but stressed that aesthetics should be considered in the landscaping. Mrs. Ferraro believed that, if the sale of beer and wine was allowed, the space allocated these types of sales should be small. Vice Chair Hayes reiterated that the purpose of the Automotive Service Overlay District was to maintain service stations in the City and she felt some people had lost sight of that objective. She noted that consideration had to be given to the fact that what was once a lease payment was now a larger mortgage payment. Mrs. Hayes also addressed the issue of the 7 -Eleven store's declining business and explained that perhaps that decline was related to the fact that it was nearly impossible to safely enter and exit that business establishment, and that perhaps the owner should consider relocating the business in order to correct those conditions and avoid the loss of a business. Vice Chair Hayes concluded by saying that the City needed to encourage business. Commissioner Alberio stated that he believed firmly in property rights and felt that everyone had the right to develop his or her property, as prescribed by the Code. However, he also recognized the rights of the residential neighbors. He agreed with Commissioner Ferraro that the proposed convenience store would qualify as a new business. Mr. Alberio pointed out that all the issued needed to be regulated, including fencing, security, the sale of propane, the sale of liquor, the size of the store, and signage. In reference to Mr. Moore's comments regarding criminal liability, Mr. Alberio felt it had to be clearly established that the project must comply with requirements of all agencies in the State of California and that there is the potential criminal activity in any business environment, not just in relation to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 14 sale of alcohol. Mr. Alberio stressed that, even though Mr. Moore did not personally approve of the sale of alcohol at the proposed convenience store, the fact that alcohol sales were allowed across the street negates his argument. He further stated that he was hopeful that a compromise could be reached between the applicant and the adjacent residents. Chairman Mowlds felt that the Commission should adopt the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conceptually Approve the project that evening, with direction to Staff regarding the preparation of P.C. Resolutions to reflect the commission's decision. He suggested that this be done by breaking the project down, piece by piece, and adding conditions as needed. Commissioner Alberio added that the project would impact the community, but that it was the Commission's goal to make sure that the impacts were properly mitigated. Planning Administrator Petru noted that the Mitigated Negative Declaration found that there would be no significant impacts generated by the project that could not be mitigated, and that Staff could add any additional conditions of approval desired by the commission. Vice Chairman Hayes moved to conceptually Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (7-0). Chairman Mowlds proposed that the Commission proceed with the instructions to the Staff and suggested that they also break this down into the following separate issues: alcohol, noise, trash cleanup, fences, store size, propane tank, and signs. Commissioner Alberio stated that he would like to conceptually Approve the project and, for the time being, eliminate the issue of liquor altogether, since this issue could be addressed at a later date. Commissioner Alberio moved to take a straw vote to postpone the issue of the sale of alcohol, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved, (7-0). A straw vote was then taken in regard to postponing the issue of the sale of alcohol, with a yes vote meaning that there would be no discussion of alcohol at this time. The results of the straw vote were as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 15 Alberio Yes Ferraro Yes Vannorsdall Yes Wang Yes Whiteneck Yes Vice Chair Hayes Yes Chairman Mowlds Yes Therefore, any discussion regarding the issue of the proposed sale of alcohol was postponed until a later time. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to include the issue of the propane tank in that evening's discussion, with the size and location to be determined by the Fire Department and the Staff, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved, (7-0). The results of the straw vote were as follows: Alberio Yes Ferraro Yes Vannorsdall Yes Wang Yes Whiteneck Yes Vice Chair Hayes Yes Chairman Mowlds Yes Therefore, the issue of the propane tank would be addressed tonight, with the size and location to be determined by the Fire Department and the Staff. Chairman Mowlds suggested that the City assign a trash patrol to the area of Grandvia Altamira and Hawthorne Boulevard. He stated that he was well aware of the problem because he travelled that route frequently and felt that the problem was due to the heavy pedestrian traffic near the 7 -Eleven and the corner bus stop. Commissioner Alberio disagreed and believed that this issue related to Code Enforcement and not this particular project. Director/Secretary Bernard explained that although imposing conditions on the 7 -Eleven would be inappropriate due to the current application proposed, the commission could discuss how it might indirectly relate to the Mobil station application. Commissioner Alberio stressed that this could be an unwarranted condition placed upon the Mobil station convenience store as a result of impacts generated by the 7-11 store. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 16 Chairman Mowlds concurred with Commissioner Alberiols reasoning, but believed that if this issue was addressed with consideration to the addition of a convenience store at the Mobil station, the necessary cooperation would follow. Commissioner Alberio reiterated his opinion that this was strictly a Code Enforcement issue. Associate Planner Silverman suggested that additional trash cans could be strategically placed in the problem areas, along with signs to encourage proper trash disposal. She also suggested that a time be established for daily trash pickup which would be mutually acceptable between the residents and the Mobil station. However, resident authorization would probably be required to allow for proper access onto private property. Director/Secretary Bernard addressed an issue previously raised by Mr. Alberio and noted that trash disposal became the responsibility of an individual once ownership and possession were established. Trash citations were not issue to the store where the goods were purchased, but to the responsible individual. However, the Commission's suggestions with respect to a good neighborhood policy, was offered with the sole intent to helping the convenience store interface with the surrounding neighborhood. Associate Planner Silverman proposed sending out letters to the neighborhood encouraging them to work with the Mobil station and 7 -Eleven store in order to minimize the trash. Further discussion ensued among Chairman Mowlds, Commissioner Alberio and Commissioner Vannorsdall with respect to who should be responsible for trash pickup on Grandvia Altamira and Hawthorne Boulevard. It was noted that, at various times, a business owner was left with the sole responsibility of tending to the required needs of his business and the surrounding area at hand. Although all were in agreement that Mr. Myers should not be placed in a position of sole responsibility with regard to the actions of others, extending his responsibility to include the surround area might improve his relationship with his neighbors. The topic of the fence was introduced by Chairman Mowlds, and Commissioner Alberio reiterated Mr. Myers' previous comments that he could do nothing until escrow closed. Commissioner Ferraro brought up the Staff's recommendations for requiring the installation of thorny bushes to discourage people from gathering near the fence. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 17 Vice Chairman Hayes reminded the Commission of Mr. Myers' plan to install a chain link fence with wooden slats and landscaping to increase the barrier. She suggest that perhaps the fence could be increased in height from six feet to eight feet. Commissioner Alberio added that the proposed fence could be equipped with a "catch-all" applied to the back side which would catch items thrown from the back lot and provide a safety net for the residents living at the bottom of the hill. Upon inquiry, Commissioner Wang was told by Staff that the height of the fence would need to remain at six feet, unless a Variance application was approved for a greater height. Chairman Mowlds asked if any of the Commissioners had concerns about the proposed chain link fence. None were opposed to the fence as currently proposed. Straw votes were taken regarding the proposed signage, with the following results: Issue A: To allow the installation of a new monument sign on Hawthorne Boulevard: Alberio Yes Ferraro Yes Vannorsdall Yes Wang Yes Whiteneck Yes Vice Chair Hayes No Chairman Mowlds Yes Therefore, approval was granted for the installation of a monument sign on Hawthorne Boulevard. Issue B: To allow the installation of a clip -on sign on Grandvia Altamira. Alberio Yes Ferraro No Vannorsdall No Wang No Whiteneck Yes Vice Chair Hayes No Chairman Mowlds No Therefore, this motion failed and no clip -on sign would be allowed on Grandvia Altamira. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 18 0 It was noted that at the first meeting, the Commission had decided to allow one clip -on sign on the light pole on Hawthorne Boulevard. Chairman Mowlds suggested that the size of the proposed convenience store be discussed and reminded the Commission that the project would extend the building 25 feet closer to Grandvia Altamira. Cimmissioner Alberio stated that he would like the convenience store to be reduced in size and/or limited to its originally proposed 1,296 square feet. Chairman Mowlds asked Staff if a condition could be included in the Conditional Use Permit, which would state that, in the event there was a new owner, the Conditional Use Permit would become null and void. Associate Planner Silverman noted that Conditional Use Permits generally run with the land, but that a special conditions could be considered. Chairman Mowlds noted that Mr. Myers may discontinue the use of the service bays, but continue the operation of the convenience store. He suggested that if the service bay operation was eliminated, the Conditional Use Permit should no longer be valid. Commissioner Alberio expressed a concern with that this type of