Loading...
PC MINS 19951010APPROVED Op 11/14/95 V CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1995 SPECIAL STARTING TIME: 6:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order at 6.31 P M by Chairman Mowlds at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Mr Tom Blair PRESENT- Commissioners Alberio, Ferraro, Vannorsdall, Whiteneck, Vice Chair Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds. ABSENT Commissioner Wang (excused) Also present were Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, Assistant Planners de Freitas and Klopfenstein, and Recording Secretary Drasco ua a a• a _ 0 Commissioner Mowlds suggested that the agenda be re -ordered to hear the items in the following order, after the Consent Calendar (Note The item number shown is from the original order of the agenda.) VARIANCE NO. 392 AND GRADING PERMIT NO 1819; Arthur Fein (Item No 3) VARIANCE NO 400; Jerry and Sandy Mulliner (Item No 7) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 116 - REVISION "A", GRADING NO 178, AND VARIANCE NO 389, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.671, Christ Lutheran Church [traffic report only] (Item No. 5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 186, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 673; Taco Bell (Item No 4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 116 - REVISION "A", GRADING NO 178, AND VARIANCE NO 389, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO 671; Christ Lutheran Church [all other issues] (Item No. 5) HEIGHT VARIATION NO 813 - APPEAL, Mr and Mrs. Nguyen (Item No. 6) COASTAL PERMIT NO 129 - APPEAL; Lois Larue (Item No 8) 0- 0 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY, Friendship Park (Item No 9) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS), City of Rancho Palos Verdes (item No 2) DISPOSITION OF A FENCE AT 30063 CARTIER DRIVE (Item No 10) CLARIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION NO 17 57 030 (C) (Item No 11) The Commission agreed to follow this order, (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff - Planning Administrator Petru noted that there was one late letter related to Item No 9 (General Plan Consistency Determination for Friendship Park) which had been provided to the Commission Commission None APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of September 26, 1995 This item was continued to October 24, 1995, per Staffs request, since the draft Minutes were still being transcribed, (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 3 VARIANCE NO. 392 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1819: Arthur Fein, 27520 Elmbridge Drive (DJ) Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to continue this item to November 14, 1995, seconded by Vice Chair Hayes, and approved, (6-0). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 2 i :141#1MMIWOU104 7 VARIANCE NO. 400, Jerry and Sandy Mulliner, 102 Spindrift Drive. (FF) Chairman Mowlds recused himself from hearing this item and asked Vice Chair Hayes to preside over this portion of the agenda.. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro, (5-0-1), with Chairman Mowids abstaining. There were no requests to speak on this item. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro, (5-0-1), with Chairman Mowlds abstaining. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept the withdrawal of Variance No. 400, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro, (5-0-1), with Chairman Mowlds abstaining. Chairman Mowlds resumed presiding over the meeting. r 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 116 - REVISION "A". GRADING NO. 178, AND VARIANCE NO 389, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO 671, Christ Lutheran Church, 28850 South Western Avenue (KK) Chairman Mowlds explained the church was requesting an enlargement of their facility adjacent to the proposed Taco Bell, which was also an item on that evening's agenda He suggested that, at a later time in the evening, the complete Staff Report be given and the public hearing opened At this time, the Chairman asked only for Staffs comments on the traffic report. Planning Administrator reported that Dean Allison, Associate Engineer with the City's Public Works Department, and Jim Biega, the City's traffic consultant, were present to answer questions regarding the traffic report prepared for the proposed project Mr. Dean Allison, Associate Engineer, Public Works Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Allison explained that the Public Works Department had hired a consultant for traffic engineering services, Jim Biega, from Willdan Associates, who reviewed the report that was submitted for these two projects (Christ Lutheran Church and Taco Bell). Mr. Allison said that he would give an overview and that Mr Biega could better answer specific questions about the traffic report PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 3 Mr. Allison said that the City had requested two traffic Impact studies, one for the proposed Taco Bell and one for the Christ Lutheran Church, to determine site circulation and parking requirements, along with the potential traffic impact of either or both of the projects if they were approved The conclusion was that neither project, either independently or together, would have a significant Impact on the intersection of Western Avenue and Caddington Drive However, Mr Allison added that the left turn pocket onto Caddington for traffic headed southbound on Western Avenue may need to be extended in the future, after additional monitoring. Commissioner Alberio suggested that the impact of a U-turn in the area should be investigated also, because he noted that the "no U-turn" sign had been removed from the intersection of Western Avenue and Caddington Drive. Mr Allison replied that it had been determined that an increase in U-turns, if both of these projects were approved, would have no significant impact on this intersection. Commissioner Vannorsdall noted that the Sunday peak hours for both Taco Bell and Christ Lutheran Church were the same. He asked the traffic consultant to explain what impact this situation would have on Western Avenue Mr. Jim Biega, (City's traffic consultant), Willdan Associates, 374 Poli Street, Suite #101, Ventura, CA 93001-2613. Mr. Biega stated that there was adequate space for a U-turn from the left turn pocket (traveling southbound on Western) at the intersection of Western Avenue and Caddington Drive Regarding Sunday traffic, he explained that the traffic analyses primarily focused on the weekday peak periods, with the heaviest traffic usually in the evening, since the level of service was usually governed by the peak periods. He noted that the study performed by Richard Garland of Stevens - Garland Associates indicated that the Sunday peak was far lower than the weekday peak Commissioner Vannorsdall still felt the combined traffic on Sunday near the two projects could be considerable, especially since there were other restaurants on Western Avenue which had a large number of patrons during the Sunday morning hours Mr. Biega acknowledged that it was impossible to predict the future or to know in which direction drivers would be turning when they entered or left the two properties He believed, however, that it might be necessary to lengthen the left turn pocket at some time in the future and said that was why it was suggested that a secured deposit be obtained from each applicant Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the timing of the light could be changed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 4 i Mr Biega said that this was possible, but that the signal was self-adjusting with sensors in the road Chairman Mowlds asked about left turn and U-turn volume which, for the church, was estimated at one car expected every fifteen minutes and, for Taco Bell, four cars for every fifteen minutes from 4 00 P M to 6 30 P M He questioned these estimates, particularly for the church, which he felt were too low Mr Biega suggested that Richard Garland, who prepared the study, provide details of the study Mr Biega said that he had reviewed the study from the broad perspective of potential traffic impacts, but that he had performed his own rough analysis of the queuing length of the left turn pocket. He determined that, although marginally adequate at this time, the turn pocket might need to be lengthened in the future Chairman