Loading...
PC MINS 20000125APPROVED 2j r_111� CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 25, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p m. by Chairman Cartwright at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Alberio led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Albeno, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Lyon, Chairman Cartwright Absent: Commissioner Clark was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Director of Public Works Allison, Associate Planner Louie, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to accept the Agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Paris. There being no objection, it was so ordered by the Chairman, (6-0). Director/Secretary Rojas distributed two items of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 3 and three items of late correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 5 Director/Secretary Rojas updated the Commission on actions taken by the City Council since the last Commission meeting Regarding the meeting of December 21, 1999, he explained that the City Council discussed proposed Code Amendments No. 44 and No. 46 and asked that proposed amendments to the City's encroachment policy be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a future meeting Regarding the meeting of January 4, 2000 Mr. Rojas explained that the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 354 dealing with non-profit equestrian facilities and re- introduced Ordinance No. 355 dealing with roof decks and neighborhood compatibility. Lastly, at the January 21, 2000 meeting the City Council adopted the roof deck/neighborhood compatibility ordinance, discussed a proposed code amendment regarding real estate signs which they continued to February, noted Perry Ehlig's passing, extended the deadline for Committee/Commission applications to February 24, 2000, set applicant interviews for February 28 and 29, and discussed how the RDA entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with a private developer to develop a senior affordable housing project at the corner of Crenshaw Blvd. and Crestridge Road. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of December 14, 1999 Commissioner Vannorsdall noted a typographical error on page 1 and Chairman Cartwright noted a typographical error on page 8. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Paris. The minutes were approved, (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 192 -Revision `B' and Site Plan Review No. 8596 Assistant Planner Schonborn explained that the applicant was requesting an extension to the meeting of February 22, 2000 in order to develop relocation options for the proposed monopole structure. Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Schonborn if the applicants were also considering modifying the structure size Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that at this point the applicant was taking the Planning Commission's direction and looking for alternative sites as well as modifying the size of the structure. Commissioner Vannorsdall emphasized that the Commission had asked the applicant to have an expert in the location and design of the monopole systems present at the meeting Commissioner Paris moved to continue the public hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Approved, (6-0). Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Appeal of Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit No. 27: Carlos and Freda Lemmi (applicant) 6624 Abbottswood Drive, Clarence Hustler, (appellant), 6614 Abbottswood Drive. Commissioner Paris noted that the properties were within 1500 feet of his residence but stated that that had no bearing on his considerations as the properties were located on the other side of Hawthorne Boulevard from his home. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated his residence was also within 1500 feet from the properties and agreed that would have no bearing on his decision. Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report He explained that the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement had approved a 3 -foot, 9 -inch high wall A Notice of Decision was mailed to the adjacent residences, and no appeal was filed at that time. Thereafter, Mr. Hustler informed staff that the actual property line was not along the top of the slope, but rather was approximately one foot from the existing chain-link fence. Dr. Lemmi agreed to construct the wall slightly down-slope to accommodate for Mr. Hustler's property line concerns Shortly after the wall was constructed Mr. Hustler informed staff that he believed the wall was not constructed according to the height stipulated in the Notice of Decision. Staff conducted several site visits and determined that, though the wall varied in height, it was constructed at the approved height of 3 -feet 9 -inches However due to the relocation of the wall the height measurement noted in the original Notice of Decision needed clarification and staff issued an Amended Notice of Decision. The Amended Notice indicated the reference point at which to take the height measurement of the approved wall. At this point Mr. Hustler filed an appeal on the grounds that the wall blocked his view and did not comply with the height established in the conditions of approval. Staff recommended denial of the appeal and upholding the decision of the Director to approve the permit. Commissioner Alberio noted that he had observed guy wires for the power pole located between the chain link fence and the new wall. He wondered if this was considered before approving the new fence. Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that the issue was not taken into account, as there was no utility easement in that location. Chairman Cartwright asked staff how the viewing area was determined Assistant Planner Schonborn responded that the view was taken from a gathering space within the structure, on the first floor at grade elevation, from a standing position. Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 3 Chairman Cartwright asked how the height of 3 -feet 9 -inches was determined, as the applicant had originally requested a 6 -foot wall. Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that 3 -feet 9 -inches was the point at which staff determined that view impairment would not occur. Chairman Cartwright asked if staff measured the finished wall. Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that the wall was measured with the range poles on September 9. Commissioner Vannorsdall clarified the term "downslope" by stating the wall was being built in the direction of the down hill, but not necessarily downhill Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. llda Hustler (appellant) 6614 Abbottswood Drive distributed a letter to the Commissioners She stated when the property was originally bought it was not for privacy but rather for the ocean view and air quality. She stated that the City has approved this wall even though it significantly impairs their view. She stated that she suffers from asthma daily and the ocean fresh airflow offers relief from asthma attacks. The wall blocks the ocean airflow She questioned what she had done to deserve this type of aggravation and punishment and how this situation was going to be resolved and be made fair to everyone involved. Commissioner Paris asked Mrs. Hustler how this wall affected her asthma. Mrs. Hustler answered that the wall indirectly affects her in that it blocks the airflow that gives her relief during an asthma attack. Clarence Hustler (appellant) 6614 Abbottswood Drive distributed handouts to the Commission. He then requested an extra 15 minutes speaking time. Chairman Cartwright stated that the Commission wanted to focus only on the issues at hand and agreed to give Mr. Hustler five minutes At the end of five minutes they would evaluate how much more time was necessary. Mr. Hustler began by stating the situation was very unique in that his wife and Dr. Lemmi are divorced from each other and now live next door to each other He noted the guy wire situation and stated the wires were frayed, the telephone pole is split, and he felt it is a serious safety issue. He addressed the staff report and asserted miscalculations in the report. He stated that in the view restoration process he decided he would remove his junipers because they were damaging his property. As a result of the trimming there was dead foliage on the other side of the fence. The Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 4 View Restoration Commission ordered him to restore the Lemma's upper slope, and the Lemmi's agreed to trim their trees to help restore the Hustler's view. He stated that he notified staff that the height of the new wall was much higher than permitted Further, he thought the wall would appear lower than 3 -feet 9 -inches since it was supposed to be built downslope. He stated the wall is not downslope, but exactly even with his chain link fence. He stated that when Mr. Schonbom visited his home he had commented that he had estimated the reference point of 3 feet nine inches, and the new fence would be no higher than the chain link fence, which is 3 feet 6 inches During the view analysis he did not feel staff took into account that his fence allows 80 percent light and air through it and allows them to enjoy a view by looking through it. He strongly felt that the wall creates significant view impairment and his home has decreased in value by $45,000 to $65,000. In conclusion, he stated he and his wife have suffered physically, emotionally and financially because of this wall and asked the Commission to help correct the numerous errors that have been made Commissioner Paris asked Mr Hustler if the wall were lowered to the height of the chain link fence, would he be satisfied Mr. Hustler answered that if the wall were lowered down to the height of the fourth support pole referred to in the staff report he would be satisfied Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Hustler if the corroded guy wires mentioned were on his property Mr. Hustler responded that the wires were on his property, on the other side of the fence He stated he had called Southern California Edison and they would be at his property soon to look at the wires. He was concerned how Edison was going to get people in the area to look at the wires Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Hustler if he pointed out to staff the areas of the wall he felt were higher than approved. Mr. Hustler answered that he pointed it out to both Mr. Rojas and Mr. Schonborn. He stated that Mr. Rojas had commented that he had some strong arguments against the wall Mr Hustler stated that after talking to staff he was confident that they would rule in his favor, but is sadly disappointed that they did not. Carlos Lemmi 6624 Abbottswood Drive requested five minutes speaking time which was granted. He felt the appeal should be denied for several reasons. He began by explaining the Hustler's did not appeal during the initial appeal period. He strongly protested the opening of the second appeal period weeks after the wall was constructed. After building the wall they were told it was built according to the specifications given. He felt the second appeal period was a double jeopardy and gave Mr. Hustler a total of 30 days to file an appeal, rather than the standard 15 days. He pointed out that there were no changes in the second notice of approval. Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 5 The Amended Notice of Decision was only clarification of the technique used to measure the height of the wall. He stated that he had no intention of blocking the Hustler's view and is not a view blocking wall and that city staff had visited his site and determined the wall height was in compliance and there was no view impairment He felt that he had compromised in that he had originally requested a 6 -foot high fence and had agreed to a wall 3 -feet 9 -inches in height, as well as trimming the trees on their property He thanked the Planning Commission for their time and requested they deny the appeal. Commissioner Paris asked if he had considered lowering the height of the wall to be even with the chain link fence. Mr. Lemmi wished to keep the height of the wall where it is as he built the wall according to the recommendations given and there is no view impairment. He felt that since Mr. Hustler did not appeal the decision before the wall was built he should not have to lower the height now. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked staff if they had any comment regarding the height of the wall. Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that the initial notice of decision indicated a 3 foot 9 inch high wall He commented that staff did work with both parties in terms of trying to establish a height for the wall. A six-foot high wall would have blocked the entire view of Catalina Island, however the 3 foot 9 inch wall did not block the island, only rooftops of homes Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Hustler if he originally objected to the height of the fence. Mr. Hustler stated he had read the Amended Decision and understood the height of the wall was to be 3 -feet 9 -inches. He stated that the height of the wall is taller than that now. He also assumed the wall would be down slope, which would lower the height of the wall from their property. However the wall is not down slope, it is even with the chain link fence. He did not think Mr. Lemmi would be happy with the wall if the situations were reversed. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Hustler where he got the idea that the wall would go down the slope Mr. Hustler responded that the notice of decision said the wall would go down slope. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that was the reason he attempted earlier to clarify what is the definition of down slope. He stated it meant it was in the direction of the down slope Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 6 Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Paris regretted the misunderstanding on the part of Mr Hustler as to the location of the wall He believed the situation could be remedied by lowering the height of the wall to be even with the existing chain link fence Commissioner Vannorsdall did not think a few inches would make any difference and would add additional cost to the Lemmis Commissioner Alberio moved to accept the staff recommendation, adopting P.C. Resolution No. 2000-01 thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's approval of Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit No. 27, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8.20 p m the Commission took a short recess to 8 30 p m at which time they reconvened PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Variance No. 465 and Site Plan Review No. 8763: Susan Howe 2005 Crestwood Street Associate Planner Louie presented the staff report. She reported that the architect had brought to her attention that the covered patio was actually 420 square feet rather than 332 square feet. She explained that staff felt the reduction of the side and rear yard setback was warranted for five reasons 1) The 36 year agreement between the property owners that the property line was at the top of the slope rather than at the toe of the slope, 2) The covered patio was constructed prior to the City incorporation, 3) The covered patio was necessary to maintain the applicant's enjoyment of privacy; 4) The covered patio is not enclosed, and 5) There is no view impairment involved Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Susan Howe (applicant) 2005 Crestwood Street thanked the staff for their help and thorough investigation of the application She stated that she had tried to accommodate everyone involved and deal with everything that was necessary Commissioner Slayden asked if she was living in the house when the wall was placed on the property line Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 7 Ms. Howe answered that the wall was placed in 1999. At the time it was placed she had no Idea that was the true property line Commissioner Slayden asked Ms Howe If an architect designed the room addition. Ms. Howe did not know for sure. Commissioner Alberio asked if there had been any objections from the neighbors when the pool was built Ms. Howe responded that there had been no objection and the neighbors had, in fact, enjoyed using the pool over the years Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the slope between the two properties. Ms Howe answered that the neighbors house is approximately 8 feet higher than their house and there is a gentle slope coming down to their property. The neighbors originally placed the fence at the top of the slope assuming that was the property line. Ms. Howe stated that her family has maintained that slope for over 30 years. Bruce Krause 777 Silver Spur Road Rolling Hills Estates stated that he had designed the plans for Ms. Howe. He stated the addition was well built. The overhang of the patio cover will be modified and create a gutter on the applicant's side of the property line to maintain the water so it will not drain onto the neighbor's property. R J Reamer 21535 Hawthorne Blvd. Torrance stated he was the attorney representing Ms Howe and her mother. He felt that the staff had done a good job in preparing the staff report and did not have much to add to the presentation. He stated that the applicant had approached this situation from the standpoint that they did not want to do anything to aggravate anyone. When the problem came to their attention they consulted an attorney to learn what they could and could not do. Commissioner Alberio asked if the survey done by the neighbor had accurately determined where the actual property line was located. Mr. Reamer responded that this is not an unusual situation. He has found that when lots were formed and people began to move in they made certain assumptions on where the property lines were located. In this situation the assumption was made that the property line was at the top of the slope and the neighbors lived that way for over 30 years. Recently, the upslope neighbor had the property surveyed and found the property line was at the bottom of the slope. At that point the neighbor decided to enlarge the property by building a retaining wall at the bottom of the slope to build up the yard area. However, from a legal standpoint, if there is a legal way to verify a property line the courts have taken the position that there cannot be "agreed" boundaries. Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 8 Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paris. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Slayden noted that his only reservation in this issue was that in this part of the City it is continually allowed encroaching buildings on adjacent property lines He felt the City's long-range objective should be to gain compliance with the Development Code Chairman Cartwright stated that granting a Variance was something that the Commission should not do very often, as it required extraordinary and exceptional circumstances While he agreed with Commissioner Slayden, he felt this situation did have very exceptional circumstances that should be considered Commissioner Alberio moved to accept the staff recommendation as presented adopting P.C. Resolution No. 2000-02 thereby approving Variance No. 465 and Site Plan Review No. 873 as presented by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. Approved, (6-0). 5. Conditional Use Permit No. 182 -Revision `B'. Sign Permit No. 720 - Revision `A", and Environmental Assessment No. 716: William Myers (applicant), 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that during the break Mr and Mrs Govani's representative submitted a letter from California Water Service Company that was submitted to the Govani's, but addressed to the Director regarding the car wash in terms of recycling water It also raised issues about the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which was circulated to the public with the comment period ending on January 17, 2000 He asked the Commission if they wished this material to be handed out to the Commission Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Rojas to summarize the contents of the letter Director/Secretary Rojas answered that he believed the main point that California Water Service was trying to make was that they were concerned that the car wash facility does not have water recycling capability They referenced a memorandum of understanding that was signed by the State and the local water agencies to try to implement best management practices for water conservation Mr Rojas stated that in reading through the material the only reference he saw to a car wash was the retrofitting of existing car washes He also stated that staff's analysis had concluded that the project would not make any significant demands on the water use of the area Staff has not received any phone calls or had any conversations with California Water Service regarding any concerns they may have Chairman Cartwright stated that he had reviewed many letters in opposition to the car wash and the different objections to the car wash He asked staff if there had Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 9 • been any evidence that car washes promote an increase in trash, crime, or transients Director/Secretary Rojas responded that staff had no directed studies on the topic but using the Highridge Car Wash as an example, staff does not associate any increase in traffic or crime with the car wash as long as the owner of the site takes responsibility to make sure the area is kept clean and in order Vice Chairman Lyon asked staff if there was a City requirement to reclaim water at a car wash Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the City did not have such a requirement in the Municipal Code Vice Chairman Lyon asked if other car washes in the City currently reclaim water Director/Secretary Rojas responded that Highridge Car Wash was the only other car wash in the City and it was his understanding that they did have some type of water reclamation He did not know if the two stations in Rolling Hills Estates had any type of water reclamation Associate Planer Louie then presented the staff report. She described the proposed car wash, canopy, and trellis She discussed the hours of operation requested by the applicant from 8 a m to 6 p m Although no hours are specifically noted in the OC -4, the hours of operation are permitted through an ancillary retail business and are from 9 a m to 6 p m Monday through Saturday Staff felt the OC -4 standards may be deviated to allow car wash activity on Sundays but should not be deviated to allow the car wash to begin at 8 a m daily In a study of the parking situation staff determined that the site is currently over parked Staff analysis indicated that even with the new hand car wash there will be ample space to accommodate vehicles at the site The traffic engineer reviewed the traffic circulation as related to the proposed car wash The traffic engineer determined that even though the proposed car wash will generate a significant amount of additional traffic to the existing site the impacts to the public roadways are not anticipated to be significant based on the existing configuration and operations at the intersection Finally, staff indicated that the City received many concerns regarding noise Ms Louie indicated that a condition was proposed to require a 6 month review at which time the Planning Commission can restrict the hours of operation, restrict the location of the vacuum line, and/or they can monitor the noise level at the property line at the adjacent properties to ensure that the noise levels are below the acceptable standards Staff recommended approval of the project. Commissioner Paris questioned the hours of operation He asked if staff was recommending the car wash open at 9 a m rather than 8 a m because of noise impacts. If other car washes could open at 8 a m that would put this car wash at a disadvantage Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 10 Associate Planner Louie responded that the recommended hours were based on noise concerns raised by the neighbors but that the Planning Commission has the opportunity to deviate from the allowed hours of operation, that per the OC -4 Guidelines are from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday Commissioner Vannorsdall asked why staff was recommending hours of operation that were different from those at Highridge Car Wash. Associate