condition might infringe on Mr. Myer's property rights. Director/Secretary Bernard explained that the Automotive Service Overlay addresses that issue, since it encouraged the continuation of automotive service related used. Commissioner Vannorsdall expressed the opinion that the key issue was not the store size, but whether this will be an ancillary business to the gas station. He further suggested that perhaps imposing a size limitation to the store would correct the problem. Secretary Bernard added that one of the reasons that Staff focused on the store size, rather than the percent of gross income, since it would be inappropriate for Staff to continually review and report on the cash profits from this business. Commissioner Wang asked if the Staff had ever received an estimate from the applicant in terms of projected gross business from the store. Associate Silverman reiterated Director/Secretary Bernard's statement that Staff cannot request this type of information from the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 19 • 0 Commissioner Whiteneck felt that the proposed 1,400 square feet convenience store was the appropriate size and would be willing to allow additional space, if requested. Commissioner Ferraro indicated that she was primarily concerned with ancillary usage, in relation to the gas station, and felt that the store seemed to be a separate business. She suggested that perhaps the size of the proposed store should be limited, in order to qualify as an ancillary use, and should be similar in size to other similar businesses in the area. Vice Chairman Hayes stated that she had no objection to the proposed size of the convenience store. Commissioner Alberio agreed with Commissioner Ferraro that the convenience store seemed to be a separate business and noted that most of the gas stations with convenience stores did not include an automotive repair business. Chairman Mowlds addressed the issue of traffic safety with the addition of a convenience store at this particular corner. He noted that, although the 7 -Eleven was just across the street, it was much more difficult and sometimes dangerous to pull into the 7 -Eleven parking lot, especially at certain times of the day. Chairman Mowlds felt that there were definite benefits associated with having an easily -accessible convenience store. However, he pointed out that the Commission was not trying to correct the mistakes of other businesses. Vice Chairman Hayes moved to accept the proposed size of the convenience store, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (6-1), with Commissioner Ferraro dissenting. A discussion regarding relocation of the public telephone booths followed. Vice Chairman Hayes moved to adopt the Staff's recommendation to relocate the telephone booths to the south side of the building, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). Staff brought up the subject of access barriers after hours. A discussion ensued regarding the Commission's concerns of damage to vehicles caused by a chain across the driveway, and it was decided to postpone consideration of this issue to a later time. Vice Chairman Hayes brought up the issue of additional lighting, including motion -sensitive types. Chairman Mowlds expressed concern about the possible annoyance to the surrounding neighbors caused by the lights constantly going on and off. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 20 • Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested that the issue of lighting be postponed for later discussion. Director/Secretary Bernard suggested that a review of the Conditional Use Permit, including the effectiveness of any security lighting, be scheduled for six months after the convenience store opens. The Commission agreed with Staff's suggestion. After a discussion, the hours of operation were established as 5:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. on weekdays and 5:00 A.M. until Midnight on weekends. Chairman Mowlds noted that this would also include the minimum two -employee requirement. The idea of a neighborhood patrol for trash pickup was postponed for future discussion, pending Staff consultation with the City Attorney. A vote was taken to Conceptually Approve the Conditional Use Permit, based on the direction given to Staff regarding the proposed conditions of approval, with the following results: Alberio Ferraro Vannorsdall Wang Whiteneck Vice Chair Hayes Chairman Mowlds Staff noted that the Commission's actions to the Commission for NEW BUSINESS Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes P.C. Resolution memorializing the Planning that evening would be prepared and presented adoption at a future meeting. A. SIGN PERMIT NO. 565• Palo Verde Apartments, Pamela Dunham (Manager), 6600 Beachview Drive. (FF) Commissioner Whiteneck recused himself from hearing this item, since his residence is within close proximity to the subject property. Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report and recommended denial of the request for an off-site sign. Chairman Mowlds called for speakers on the item. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 21 Pamela Dunham, (Manager) 6600 Beachview Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Dunham asked the meaning of the alternative in the Staff Report stating: "Deny the request and suggest the applicant pursue the matter via a Code Amendment Request." Assistant Planner de Freitas explained that the City Attorney believed that if the applicant wished to pursue such an off-site sign, the more appropriate mechanism would be through a Code Amendment to allow that specific use since the code currently doesn't explicitly prohibit such a use. However, Mr. de Freitas felt that the Code section implied that the use should not be allowed. Commissioner Alberio asked if that meant that the City never granted Nonconforming Use Permits, and Director/secretary Bernard responded that the City allowed established Nonconforming Use Permits to continue, but did not allow new uses that were not in conformance with the Code. Ms. Dunham asked if the Golden Cove Shopping Center signs, because they'd been there for so long, qualify as "established" signs, and Director/Secretary Bernard noted that those are signs were actually on Golden Cove property. Ms. Dunham disagreed, stating that there were Golden Cove signs that were on the medians on Hawthorne Boulevard and on Palos Verdes Drive South. Director/Secretary Bernard clarified that these signs were allowed as a convenience to the public to identify the location of one of the City's largest shopping centers. Ms. Dunham stated that she could not see the difference from her request asking for a sign that said "Porto Verde Apartments." Commissioner Alberio asked if this was a directional sign, and Ms. Dunham said that it was. Director/Secretary Bernard noted that the difference was that the shopping center was considered by the City as a combination of many businesses rather than one. He noted that there was a fine line by which the Public Works Department had allowed signs for public use, public service, public benefit, with "public" being the important word. Ms. Dunham said that she understood, but that they are asking for only a six-month temporary sign. Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue stated that she was in favor of the City supporting the Porto Verde Apartments and noted that on Palos Verdes Drive South and Seacove there were at one time "gigantic" advertising signs posted for more than two weeks and the City never objected. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 22 Director/Secretary Bernard pointed out that Code Enforcement did not require that the above-mentioned advertising signs be taken down and, in fact, with the city's encouragement, the owner had submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment to allow continued commercial use on that site, because it was a non- conforming use which had terminated because of lack of occupancy. He added that the City wanted to encourage business, but to avoid the proliferation of signs, according to City Council policy. Commissioner Vannorsdall did not object to placing a directional sign for the apartment complex under the existing street sign because he felt it was difficult to find one's way around the Peninsula without a detailed map. Commissioner Wang believed that, as a property manager herself, the best way to advertise property was through newspapers, such as the Daily Breeze. Vice Chair Hayes stated that she was definitely opposed to off- site signs, but was in favor of a small directional sign placed under the existing street sign. However, since that had not been approved by Public Works, she believed that the apartment name existing on the building now was sufficiently visible from Palos Verdes Drive South. Commissioner Alberio indicated that he would like to refer this back to the City Council for further discussion and a decision, because this was a Code matter. Chairman Mowlds disagreed, stating that the City Council would probably send the issue back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Alberio moved to uphold the Staff's recommendation, thereby, denying Sign Permit No. 665, seconded by Vice Chairman Hayes. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to consider the attachment of a small directional sign under the existing street sign, as previously discussed. Chairman Mowlds noted that the Public Works Department had previously denied approval of such a matter. The motion died, due to a lack of a second. The Commissioner notified the applicant of the 15 -day appeal period to the City Council. Commissioner Whitehead returned to the dais. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 23 CONTINUED BUSINESS B. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS); City of Rancho Palos Verdes, citywide. (JR) Senior Planner Rojas presented the Staff Report and introduced some changes to the text that was given to the Commission on December 13, 1994: Chapter 17.46, the Equestrian Overlay Chapter, was reinserted per direction to Staff at the January 10, 1995 meeting and a portion of Chapter 17.02 was reinserted because Staff felt this Section was under the purview of the View Restoration Commission, but language provisions of this Section had been mutually -agreed upon by both the Planning Commission and the View Restoration commission. In response to a question from Chairman Mowlds, Planning Administrator Petru who noted that the Section being reinserted included the actual provision for the View Restoration Permits, which the Commission had reviewed previously, but not commented on. Chairman Mowlds noted that the City Attorney was