Mowlds still felt that the left and U-turn volumes included in the traffic report did not seem realistic Commissioner Alberio agreed, stating that the wording did not agree with the appendix. Mr Biega stressed that the study concluded that, even if both projects were approved, it was not expected that there would be significant impact on traffic. Commissioner Alberio noted that Cal Trans would have to approve a longer left turn pocket. Mr Biega agreed and that this approval would take time He reiterated that the study indicated that the current left turn pocket was marginally adequate and that it was not suggested that it be lengthened at this time, but only that the situation be monitored Vice Chair Hayes noted that it would be more expensive to lengthen the pocket later Commissioner Alberio suggested that the situation be monitored about three or four months after both projects (if approved) have been completed Mr Biega replied that it was expected that it would take about five years for the impact to be felt. Commissioners Vannorsdall, Alberio and Vice Chair Hayes believed that it would not take that long PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 5 Commissioner Vannorsdall reiterated that the Sunday traffic analysis was not adequate Commissioner Alberio concurred and said that the traffic consultant should take another look at the situation Chairman Mowlds noted that the Commission would continue discussion of the Christ Lutheran Church project after the hearing on the Taco Bell project. CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 186, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 673; Taco Bell, 28798 South Western Avenue {FF} Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the Staff Report, noting that this item had been continued from the previous Planning Commission meeting on September 26, 1995, at which time the Commission directed Staff to provide additional information regard traffic issues Concerns raised by the neighbors at previous hearings were identified in the Staff Report. Staff found that all of the findings for the Conditional Use Permit could be met and determined that there were no significant environmental impacts caused by the project Therefore, Staff recommended approval of the project Chairman Mowlds noted that the decibel level of 67 was mentioned in the Staff Report and asked why the State standard of 65 decibels was not used Assistant Planner de Freitas said that, since there was no noise standard in the City, the figure was taken from other projects. Chairman Mowlds stated that this could be made consistent with the proposed Development Code Revisions later. He asked Staff what would trigger the closing of facility if the decibel level was exceeded Planning Administrator Petru replied that the Planning Commission could establish an automatic review period or a Code Enforcement investigation might be performed in response to complaints received from surrounding residents In any case, if appropriate, the Commission could modify conditions or revoke the CUP Mr. Dean Allison, Associate Engineer, Public Works Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Allison explained that the Taco Bell and Christ Lutheran Church projects were studied together for traffic impact and that it had been determined that there would be little or no impact if one or both projects were approved He agreed with Commissioner Vannorsdall that the only time the peak periods for both projects PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 6 a coincided was on Sunday, but that the impact, even at that time, would still be insignificant. Commissioner Vannorsdall commented that the only traffic concern identified in the study seemed to be the intersection of Western and Caddington, ignoring the possibility that cars could be backed up on the Taco Bell or Christ Lutheran Church properties. Mr. Vannorsdall believed this was a deficiency of the traffic study. Mr. Allison acknowledged that the intersection was the prime focus of the study but added that the City's traffic consultant could elaborate on other findings. In response to Vice Chair Hayes' comment that it would probably be less expensive to lengthen the left turn pocket at this time, Planning Administrator Petru explained that, according to recent case law, specifically the Dolan case out of Oregon, an improvement of this type had to have a study supporting the need for the condition of approval In order to impose this condition at this time, the Planning Commission would have to require further study to prove that the left turn pocket had to be lengthened at this time Therefore, only the requirement for the bond could be required, based on to the findings of the traffic study. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked why both applicants were sharing equally in the cost for the $35,000 bond, since it appeared that Taco Bell would generate more traffic. Chairman Mowlds explained that, even if approved, one project or the other might not actually be built, and then the other party would have to pay for the entire improvement. He clarified that this was not a trust deposit, but merely a bond, and that the bond would be released if it was determined that it was not needed Further, he stated that, if one of the projects was not built, it was likely that the lengthening of the left turn pocket would not be required As this was a continued public hearing, Chairman Mowlds called the applicant to the podium. Mr. William Fancher, the applicant, said that he would speak after the other speakers Mr. Richard Garland, Stevens -Garland Associates, 16787 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA 92647. Mr. Garland stated that he was available for questions Chairman Mowlds asked Mr. Garland how he determined the effect of the additional left turns and U-turns generated by the two projects and any further information that might be important for the Commission to consider PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1996 PAGE 7 Mr. Garland said that traffic counts were taken at the intersection of Western Avenue and Caddington Drive in the morning, at Noon, at 3:00 P.M. and between 4.00 P M. and 6:30 P.M. to analyze the existing level of service and the scenario for one or both of the proposed protects He said that it was determined that there would be no significant impact on traffic, as defined by the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program, and that this intersection would operate at 68% of its full capacity at the Noon hour and approximately 86% in the afternoon with these two projects in place Mr Garland reported that another factor studied, which he felt was even more critical at this particular location, was the number of cars making left turns and whether or not the 80 foot long left turn pocket was adequate He went on to explain the process by which this determination was made. He also said that the two projects would be more compatible because the two projects had different peak hours during the weekdays Commissioner Alberio asked about the effect of surges in the traffic Mr Garland said this was taken into account and, even with surges, it was felt that the left turn pocket would still be sufficient Chairman Mowlds asked for an explanation of the fact that the traffic study indicated that there would be only one car turning left every fifteen minutes for the school during the period between 4.00 and 6 30 P M Mr. Garland explained that this figure was determined by proportioning the increased number of students over the existing enrollment (a small increase) and multiplying the existing number of cars by that proportional increase in the number of students. Chairman Mowlds asked the Commissioners if they felt comfortable with the analysis and the assumptions made in the traffic study Vice Chair Hayes felt that the numbers seemed accurate. Chairman Mowlds believed that the written analysis did not match the information contained in the tables Mr Garland said that he wrote the report and was not aware of any inconsistencies Commissioner Alberio that he was not comfortable with the traffic study and felt more time was required for additional study. He said that he was not convinced the project should be approved and asked for more explanation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 8 Mr. Garland said that he felt comfortable that the data was accurate and that the study had been reviewed by Staff for several months. Mr. William Fancher (applicant, representing Taco Bell), Fancher Development, 1342 Bell Avenue, #3K, Tustin, CA 92680 Mr Fancher said that he was available for questions. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked the gross amount of business Mr Fancher was expecting at this site Mr. Fancher said that, using averages from other Taco Bell restaurants, he was expecting $800,000 to one million dollars worth of sales each year, but that actual sales would be difficult to predict. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked how much the average car spent per visit and how many cars Mr. Fancher expected to visit the site Mr. Fancher said that the average sale was about $3 80 but that it was hard to estimate the number of sales per car since there was often more than one sale per car. However, he thought it was reasonable to assume that there might be four persons in a car Commissioner Vannorsdall calculated that, in order to generate $800,000 in gross sales per year, traffic at the site would average about 573 cars per day Ms. Debbi Nelson, 1725 Hollifield Court, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Nelson informed the Commission that she bought her townhome adjacent to the proposed Taco Bell site in 1987 and said that her bedroom and kitchen window s were very close to the subject property She appreciated the fact that the high wall would deaden the sound somewhat but said that it would not reach to the height of her second story. Having teenagers herself, she said that she could not believe that the number in that age group which would be frequenting Taco Bell would not impact traffic Ms Nelson stated that the bend in Western Avenue at this site made a dangerous intersection because motorists at intersection could not see oncoming traffic and added that there had been serious accidents at this location. She noted that there were many children who lived in Strathmore, the complex in which her townhome was located, and she was concerned about their safety Mrs Nelson mentioned also that the traffic impact at Toscannini to the north had not been addressed in the traffic study Mr. Tom Blair, (architect for related project, Christ Lutheran Church) 24423 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90505 Mr Blair was concerned about the impact of the proposed Taco Bell on the use of the church facilities, stating that the church had PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 9 submitted their application three months before Taco Bell. He believed that the weekday impact would be insignificant but was concerned that the traffic study did not address the impact on Sunday Mr Blair noted that the church had been at this site for a long time and it was logical to believe that the Taco Bell would generate a higher increase in traffic than the increased enrollment in the church school Therefore, he believed that Taco Bell should bear the entire burden of any costs incurred in lengthening the left turn pocket or other means to mitigate traffic Impacts. Ms. Vicki Livingston, 1723 Hollified Court, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms Livingston, also a homeowner at Strathmore brought signatures from other residents who were opposed to the Taco Bell She raised the issue of sound from the speaker at the drive-through and stated that it was possible to make the sound Inaudible from a short distance as the nearby McDonald's had done Ms Livingston was also concerned about radios in the drive-through and the parking lot and wondered if it would be possible to post a sign asking patrons to turn down their radios She expected that there would be gangs and crime because this had happened at other Taco Bells. She asked the Commission if they any ideas to keep the site from becoming a gang hangout Mr. William Fancher, rebuttal. Mr. Fancher addressed the noise issue and said that he had planned to point the speaker toward Western Avenue to lessen the noise toward the nearby residences He reiterated that a tall wall would be installed, with bougainvillaea planted on both sides to beautify the wall and to discourage climbing and graffiti Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if he would be willing to post a sign asking customers to turn down their car radios Mr. Fancher said that he would be willing to do that Commissioner Mowlds suggested that Taco Bell provide a security guard on the weekend evenings after 10.00 P.M with a review after six months or, if a guard was not hired at first, after six months, the situation could be reviewed to determine if a guard was warranted. Mr Fancher said that Taco Bell had provided guards in the past only under special conditions and they were not always effective. Therefore, he said he would rather start without a guard and review the situation in six months He noted that this particular Taco Bell, rather than being open 24 hours like most of the restaurants, would close at 11.00 P M on weekdays and at Midnight on weekends. Chairman Mowlds summarized that the concerns seemed to noise and gangs PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 10 Commissioner Alberio stated that he was concerned about traffic. Chairman Mowlds said that the traffic study might be accurate or not but that Taco Bell had little control over the traffic impacts However, Mr Fancher had indicated that they would be willing to build the high wall with the bougainvillaea, orient the speaker toward Western Avenue, and point the lighting down in order to minimize any other impacts to the adjacent neighbors Mr Fancher asked if Cal Trans had been consulted about the change in the left turn pocket, noting that the City could be collecting a bond to improve a Cal Trans road without their approval Planning Administrator Petru replied that there was a possibility that Cal Trans would not issue the permit Commissioner Alberio stated that it was the applicant's responsibility to apply to Cal Trans Planning Administrator Petru agreed and cited the case in which The Terraces Shopping Center was required to post a bond and to seek a Cal Trans permit to make improvements to this same intersection, which was granted by the State agency Mr. Fancher said that a lot of time and money could be involved in applying for a Cal Trans permit He felt it was inappropriate that Taco Bell should have to pay a fee for a bond when other changes in the area might cause additional traffic at a later time and Taco Bell would have to pay for the improvements to the road. Planning Administrator Petru disagreed, stating that the left turn pocket would be used primarily by the Taco Bell and Christ Lutheran Church The recommendation was not to lengthen the pocket at this time, but only to review the situation after the development is completed to determine if another traffic study should be performed. Mr. Fancher asked who would pay for an additional study. Planning Administrator said that the applicant (Taco Bell) would be required to pay for the study and this was confirmed by the City's Public Works Associate Engineer Dean Allison Mr Fancher responded that he was uncomfortable with signing a "blank check" and that he needed a firm budget in order to conduct a prudent business. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 11 Commissioner Mowids disagreed, stating that the cost would not exceed $35,000 and, if the cost was more, the City would pay the additional amount He also noted that, if the church addition was built as well, Taco Bell would pay only a portion of the cost. Commissioner Alberio asked about the 45% to 55% split between Taco Bell and the church, with the larger amount being paid by Taco Bell. Mr. Jim Bieaa, the City's Traffic Consultant, said that this percentage division would apply if both projects were built. If only one project were built, only that applicant would pay for the improvement However, he noted that in this case, there would be less traffic impact and possibly the improvement would not be needed. Commissioner Alberio reiterated what Ms Nelson had said earlier, stating that traffic from Taco Bell would exit north so that the intersection of Western Avenue and Toscannini Drive would be impacted, and this was not addressed in the traffic study. Mr Biega said replied there was a left turn pocket prior to Toscaninni Drive Commissioner Vannorsdall noted, however, that a U-turn was not allowed at that location. Vice Chair Hayes concurred with Commissioner Vannorsdall, stating that a change should be made to allow a U-turn. Commissioner Alberio felt that this turn pocket was too short to accommodate a U-turn. Mr Biega said that a U-turn was allowed there currently and that the pocket to the north of Caddington Drive (into the Palos Verdes Plaza) was least 110' long, which was longer than the southbound one at Caddington Drive, which was about 80' long Mr. William Fancher, the applicant, was called back to the podium by Chairman Mowlds for further questions from the Commission Commissioner Ferraro said that she understood there would be a 12' wall around the back of the restaurant, but wondered about the height of the wall along the side property line Mr. Fancher said there was an existing 12' wall and that they had planned to add it to their new wall, if possible Commissioner Ferraro asked about the wall abutting Hollifield Court. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 12 Mr Fancher said that he would try to maintain 12' all around but it might vary with the topography. He wanted the wall to be attractive and hide the Taco Bell building from the neighbors, as well as create an "amphitheater" effect to send the sound out toward Western Avenue. Commissioner Ferraro asked if there would be a wall on the side of the property adjacent to the church Mr. Fancher said that there was no wall planned for that area, but that he was not opposed to placing one there. Chairman Mowlds said that a wall in this location was shown on the drawing Mr Fancher replied that he had not realized it was on the drawing Vice Chair Hayes noted that the drawing indicated that there was a 6' wall proposed in the side setback Commissioner Albeno asked if the wall facing the townhouses was going to be at the same elevation Mr. Fancher said that he would try but was not sure this would be possible. He was planning to build the wall as high as possible but it had not been engineered yet He thought it might be appropriate to step it down along the sides closest to Western Avenue to preserve traffic sight lines. He noted that the wall was inset from the rear property line to create an area for landscaping and that there were already some plants there. Chairman Mowlds suggested that Mr. Fancher work with Staff so that they can determine what was the best configuration for the walls. Ms. Debbi Nelson asked for a rebuttal Chairman Mowlds said that this was not normal procedure but that he would allow it Ms Nelson said that she was uncomfortable with the fact that Mr. Fancher was going to Lry to put a wall on the north property line, adjacent to her property. She also corrected Mr Fancher, stating that heading north on Western Avenue from the entrance, particularly on foot, within 6' of leaving that exit to Taco Bell, there was only a 3' retaining wall. She said that people frequently jump over or urinate on that low wall and that there has been trash and even a bomb left in the vicinity of the wall. Ms PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 13 Nelson stated that the traffic study did not address the fact that Dodson middle school was nearby and had been reconfigured to have 6th, 7th, and 8th graders and she was aware that the younger children are usually carpooled, which would increase traffic as well Chairman Mowlds suggested that, since ample input had been received from the applicant, Staff, the consultants, and the public, that the Planning Commission discuss potential conditions of approval. He summarized that gangs, noise and the walls had been discussed Commissioner Vannorsdall added that a relatively quiet speaker system was suggested, as well as the signage asking patrons to turn down their radios Commissioner Alberio was concerned about teenagers gathering in the parking lot, even after the restaurant was closed. Commissioner Ferraro said that the parking lot could be chained off after business hours Chairman Mowlds wanted to make sure that a review was performed after a certain time period. Planning Administrator suggested a review six months after the restaurant began operation She agreed that Staff could work with the applicant regarding the walls, including the traffic line -of -sight issue, and that probably a site visit would be necessary She also asked if a condition should be included requiring the exterior lighting to be directed downward Mr. Fancher indicated that he was willing to comply and noted that the light would not spill over onto other properties. He said that the main lights would be turned off at closing and the exterior security lighting was equipped with a photo cell so that it would be automatically lit Planning Administrator suggested that a motion sensitive light at the rear of the building might be appropriate Mr. Fancher agreed to this condition as well Chairman Mowlds asked if there were any objections to the hours of operation Mr. Fancher had suggested and if these hours were consistent with other fast food restaurants in the area PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 14 Assistant Planner de Freitas indicated that these hours were consistent with restaurants in The Terraces shopping center There were no objections to the hours of operation Chairman Mowlds indicated that there would be no security guard on Friday and Saturday nights when the restaurant opened but that the need for one would be discussed again at the six-month review Commissioner Alberio was still concerned about the traffic study because he felt that it did not adequately address the impact at Toscannini Drive Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed with Commissioner Alberio, stating that he had made the first right turn that was available when he visited the site and that was at Toscannini Drive Chairman Mowlds said that Staff would prepare the draft P C Resolutions with the conditions suggested by the Commission for consideration at the next meeting He also requested that the traffic consultants return to the next meeting to answer any additional questions He asked Commissioners Alberio and Vannorsdall to meet with the traffic consultants to make sure their concerns were addressed. Commissioner Alberio moved to conceptually approve the project and to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting on October 24, 1995, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (6-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE Recessed at 8 30 P M and reconvened at 8 45 P M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 116 - REVISION "A", GRADING NO. 1781, AND VARIANCE NO. 389, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.671, Christ Lutheran Church, 28850 South Western Avenue (KK) Chairman Mowlds indicated that this item was continued from earlier in the meeting when only the traffic report was discussed Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report, stating that Staff was recommending approval of the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 15 Mr. Tom Blair (architect), 24423 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90505. Mr Blair stated that there were a number of members of the congregation in the audience, as well as Tom Ramsey, the pastor, and Bill Dieckhoff, the school principal, who were present to answer questions. He gave a history of the proposed project, stating that there was approval for an addition several years ago, which was never built. He felt that the old buildings, which were not equipped for the handicapped and did not meet seismic standards, should be torn down and replaced, and that parking and security conditions should be improved also He explained that the first solution was to build two wings but, because of the impact to the neighborhood and the cost, the plans were modified The new plans provided for a basement, a general improvement of the appearance of the church, identification of the entrance, enlargement of the narthex, a controlled entrance for the school, improvement of the rest room facilities, and two additional classrooms for 57 more students in order to reduce the waiting list of enrollees. Chairman Mowlds asked for comments from the Commission Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he attended the services and talked with the pastor and received a tour of the facility He said that he felt the institution was good for the community and was in favor of the improvements. Commissioner Whiteneck believed that the project should be approved in order to provide a safe facility for the school children and the congregation Commissioner Ferraro said that she was in favor of the project and believed it should move forward Vice Chair Hayes concurred with Commissioner Ferraro. Commissioner Alberio was concerned about maintaining safety in old buildings and was particularly interested in the proper handling of any asbestos found. He was pleased that the new buildings would meet current seismic requirements However, he wanted to make sure that traffic information was complete Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staff's recommendation, option No. 2, to conceptually approve the project, subject to conditions of approval and additional traffic information, seconded by Vice Chair Hayes. Approved (6-0). Planning Administrator stated that the draft P C Resolutions would be brought to the November 14, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, in order to have adequate time for the City's consultant to receive and review the additional traffic information PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 16 • 6. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 813 - APPEAL, Mr. and Mrs Nguyen, 6956 Purpleridge Drive. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the Staff Report , stating that the applicant proposed to build a second story addition at the rear of the existing structure and other improvements Staff was recommending denial of the protect because of significant view impairment and lack of neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Alberio asked about similar second story additions in the area and assumed they were built before the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated Planning Administrator Petru confirmed this fact and said they were also built before Proposition M was passed, which established the neighborhood compatibility requirements Commissioner Ferraro disclosed that she had met Mrs. Miller at a coffee and they had discussed the protect but Mrs Ferraro believed the discussion had no effect on her ability to make a fair decision on the appeal Vice Chair Hayes moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved, (6-0). Mr Phar Nguyen (appelIant/app Iicant), 6956 Purpleridge Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr Nguyen explained that he had applied for permission to enlarge his home and the request had been denied by Staff He said that he had changed the plans and the protect had still not been allowed and the reason given by Staff was lack of neighborhood compatibility He reported that there were four other neighbors within a 100 foot radius of his property who had built the same type of addition that he wished to build and that he had even borrowed the plans of one of these neighbors on which to base his project. Therefore, he did not feel that he was trying to build anything different than what already existed in the neighborhood. Mr. Nguyen explained that he had taken into consideration the privacy of his neighbors and that the building walls facing them had no windows He said that he realized there was view impairment for one of the neighbors at 28915 Sprucegrove, the Millers, but that their home was built at a higher elevation than his own home. Mr Nguyen described photographs that he took from the Millers' home from their living room, dining room, and patio which indicated that there was little impact on their view. He asked the Commission to please grant his request because he had purchased his home 12 years ago hoping to improve it and he felt his project was the same as others in the immediate neighborhood Mrs. Cecil R Miller, 28915 Sprucegrove Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes Mrs Miller stated that she and her husband had lived in their home for 27 years She said that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 17 had enjoyed a 180 degree view of the Pacific from Catalina to the Channel Islands and that the proposed construction would eliminate a large portion of their view from two of their bedrooms, bathroom, entry hall, and living room. She noted that most of the Commissioners had visited the site and viewed the photographs to verify this loss of view She urged the Commission to uphold the Staffs decision to deny the Height Variation, not only to preserve their view but also to maintain their property value Dr. Cecil R. Miller, 28915 Sprucegrove Drive., Rancho Palos Verdes. Dr. Miller said that when the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated, the desire was to be free of Los Angeles County and control our own property, Including view He asked the Commission to enforce those principals, specifically the 16' height limitation, and deny the appeal. Mrs. Sarah Micek, 6948 Purpleridge Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes Mrs. Micek said that she and her husband had lived next door to the subject property for 32 years She stated that they had an ocean view from their patio and the proposed project would block that view as well as the ocean breeze which kept their home cool in the summer and the sun to warm them in the winter. She urged the Commission to deny the appeal Mr. Charles A. Micek, 6948 Purpleridge Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Micek indicated that he and his wife lived upslope site of the proposed project and had enjoyed an ocean view Therefore, he disagreed with Page 4 of the Staff Report which stated that the proposed addition would cause no significant view impairment at his home. He hoped that Proposition M would preserve views and he asked the Commission to consider the neighbors' views in making a decision on the proposed addition Commissioner Mowlds clarified that a landowner could build his home to a height of 16' according to the City's Code, even it the structure at that height blocked a neighbor's view and that this was the premise of Proposition M He explained that if Mr. Nguyen had limited the height of his addition to 16 feet, he would not have come before the Planning Commission at all Mr Micek asked if he was understanding correctly that Proposition M would not protect views blocked by structures under 16' in height Planning Administrator Petru confirmed that this was correct. She compared the situation to a view from one home across a vacant lot, stating that the owner of the vacant lot had a right to build a home on that site to a maximum height of 16' in height, even if it blocked his neighbor's view that existed when the lot was vacant PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 18 Mr Phar Nguyen (applicant), rebuttal. Mr. Nguyen said that he was sorry for the problems his addition might cause but that he was willing to relocate the addition forward to decrease the view loss and he provided photographs to the Commission to illustrate his statement Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Hayes. Approved, (6-0). Commissioner Vannorsdall said that he felt sympathy for the applicant who had spent a large amount of money processing his application, apparently without being fully aware of the Code requirements However, he believed that it was essential that views had to be protected and this project would impair views of the surrounding homes. Mr Vannorsdall added that the revised design of the addition created a "popup" addition, which was architecturally unattractive However, his primary objection was to the view impairment caused by the proposed addition Commissioner Whiteneck agreed that an addition could not significantly block views Vice Chair Hayes agreed with Commissioner Vannorsdall that she did not find the "popoup" addition attractive She was under the impression that the applicant had been informed by Staff that his addition did not comply with the Code and that was why it was denied at Staff level Commissioner Alberio agreed with the other Commissioners and Staff, stating that it was a "popoup" design but the fact that the height was over 16' and blocked views made it unacceptable Chairman Mowlds said that he felt empathy for the applicant as well but the Commission had not been allowing "popup" additions, which was an aesthetic issue, but also a structure over 16' could not block views and this project, at the height requested, did just that. Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept Staffs recommendation to deny the Appeal of Height Variation 813, thereby denying the proposed second story addition, seconded by Vice Chair Hayes. The motion passed (5-01) on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Alberio, Vannorsdall, Whiteneck, Vice Chair Hayes and Chairman Mowlds NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Ferraro PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 19 Ll 0 Chairman Mowlds stated that he would sign P C Resolution No 95-35 that evening and that there would be a 15 -day appeal period to appeal the decision to the City Council. 8. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 129 - APPEAL, Lois Larue (3136 Barkentine Road) for Sacred Cove, located oceanward of Palos Verdes Drive South at Peppertree Drive (TS) Planning Administrator Petru explained that Senior Planner Rojas would be presenting the Staff Report for this item, as he had processed the original application, although Associate Planner Silverman had written the Staff Report for this evening. Senior Planner Rojas reported that this was an Appeal of a Coastal Permit approved by Staff for the City's Redevelopment Agency. He explained that this project was for several geological test borings in the Portuguese Bend area, including one at Sacred Cove Because access to this area is difficult, it was necessary to build a road The Planning Department reviewed the request and issued a Geologic Investigation Permit, on the basis that this project was exempt from the requirement for a Coastal Permit Upon learning that a Coastal Permit was required (not for the borings but for the access road) and after unexpected field conditions caused the unstable land to shift, two public Hearings Officer hearings were held and a Coastal Permit, with numerous conditions of approval, as well as a revision to the Geological Investigation Permit were approved by the Acting Hearings Officer Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved, (6-0). Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, said that she was appalled at the work being performed by Charles Abbott Associates at this site. She commented on the pollution in the ocean off the Palos Verdes Peninsula coastline and stated that, in 1992, the Corps of Engineers had been told that they were not to deal with the landslide in any way Lois Larue noted that she attended the pubic hearing held by the Acting Hearings Officer on September 11, 1995 but that she had been unable to attend the second hearing on September 14, 1995 Lois Larue commented on what she believed to be errors in the Staff Report, stating that the location was incorrectly described She disagreed with the Staff Report which stated that there were no references in the Coastal Specific Plan to grading and geologic investigations She read several passages in the Coastal Specific Plan and the General Plan which she believed prohibited the type of work being performed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 20 Lois Larue closed by stating that she believed her appeal would be denied by the Planning Commission but she planned to appeal to the City Council, the California Coastal Commission and to any other agency she could because she felt the project was very wrong Mr Charles Abbott, Charles Abbott Associates, Inc, 371 Van Ness Way, Suite 200, Torrance, CA 90501. Mr Abbott disagreed with Lois Larue, stating that the description of the location of the site in the Staff Report was correct He explained that there is a natural tendency for a landslide to stabilize itself by "toeing up", which involves the buildup of material at the base of the slide which prevents the upper portion from continuing to move. However, he said, with this particular landslide, the ocean keeps washing away the buildup at the bottom He explained that nearly 10 million yards of material had been deposited in the ocean since the landslide started Mr Abbott said that the Corps of Engineers was hoping to stop the devastating environmental impact by installing a wave protective device, such as a revetment (a large pile of rocks), along the shoreline. In order to do this, the Corps was trying to determine the oceanward terminus of the landslide which varies, and that's why four different test holes were needed He discussed alternative means of bringing in the drilling, equipment, which all proved to be cost prohibitive Mr Abbott said that the exact solution to protect the shoreline had not yet been determined and that the purpose of the feasibility study was to investigate logical alternatives for eliminating wave erosion. Commissioner Alberio believed the revetment would only be a temporary remedy and would be very expensive He felt that there were other alternatives. Mr Abbott said that they had investigated many alternatives Commissioner Alberto speculated that any solution would be very expensive and that federal or state funding would be necessary Commissioner Whiteneck asked if the toe of the slip plane was at the bottom of the cliff or in the ocean Mr. Abbott replied that it was located in the ocean, at different distances, but never farther than about 75 to 100 feet from the shoreline. He explained that seismic soundings were performed twice to determine the configuration of the strata 1,000 feet out into the ocean to a depth of 40-50 meters The soundings indicated that the strata had been undisturbed for about 150 million years and, therefore, it was believed that the landslide extends only a short distance into the ocean. Commissioner Whiteneck and Mr. Abbott discussed lateral drift, the depth of the ocean directly off the peninsula, and the possibility of blocking the landslide with large PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 211 underwater rock structures Mr Abbott explained that in order to complete the feasibility study, they needed to gather both on -shore and off -shore data. The soundings provided off -shore data, but the soundings could only be performed as close as a boat could get to the shore Therefore, there was a gap between the on -shore data and the off -shore data and the drilling at Sacred Cove would provide the missing information Commissioner Whiteneck asked who paid for the boring. Mr. Abbott responded that the cost of the study was being divided evenly between the Federal Government and the City. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if a drilling rig could be brought in by a boat designed for shallow water Mr. Abbott answered that the rocky bottom precluded this option. Commissioner Alberio asked who would be paying for a revetment. Mr. Abbott replied that this had not yet been determined Commissioner Mowlds suggested that the Commission focus on the subject of the Appeal, which concerned the access road required for the boring Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. The motion passed (4-2) on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Vannorsdall and Whiteneck, Vice Chair Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds NOES: Commissioners Alberio and Ferraro Commissioner Alberio moved for a continuance in order for more information to be provided, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. The motion failed (4-2) on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Alberio and Ferraro PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 22 NOES: Commissioners Vannorsdall and Whiteneck, Vice Chair Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds Commissioner Whiteneck moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The motion passed (4-2) on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Vannorsdall and Whiteneck, Vice Chair Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds NOES: Commissioners Alberio and Ferraro Chairman Mowlds said that he would sign P C Resolution No 95-36 and that there would be 15 -day appeal period to appeal the decision to the City Council Lois Larue reiterated that she would appeal the decision. NEW BUSINESS 9 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY, Friendship Park. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide (DJ) Vice Chair Hayes recused herself from hearing this item, stating that she had signed a petition and written a letter opposing the changes at Friendship Park, and that she had joined the Friends of Friendship Park group Planning Administrator Petru explained that Senior Planner Rojas, who was most familiar with the project, would be presenting the Staff Report, even though the report itself was prepared by Associate Planner Jerex. Senior Rojas stated that, earlier in 1995, the City became aware of the County's Parks and Recreation Department's proposal for changes at Friendship Park, a park located mostly within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes but under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County These changes included a 6,600 square foot nature center, a parking lot, new nature trails areas, a lookout point, renovation of the existing play area, some comfort stations, security lighting, irrigation systems, walkways, and other park furnishings The City received a Notice of Preparation (NOP) from the County notifying the City that they would be preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The City responded to the NOP, informing the County of its concerns and what the EIR should analyze A few months after the NOP, in August 1995, the City received the draft EIR. The Planning Division reviewed the EIR and returned comments to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 23 County During this comment period, the City received a letter from the County which cited a Government Code Section and requested the City's determination of whether the proposed project was in conformance with the City's General Plan. Mr. Rous noted that, as the Staff Report points out, in reviewing the proposed project and the General Plan, the conclusion is that it is not consistent with the General Plan for three reasons- 1) The EIR Identifies the park as a primary activity area, while the City's General Plan calls for it to be a passive recreational area, 2) There are policies in the General Plan that discuss local citizen participation in the planning and development of recreation facilities and further studies on a neighborhood level and this was lacking from the process, and, 3) The General Plan discusses archeological resources and one of the impacts of this project will have is on some existing archaeological resources that exist on the site Senior Planner Rojas indicated that Staffs conclusion was that this project was not consistent with the General Plan and recommended that the Planning Commission direct Staff to submit a report to Los Angeles County with this conclusion. He pointed out that representatives from the Friends of Friendship Park were in the audience and that they had plans of the project if the Commission wished to see more details of the proposed development Chairman Mowlds clarified that the Commission's task was not to review the buildings or any of the other changes proposed, but only to determine consistency with the City's General Plan. Senior Rojas stated that, if the Commission concurs with Staffs finding of inconsistency, Staff would not only transmit the report Indicating the inconsistency with the General Plan, but the finding would also be used to provide the County with justification for recirculation of the EIR Staff felt that the City's finding of inconsistency would constitute new information that should have been incorporated into the EIR Also, the City has been made aware of some archeological concerns in a letter from the archaeologist who prepared the EIR and this would point out to the County new information to support the concept of recirculation. Chairman Mowlds confirmed that the Commission had nothing to sign, only to vote for the consistency finding. Planning Administrator Petru said there would be a cover memo summarizing the findings and the action would be documented by Minute Order Commissioner Alberio asked for more information regarding the archaeological resources. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 24 Senior Planner Rojas said that the archeologist hired by the County stated in his letter that the draft EIR contained misinformation and incorrect conclusions. The City planned to use this letter to justify the need for recirculation of the EIR Ms. Jane Jones, (Friend of Friendship Park), 2747 Vista Mesa, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms Jones stated that she was president of the Friends of Friendship Park and she had provided to the Commission in their agenda packet a four-page communication prepared by this group listing specific points in the General Plan and the reasons the Friends of Friendship Park felt that the project did not comply with the General Plan. She read from the communication, enumerating nine reasons She concluded by stating that proposed development at Friendship Park was in direct contradiction to the City's General Plan in every element She believed that County government officials had been unwilling to consider a meaningful alternative to the proposed development Mr. Ed Kennedy 2713 Vista Mesa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr Kennedy said that he was also representing Friends of Friendship Park but that he wanted to add additional information He stated that, on Page 3 of the Staff Report, there was a direct quote from the EIR, which was taken from the General Plan, however, it was taken completely out of context Mr. Kennedy said that the EIR used that quote to justify the conformity; however, this was a passage written in the 197O's and it describes developments that were to be part of the park and were, in fact, completed in the 1970's and 1980's. He said that it was a description of the park as it was today and not what was proposed in the future. Mr. Kennedy mentioned additional concerns regarding security that would be subject to enforcement by the Sheriff However, he said that the only access to the park was from Ninth Street and Western Avenue in the City of Los Angeles (San Pedro) and this would affect the City's budget for park maintenance. Mr Kennedy felt that this development would create a duplication of what happened at Eastview Park, only worse and he urged the Commission to concur with Staffs recommendation that project was inconsistent with the General Plan Commissioner Alberto asked if the City Attorney had been consulted regarding the County's right to develop a park within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Planner Rojas said that it was the City Attorney's opinion that this property was under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County and the City did not have the legal authority to control the development of the site Commissioner Alberio moved to accept Staffs recommendation that the project is not consistent with the City's General Plan, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved, (5-0-1), with Vice Chair Hayes abstaining. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 25 CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. 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, stating that the City Attorney was reviewing some "loose ends" and she had informed him yesterday that, because of case law dealing with a topic contained in a Development Code Chapter recently approved by the Commission, Chapter 17 52 (which dealt with dedications and conditions of approval for projects), she was revising the chapter. Mr. Rojas said that Staffs intent was to bring the revised chapter to the next meeting with the changes highlighted Senior Planner Rojas asked if the Commission wished to go through the revisions page by page and noted that he had corrections to note for the record on three pages of the text. Chairman Mowlds noted that Pages 2 through 5 of the Staff Report summarized the Commission's revisions from previous meetings which Staff had brought back. Senior Rojas explained that, at the last meeting, the Commission requested some language revisions and requested that they be brought back at tonight's meeting Therefore, to be consistent and complete, Staff brought back the revisions made by the Commission on September 12 and 26, 1995 The third section of the Staff Report dealt with Chapter 17 02 Chairman Mowlds confirmed that the only new material for review was Chapter 17 02 The remaining material involved previous changes were being presented to the Commission for proofreading Mr. Mowlds then summarized the previous suggested changes to be proofread. Chairman Mowlds said that, on Page 2 of the October 10, 1995 Staff Report, there were five sections for which Staff made changes at the request of the Commission. Mr Mowlds said that, in Section 17 40 070(A), which was noted in the middle of the page, regarding service stations, a maximum noise level of 65 decibels is set and he asked if the