Planner Louie answered that Highridge Car Wash was not approved under a Conditional Use Permit and had been in operation prior to the City's incorporation under the existing hours of operation, which differ slightly from the OC -4 Guidelines. Director/Secretary Rojas added that many letters had been received expressing concern over the noise at the site. In response to those letters staff looked carefully at the hours of operation, and determined that it could justify allowing the car wash to operate on Sunday but not earlier than the code allowed start time of 9 a m. Commissioner Albeno asked staff why this project was not taken to the Traffic Committee since that requirement was placed on the Highridge Car Wash Director/Secretary Rojas stated that when the Highridge Car Wash originally went before the Planning Commission it also was not taken to the Traffic Committee because staff felt at that time the traffic issues could be addressed by the City's Traffic Engineer However when it got appealed, one of the grounds of the appeal was regarding traffic. Therefore, to address the appeal issue the Highridge project was then taken to the Traffic Committee prior to the City Council appeal hearing Staff reviewed this project in the same manner and felt that the traffic issues could be addressed by the Traffic Engineer Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Bill Myers (applicant) 28103 Hawthorne Blvd. felt that due to the increase in gasoline competition it has been increasingly necessary for him to add a hand car wash at this time. He felt that benefits to the City would be that car wash prices would become more competitive in Rancho Palos Verdes, there was an opportunity for one stop shopping, and this would increase revenues to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes He strongly objected to the rumors and misinformation that has been circulating through the community He stated he has never listed his business for sale and has absolutely no intention of doing so. He stressed that his proposal was a hand car wash and detail and would operate under the legal decibel limits at the property line He did not feel that there would be any additional traffic generated on the streets due to the car wash Trash has never been a problem at the site or on the surrounding area and is currently monitored according to the Conditional Use Permit. Water recycling is a given in today's market He explained that the recycling is done Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 11 Ll through the third stage of the clanfyer which picks up the soapy water and then reuses it. In closing, he thanked the Commission for their time and consideration Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Myers about the hours of operation and his preference. Mr. Myers responded that he would like to be as competitive as possible and would prefer opening at 8 a.m. He stressed that 8 a m was not a peak hour of operation and would be used more for getting organized and ready for the day. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Myers about his observations of the traffic and the accidents that occur at the intersection. Mr. Myers discussed several accidents that had occurred at the intersection and felt there was an inherent problem at the intersection that had to do with the curvature of Hawthorne Boulevard. He did not feel the accidents had anything to do with the Mobil Station or the 7-11 market and felt that accidents might decrease with the improvement of the intersection. Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Myers if most of his customers were people'living locally in the area. Mr Myers responded that he would estimate about 95 percent of his customers live locally, but he would like to pull in other customers as well Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Myers if he thought it would be possible to lessen the traffic impacts in the area since people would not have to commute farther to get their car washed. Mr. Myers felt that if someone were going to stop at the station to get gas the only option they currently have is to go to Highridge Car Wash or another car wash out of the City to have their car washed. This would give customers an opportunity for one- stop shopping and less commuting. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Myers if he had a consultant he was working with on the car wash project and if that consultant recommended water recycling. Mr. Myers answered that water recycling is a given in that it not only saves money it saves chemicals. The wash water is recycled and re -used. Vice Chairman Lyon asked Mr. Myers if this process met the guidelines referred to by California Water Service. Mr Myers answered that he believed it did meet the guidelines but he would verify that and he had every intention of complying with the guidelines Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 12 Chairman Cartwright stated that Mr. Myers had indicated that most of his customers are local, yet there are over 100 letters in protest to the car wash. He asked Mr. Myers if it was fair to say that he was requesting a car wash because of a demand on the part of his customers He wondered how Mr Myers could explain why so many people protested against the car wash Mr Myers felt that he responded to a request on the part of his customers to provide this service. He stated that during this process he did not want to pit neighbor against neighbor and that is why he has no speakers at tonight's meeting to speak in favor of the project. Commissioner Paris noted that in looking at the letters submitted in opposition to the project, there were basically only three letters that were distributed among the neighbors and not generated specifically by the people making the complaints. Ben Peterson 28067 Santona Drive stated that he lives directly below the Mobil station He explained that if he stands on his property line and looks upwards the Mobil Station property line is approximately 100 feet away. The car wash would be located approximately 150 feet from his front yard He felt noise was a tremendous factor and protested the car wash starting at 8:00 a m. The