reviewing the Development Code. Director/Secretary Bernard pointed out that Chapter 17.02 was not discussed at the Joint Meeting between the City Council, Planning Commission, and View Restoration Commission on Saturday, January 21, 1995. Senior Planner Rojas introduced for review and discussion the changes made to the text which were attached as replacement pages. Chairman Mowlds asked the members of the Commission if there was any reason that the replacement pages should not be inserted as presented. Since there were no objections, the pages would be inserted. Senior Planner Rojas noted that in regard to Chapter 17.46 (equestrian issues), Staff had made changes as previously directed by the Planning Commission. However, Staff was requesting further direction from the commission, as summarized on Page 4 of the Staff Report, with respect to adding language that would prohibit more than six horses from being kept at any time on any one parcel, regardless of contiguous ownership. Staff would like to know whether the Commission would rather require fencing of each individual parcel or perhaps simply require that the stables or corrals for each group of six animals be limited to each lot or parcel. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 24 With regard to Height Variation permits, Director/Secretary Bernard commented that he wanted to make sure that the Commission was satisfied with the standards for neighborhood compatibility, based on the standards that were inserted over the course of the last year. The question has arisen because of the number of cases heard lately regarding what the Commission would or would not allow for Height Variation, Chair Mowlds stated that the City Council had requested the Planning Commission to direct Staff to review what constitutes compatibility and to consult with the Commission if there are questions. Toni Deeble, 3 East Pomegranate Road, Portuguese Bend. Ms. Deeble commented that her concerns were with the changes to Section 17.46.020 (C), and in particular, with the word "commercial," in terms of requiring a business license for residents who board more than three horses. She felt that the issues pertaining to what will be considered commercial versus non-commercial, and how it effects the residential community, should be part of a separate public hearing process. Therefore, she recommended that the language as it appeared prior to the January 10, 1995, meeting should remain. I Ms. Pam Turner, representing the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horseman's Association, 5700 Ravenspur Drive, #305, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Turner stated that she and the Association believed that the arbitrary decision of limiting an owner to three horses without a cpmmercial permit was perhaps based on an oversight in not considering that horses are used for many purposes. For example, two people may own four horses, but two are trail horses and two are show horses. She also pointed out that a family of four could each have a horse and that would not be a commercial use. Ms. Turner hoped that the Commission would reconsider the three -horse limit. Ms. Sharon Hegetschweiler, President of the Portuguese Bend Community Association, 6 Clovetree Place, Portuguese Bend. Ms. Hegetschweiler made reference to the community Association's membership survey on the horse issues and pointed out that the conclusion was that the majority of the Association members were in favor of allowing boarding for the property owner's horses only, or perhaps adding a friend's horse, but they were not in favor of the boarding of horses owned by people not living in the community. She noted that the Portuguese Bend Community Association wanted to avoid a situation in which a homeowner had a lot with a home on it, plus two additional vacant lots on which they boarded outsiders' horses. She believed that, in that instance, a licensing fee would be appropriate. She asked that if the Commission planned to discuss the horse issue further at their next regular meeting on February 14, that they reschedule the discussion because it conflicted with the Portuguese Bend PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 25 Community Association's Annual Meeting. Ms. Sherree Greenwood, 2543 Sunnyside Ridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Greenwood felt it was wrong to require a license (and more expense to add to the already high cost of maintaining horses) for someone owning more than three horses because usually every member of a family had a horse and often families numbered more than three. She asked that, if the Commission had to impose a limitation, that they consider at least four horses per situation that should be considered. such as in the case of a neighbor who had a horse ranch located outside of the City, and brought her horses in from the ranch, kept them at her home here for a month or two, and then took them back to the ranch. Ms. Greenwood also stated that although the 35 -foot setback might be a good rule for the Portuguese Bend area, due to the irregularity of the size and flatness of the lots on the east side of the City, some of the, some of the families would not have that much distance between the houses, which would mean that they could not keep horses. Commissioner Alberio asked Ms. Greenwood whether the east side of