Commission could lower it, if necessary for a particular location as part of a specific CUP Senior Planner Rojas said that the Commission could lower it, or raise it PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 26 Chairman Mowlds summarized the various language modifications noted on Page 3 of the Staff Report Chairman Mowlds continued by summarizing the various modifications listed on Page 4 of the Staff Report. On Page 5, Chairman Mowlds noted that this was the only new chapter (17.02) added and, in the Staff Report, Senior Planner Rojas highlighted the various revisions made to the chapter He said that, as summarized at the bottom of Page 5, the definitions were deleted from the Definitions chapter and moved to this chapter. Senior Planner Rojas noted that the Proposition M definitions were originally in this chapter were then moved to the Definitions chapter, and now were being put back Chairman Mowlds said that he understood that was because a few of them, such as foliage, neighborhood character, and privacy, were part of Proposition M. Chairman Mowlds noted that, on Page 6, because of the confusion between the name of Height Variations and Variances (in the middle of the page, 17 02 040(C)), that the name of Height Variation was being changed to "Height Modification Permit" Mr Mowlds had a question regarding 17.02.040, regarding the 360 degree view and that Staff had split it now Into two sections, foliage and structures In 17.02.040(C)(1)(e), new language proposed was rewritten to explain the primary living area ("upside down" houses) when it is on the uphill side and this has been corrected The next one was privacy to eliminate a view from a second story looking into a neighbor's back yard. He said that there were other minor modifications. Chairman Mowlds had suggested that Staff was going to consider labeling the tables, as in the Uniform Building Code, so that if a table were removed from the Code, it would be easy to tell from which section it came Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested that on "circle" Page 23, where the change was made from 12,000 watts to 1200 watts, an insertion be made to state "as defined in section 17.56.01(A). There was no description of the kind of watts, incandescent was not mentioned Senior Planner Rojas asked whether the conversion factors mentioned in Section 17.56 010 should also be applied to commercial lighting Commissioner Vannorsdall said that was correct. He raised another issue, on "circle" Page 25, regarding a section which stated "for a maximum of 10 bee hives" He said that 10 bee hives would be a commercial use because one bee hive would supply enough honey for a family and he believed the keeping of more than one bee hive PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 27 should require a business license. Senior Planner Rojas said that this section was intended to allow residents to keep bees as a hobby and that the L A County Code was used as a reference to establish a lima of five bee hives in residential zones but the Commission could pick whatever number it felt was appropriate Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he would go along with five, but ten was too many Senior Planner Rous explained that for properties located in the large animal overlay district, where the keeping of large domestic animals was allowed and, a larger lot existed, ten bee hives could be allowed but this limit could be changed. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that a person with ten bee hives was making a lot of money Chairman Mowlds said that the Commission could suggest to the City Council a number of bee hives which would require a business license. Vice Chair Hayes agreed that this could be brought up to the City Council. Senior Planner Rous confirmed that the Commission wanted to leave in the limit of ten but make a note to the City Council that they may want to examine this issue. The consensus of the Planning Commission was that this was what they wanted Senior Planner Rojas again explained the definitions section in Chapter 17.02, stating that it looked confusing because the definitions were going to be taken out and now some are going back in, and some are going back in but not exactly as they were Therefore, some portions are double underlined and struck out, and some portions are just double underlined, and some are just struck out It was very difficult to read but, once this text goes to the City Council, there will be a "clean" copy Chairman Mowlds asked if there were any other questions and there were none Senior Planner Rojas listed three minor "cleanup" corrections on three pages: On "circle" Page 6, first paragraph, (B), titled "Uses permitted with a CUP", should be deleted from Line 4 On "circle" Page 21, paragraph (A) titled "Dust Control", the last sentence which PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 28 f • mentioned dry sandblasting should be removed completely from the text. On "circle" Page 26, paragraph (G), titled "Growing of Crops", the language is being cleaned up because, the way it is written now, it seems to suggest that the growing of crops is allowed only one acre. This section will be clarified to indicate that, if a landowner grows crops or fruits on less than one acre, it is allowed by right but, if it is on more than one acre, a CUP is required Senior Planner Rojas noted that Title 16 was delivered to each Commissioner yesterday and this could be discussed at this time as they were minor corrections only. The consensus of the Commission (except for Commissioner Whiteneck) was that they preferred to wait until the next meeting. Chairman Mowlds asked when the next portion of the Code would be received by the Commission. Senior Rous said, because of the loose ends being tied down by the City Attorney, he would expect the remainder to be ready early next week. Chairman Mowlds said that the possibility of an additional meeting had been considered but it appeared that the remainder of the Code could be reviewed at the next regular meeting on October 14, 1995 He believed that another meeting would be a hardship to the three Commissioners who were candidates for City Council He suggested, however, that the next meeting on October 24, 1995, begin at 6:30 P M instead of the regular time of 7 00 P M Senior Planner believed that the remainder of the revised chapters could be delivered to the Commission by Tuesday, October 17, 1995 Chairman Mowlds was not sure that was enough time for review 10 Disposition of a fence which was to be removed at 30063 Cartier Drive Planning Administrator reported that the Staff member for this item had left the meeting and asked that the report be continued to the next meeting on October 24, 1995 The Commission agreed (6-0) 11 Clarification of Development Code Section No. 17.57.030 (C) with regard to use of search liaht for special occasions PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 29 Planning Administrator stated that there had been a request to use a search light for a birthday celebration for the Golden Lotus restaurant at Golden Cove Although the Code prohibited flashing lights, Staff was seeking clarification regarding the use of a search light. After a short discussion, the Commission's consensus was to allow use of a search light for this particular event, with details pertaining to hours, location, etc, to be determined at Staffs discretion Senior Planner Rojas noted that the new Code would address the use of search lights. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS. Staff. 12. Pre -Agenda for the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, October 24. 1995 Planning Administrator Petru suggested that the next Planning Commission meeting on October 24, 1995 begin at 6 30 P M because two items (Christ Lutheran Church and Taco Bell) had been continued from tonight's meeting to that date and the Development Code Revision discussion scheduled for the next meeting would be lengthy The Commission concurred with Staffs suggestion Commission None ADJOURNMENT' Vice Chair Hayes moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The motion carried, (6-0), and the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:50 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be on October 24, 1995 beginning at a special starting time of 6:30 P M.. (M MMINUTES 12\MIN1010) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 PAGE 30