the City had CC&R's in place and she stated that they are in place and she believed they were being enforced. Commissioner Alberio noted that the Commission needed to establish regulations which were reasonable for all the equestrian overlay district in the City. Ms. Kay Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms.'Bara noted that she thought the Commission showed good "horse -sense" by stating that it was against the licensing of individual horses. She did question the language stating that a landowner could not have horses on vacant parcels unless he or she owned the house next door and saw no problem in keeping all the horses on one parcel when contiguous lots are owned. Mrs. Bara speculated that a person would need to board more than ten horses in order to make a profit, and if fencing each parcel were a requirement to separate them into groups of six for each parcel, the expense could be great. She gave an example of her individual case in which she had one large parcel of 10 acres with seven horses and it didn't make sense to keep six on one parcel and a single horse on another. Mr. Dan Murphy, 227 Avenue D, Redondo Beach. Mr. Murphy stated that he did not live in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes but has boarded his five horses (for his family of five) in the City for almost 16 years. He pointed out that he had been renting property and was responsible for the maintenance of that property, spending over $8,000 during the last year to repair flood damage to the fences. Mr. Murphy also noted that during the time he had boarded his horses on the rented property, he'd had only two PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 26 minor complaints that he remedied immediately, even to the point of adding landscaping. Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes. Sunshine stated that she sent letters to the Staff regarding the equestrian overlay district, but apparently they never arrived, so she provided copies that she hoped the Commission would look at later. Her main question was what did the Council wish to accomplish by introducing fees for horse keeping and said that she understood that the only thing that was agreed upon at the last meeting was that the Commission did not agree with the Code as presented by the Staff. Further, she stated that the "three for free," low density, and continuation of the six horses proposal cancel out the benefits of each other. Sunshine felt that a proliferation of small barns would not make the anti - commercial boarders happy; and reducing the property owners' opportunities to use their property would not make anybody happy. Mr. Robert Maxwell, 7 E. Pomegranate Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Maxwell stated that the stabling of horses commercially would most effect the East Portuguese Bend area which was already beset by an active landslide with a moratorium on construction, and blight. Mr. Maxwell referenced photos that were given to the Commission and Staff dated January 22, 1995, to show recent activity in regard to corrals. He felt that these photos, along with others shown on previous meetings, showed that commercial boarding was present in the East Portuguese Bend area. He added that this was a condition contrary to the CC&Rls under which he bought his house, and it was a condition that very much hurt their property and aesthetic values. Ms. Betty Field Strauss, 10 West Pomegranate, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Strauss said that she wanted to respectfully tell Mr.Murphy that she did not agree that he maintained his property well and that she understood that riding lessons were being given on his leased property. She apologized that the petition was not as complete as it might have been, due to the rainy weather. She pointed out that there were Portuguese Bend residents and not all were members of the Portuguese Bend Community Association. She read the heading on the petition and indicated that the signers had agreed with this statement. She agreed with the suggestion of a limit of three horses and felt that most people could live with that limitation. Mr. Richard Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Bara disagreed that family horse boarding operations were commercial and felt that the term commercial referred to operations such as the Portuguese Bend Riding Club. He congratulated and cautioned the Commission because he felt they were beginning to get a feel for recreational non-commercial PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 27 boarding. He requested that the Commission remove Chapter 17.46 from the Development Code Revisions being sent to the City Council so that all their revisions are not held up waiting for resolution of the horse issues, which he believed were far from resolved. Mr.Bara repeated that the Code regarding horses should not be changed which he felt echoed the opinions of many other speakers. Director/Secretary Bernard informed Chairman Mowlds that there was one person who did not have an opportunity to complete a speaker's form and would like to speak. Chairman Mowlds allowed the additional speaker. Ms. Joan Wright, 1 Fruit Tree Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Wright reported that she had one to two horses for 30 years and that she did not agree with the figures given as examples of the high cost of maintain horses. She believed that some people boarding horses were being overcharged and, even when costs of maintaining buildings and fences were included, the expenses were being exaggerated. Chairman Mowlds asked for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Alberio suggested that the discussion regarding Chapter 17.46 be continued to a future meeting. Vice Chair Hayes was comfortable with the most recent changes, and believed that the limit of three horses was good, Commissioner Ferraro did not agree with the recent language changes, including the fencing of individual parcels to separate horses. She concluded that commercial boarding was not desirable, yet language was being included to allow it. Commissioner Whiteneck believed that the recent changes were correct in concept, but possibly three horses was not exactly the right limit and was willing to reconsider this issue. Commissioner Wang was also not sure about the appropriateness of the three horses limit. Commissioner Vannorsdall believed the Commission's conclusions were correct, even though he had originally suggested a limit of four horses. He asked if there would be a procedure for special cases, such as a Variance or would there be no exceptions to the rules. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 28 Director/Secretary Bernard replied that as currently written, there would not be an exception procedure for these Code standards. He added that Staff did not have a preference regarding the limited selected by the Commission, but the Commission should realize that enforceability might be a problem. When Commissioner Alberio asked for an explanation, Director/Secretary Bernard gave an example, stating that if there were six, horses, and they were not individually licensed, Staff may be unable to conclusively determine their ownership. Chairman Mowlds addressed the proposal of continuing the item to the next regular meeting on February 14, 1995. Chairman Mowlds felt that the Commission's suggestions evolved from input from many speakers and, even though details might need to be changed, he felt that valuable conclusions had been made. He believed no further discussion was required until the topic was reviewed by the City Council. Chairman Mowlds moved that the Commission's current recommendations on Chapter 17.46 be forwarded to the City, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck . The motion passed (6-1) on the following roll call: AYES: Alberio, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck,, Hayes, Mowlds NOES: Ferraro Senior Planner Rojas commented that on new Page 117B, new paragraph "C", in the fourth line, reference was made to "non- commercial use", and in the third line from the bottom"commercial use" was mentioned. Staff believed that the word "use" should be replaced with "activity" because a "commercial use" could create a conflict with the residential zoning. Chairman Mowlds asked the Commission if there were objections to this language modification and there were none. Commissioner Ferraro asked if the City Attorney was going to be consulted regarding whether it was legal to consider a number of contiguous parcels as a single lot. Senior Planner Rojas said that the entire Code was going to be forwarded to the City Attorney the following day to request those types of comments. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 29 Director/Secretary Bernard pointed out that the Commission had made a decision to ratify language in the Staff Report in regard to horses, having review the entire Development Code three times -(or four times if the Subcommittee meetings were included). By February 14, Staff should have comments from the City Attorney with additional concerns for the commission's review. At that time, the Commission can make its final decision on the Development Code Revisions, including how the six horses limit would be configured. On February 28, the final Resolution would probably be signed, forwarding all the Commission's recommendations to the City Council. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, February 14, 1995. 2. Director/Secretary Bernard suggested that the Planning Commission consider modification of the Planning Commission Agenda format to include "Approval of Agenda" The Commission asked that this be included on the next agenda. 3. Director/Secretary Bernard indicated that he would bring to the next Planning Commission meeting written information for each commissioner regarding the upcoming League of California Cities Planners Institute being held in Monterey from March 22 through 24, 1995. He needed to know by Friday, January 27, 1995, which Commissioners were interested in attending. Funds had been approved for only three Commissioners to attend and, if there were more attendees, he would need to submit a request for more funding to be considered at the city Council's February 7, 1995 meeting. B. COMMISSION - NONE X. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, spoke regarding the Portuguese Bend Club grading project and Dr. Ehlig's recommendations. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was duly adjourned at 12:05 A.M. The next Regular meeting would be on Tuesday, February 14, 1995, at 7:00 P.M., at Hesse Park. (A.JDMIN#8 - MINI 24) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995 PAGE 30