detailing area would look directly into the opening of his garage. Mr Peterson felt property values would depreciate He asked the Planning Commission to reject this proposal. Tahen Rangwala 1125 Granvia Altamira Palos Verdes Estates stated that as much as the proposed car wash would be good for business it would be just as detrimental to the neighborhood. He felt that the intersection of Granvia Altamira and Hawthorne Blvd. has had more accidents than any other intersection on the Peninsula. He did not want to see more traffic on Granvia Altamira from the car wash and causing more traffic hazards than already exist. He objected to the idea of the car wash also having a permit to sell beer and wine He felt if the car wash were approved then the liquor permit should be taken away and there should be a "No Left Turn" sign onto Granvia Altamira from the gas station. Commissioner Paris stated that anyone could just as easily go to the 7-11 store and get alcoholic beverages and bring them over to the Mobil Station. He did not understand why the Mobil Station should not be able to sell the beer and wine. Chairman Cartwright asked staff if there had been any complaints to the City that alcohol was being consumed in the area of the Mobil Station Associate Planner Louie answered that there had been no complaints. Mr. Rangwala asked if the planning staff had made any study as to the noise level and the decibel level at the site with the refrigeration unit and other machinery and how much it will be compounded with the addition of the car wash, vacuums, and other machinery He also asked about the car wash that was approved at Golden Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 13 0 Gi Cove and when it was going to open, making the Mobil Station the third car wash in the City Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Rangwala how far he lived from the Mobil Station. Mr. Rangwala answered that he lived approximately % of a mile from the station. Vice Chairman Lyon felt it was apparent that Mr. Rangwala would not be hearing any noise at his residence from the car wash. Mr. Rangwala was not concerned about the noise as much as the increased traffic in the neighborhood. Mel Steinberg 28003 Lomo Drive told the Commission that he had spoken against the expansion of the Mobil Station three years ago because of the impact on the neighborhood He stated that the property was supposed to revert back to residential zoning after the Mobil Company gave up ownership. He felt the Planning Commission at the time chose to ignore that fact He felt that during those hearings the Planning Commission was anything but objective and their bias was embarrassing He stated that due to the topography of the area, sounds from the gas station could be heard up to Y2 mile away. The gas station is built on a hill and about half of the tract is below the station. He stated that he had asked many homeowners to attend this meeting but they felt the car wash was a done deal. Many people felt that the relationship between Mr Myers and the Planning Commission is transparent and certainly not in the interest of homeowners He felt that the questions the Planning Commission has asked Mr. Myers have been tainted and seem to support his position He reminded the Commissioners that their mission was to act on behalf of the community at large, specifically homeowners in the immediate area He felt that Mr Myers' planned, incremental encroachment of the corner is evidence of his lack of respect for a neighborhood he does not live in. Chairman Cartwright stated that there are seven Planning Commissioners who are residents of the city. He felt that the Commission very consciously attempts to balance the rights of the applicants with the concerns of the community He felt it was unfair to say that Mr. Myers application before the Planning Commission was a done deal He recalled that this service station had gone through countless Planning Commission meetings as well as City Council meetings. Mr. Steinberg clarified that it seemed that all of the questions the Planning Commission asked Mr Myers were projected in his favor Commissioner Paris asked Mr. Steinberg where he got the letter that he submitted to the Planning Commission opposing the car wash Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 14 Mr. Steinberg responded that a neighbor came to his home with the letter. He felt that was an unfair question He stated that form letters are a very common, international use of communication Commissioner Paris felt that these letters were also a lobbying move and the Commission should find out where they were generated. He felt it was important to find out if the letters were neighbor motivated or if they were motivated by a competitor. Michael Barth 29 Sweetbay Road stated that he was at the meeting as a representative of the Highridge Car Wash. He felt the application had received some good comments from the community and good comments from the staff but felt there were some deficiencies that should be addressed. He felt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was inadequate and recommended a full Environmental Impact Report as there are issues involved that have not been addressed that need to be addressed. He discussed water reclamation and how it differed from water recycling. He explained that the nine -stage clarifyer used at Highridge Car Wash reclaims oil, dirt, chemicals, and soap. The three -stage clarifier proposed for the Mobil Station will only reclaim soap. That, combined with water that will be sitting on the ground as a result of the car wash, will result in these items that will wash off of the car, get into the puddles, be picked up by tires of departing cars, deposited on city streets, and end up in storm drains and into the ocean. Secondly, Highridge Car Wash reclaims 80% of its water The Mobil Station will reclaim 0% of its water Using the numbers given in the staff report, that shows that approximately 1 million gallons of water per annum will be wasted He recommended that the Commission put the Highridge Car Wash and the Mobil Station car wash on an equal footing and require that they have the same clarification systems, the same reclamation systems, and the same standards for both. He felt the history of this project raises a breach of faith between the Planning Commission, the staff, and the community at large He explained that in 1995 when the Conditional Use Permit was granted the City Council said that a convenience store would be granted, but there would be no alcohol sold and there could be no car wash. Currently there is alcohol sold and now there is a proposal to install a car wash. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if the nine -stage clarifyer used at the Highridge Car Wash was mandated by the City or if it was a voluntary choice. Mr. Barth responded that it is a standard that is utilized in the construction and retrofitting of car washes Commissioner Paris pointed out that the Highridge Car Wash started out as a small car wash and gas station, they improved the gas facility, added an ATM, tried to add Lotto, and added goods and services. He felt this proposal was doing exactly what Mr. Barth had recommended, putting the two stations on an equal footing Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 15 Mr. Barth clarified that he was not condemning what Mr. Myers was seeking to do. What he was suggesting was that it was a breach of faith on the community because that was not the basis upon which the convenience store was initially granted Secondly, if Highridge Car Wash had a certain standard that they are gearing he did not understand why all car washes in the city could not reach the same level. Commissioner Paris stated that if you were to carry that to the other side then shouldn't Highridge Car Wash be required to get a Conditional Use Permit and have ADA compliant restrooms as Mr. Myers was required to do Commissioner Vannorsdall explained that the process for granting a Conditional Use Permit is very time consuming and Mr. Myers was subjected to many, many public hearings during the process. Chairman Cartwright clarified that the City Council had said when the original application was approved that in order to grant the sale of alcoholic beverages, a car wash, or a propane tank a Conditional Use Permit would be required. John Bohannon 28103 Lomo Drive stated his residence is directly below the service station and that he opposes the project because of the noise and increased congestion at the intersection. He stated that he has lived at his home since 1963 and supported the incorporation of the city to make it a single-family city He opposes more congestion in the city and would like to keep the city the way it was originally intended to be. William Haynes 28208 Ridgefern Court did not feel that there was any one issue that he could raise that would convince anyone that the quality of life would be destroyed by the car wash He felt the quality of life in Rancho Palos Verdes was destroyed incrementally, step by step, bit by bit, and one day you realize the reason you chose to live here is no longer valid. He pointed out that Mr. Myers has been before the Planning Commission several times requesting different things for his property He felt this was a measure of the incremental deterioration of the quality life and the contribution that Mr. Myers in his attempt to increase his business, is undermining the quality of life in the city. He felt the Planning Commission was the guardian of the quality of life in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. William Glantz 28070 Santona Drive stated that his property is located approximately 100 yards from the service station He stated that when the convenience store was approved, staff had said there would be no environmental impact. When the convenience store was built and the compressors were turned on there was an immediate noise impact at his property. He hired a sound engineer to measure the sound at his property and at 10:00 p m the sound emitted from the gas station at the property line was greater than what was permitted in L.A. Harbor, L.A. County, and Torrance. He reviewed the fees that he was required to pay in order to prove his case to the City as well as fees he paid to build the sound enclosure put up to reduce the sound He stated the project was still not completed today. He strongly objected to a statement made by Mr. Myers recently where he said he was not going to spend Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 16 any more money to complete the sound enclosure unless Mr Glantz promised not to oppose the car wash. He was concerned that this new project was even closer to the property line than the air compressors. He felt that vacuum systems will be very noisy, and the buffing machine noises which would be right on the property line had no barrier of any kind. He also felt there would be noise from the car doors opening and closing, car alarms, engine noises, horns, and loud radios being played. He asked that the Planning Commission realistically evaluate the sound issues before approving the project. He felt the Commission should put the citizen's rights and the quality of their life ahead of commercial interests Vice Chairman Lyon asked what the decibel level was from the compressors. Mr. Glantz responded that he did not specifically remember, but with the sound enclosure it is now 55 decibels. He requested that the Commission plan ahead this time and do our homework He did not want the Commission to simply say they did not think there would be any sound repercussions but actually find out in advance if there will be any increase in noise Phyllis Glantz 28070 Santona Drive expressed her distress and concerns over the noise levels that could increase with the car wash. She invited the Commissioners to come to her street and her property and look up at the service station and listen to the noises that are emitted form the station and asked if any Commissioners would like to live close to a car wash. Christina Beggans 28038 Acana Road stated that she wrote one of the form letters that was circulated to the neighbors. She stated the letter was written from the bottom of her heart and as a concerned resident. She had attended the meetings regarding the mini -mart and at that time was lead to believe there would not be a car wash She read a motion from the City Council minutes dated April 18, 1995 in which Councilman McTaggart moved that no car wash be considered at this site and the motion carried. She was very disappointed that she was now at the Planning Commission listening to a meeting regarding a proposed car wash. Chairman Cartwright asked staff if they had the specific language of the Resolution for the mini -mart. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that he had the actual Resolution that the City Council passed He stated that the speakers were correct in that the City Council did not feel a car wash was appropriate as part of the mini -mart project. Therefore, the City Council specifically put language into the conditions of approval that said the operation or construction of a car wash was not permitted in connection with this conditional use permit, making it clear that the approval in 1995 did not involve a car wash. Mr. Rojas pointed out that in the findings of the Resolution there is language stating that pursuant to testimony heard at the public hearing the council has imposed conditions of approval in addition to those imposed by the Planning Commission. In addition the language states that the revisions preclude the sale of Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 17 0 0 alcoholic beverages, operation of a car wash, and operation of a propane tank and that those uses would only be allowed if a separate Conditional Use Permit is first approved by the City. Jim Beggans 28038 Acana Road explained that from his back yard he has a straight- line view to the gas station. His concerns include those of increased traffic and increased noise, He was also concerned with the car wash detailing tent at the edge of the property line. He pointed out that this tent would be visible from all of the surrounding houses He was concerned that the staff had not looked into the decibel levels nor have they recommended any sort of alleviation from the car alarm noise or traffic noises. Finally, he agreed that there appeared to be a definite bias in the questions that are posed back to the presenters as well as the questions that were posed to Mr Myers. He felt it was very disconcerting that as a resident in the community he did seem to have any feel that there was any way that he could convince the Commission not to allow the car wash to go through. He felt the Highridge car wash and this car wash are very different There is a very large hill behind the Highridge car wash and the neighbors are at a much higher altitude. There is an inverse with the Mobil Station and the two should not be compared Jawahar Shah 27901 Golden Meadow Drive stated that he lives approximately one mile from the Mobil Station. His concern was the increased traffic at the intersection and the safety issues involved. At this point Chairman Cartwright requested that Dean Allison, Director of Public Works, speak before the Commission regarding the traffic at the intersection of Granvia Altamira and Hawthorne Boulevard. Director Allison explained that the first things he focused on with this project was the impact on the roadways, access to the site, and on-site circulation. He explained that the intersection processes 2700 cars during a peak hour and the car wash was expected to generate approximately 40 cars during a peak hour. He did not feel that there was much of an impact on the roadway. He felt that primary access to the site would be off of Hawthorne Boulevard. He had a concern with the second driveway at Granvia Altamira and felt it was important that cars be allowed to enter at that driveway. He recommended that if there were more than four cars being dried he did not want them to encroach into the driveway area. He felt that on-site circulation was not a problem at this site Finally, Mr. Allison discussed the accident history at the intersection during 1999 He agreed there were many accidents at the intersection and would be reviewed by the Traffic Committee. He did not think the car wash would have any impact on the situation Chairman Cartwright asked staff if they had done any noise studies in conjunction with this project Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 18 LI 0 Associate Planner Louie stated that staff had not performed any noises studies, but had placed a condition for a 6 -month review of the project during which noise impacts would be assessed. Vibha Shah 27901 Golden Meadow Drive did not have concerns with the noise but rather with the increased traffic in the neighborhood. She did not feel it was necessary to have four car washes on Hawthorne Boulevard. Bill Myers (in rebuttal) stated that the OC -4 Guidelines establishes a noise level at 65 decibels and he felt he could keep his noise level below that standard Commissioner Vannorsdall asked where the vacuum pumps would be placed. Mr. Myers stated the vacuum pumps would be placed inside the equipment room Commissioner Paris stated that Mr. Barth had said that up to 1 million gallons of water would be wasted at this car wash in a one-year period He asked Mr Myers to address this issue and asked what percentage of water used would be run-off and what percentage would be re -used Mr. Myers felt that 1 million gallons was an arbitrary number and could not respond to that accusation. He did not know what percentage of water would be re -used but assured the Commission that it would be whatever the AQMD requires. Commissioner Paris felt that vacuums do make a rather loud noise and wondered if there were any special vacuums that could be purchased that were less noisy Mr. Myers responded that he would do research to find out what is available and make it a high priority. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr Myers to respond to the comment made by Mr. Glantz that he would finish the sound enclosure only if Mr. Glantz did not speak against the car wash. Mr. Myers responded that currently he is well within the legal requirements and technically does not have to do anything in terms of mitigating the noise. As a good neighbor he wishes to continue with the project. Of course he does not want Mr Glantz to fight him on the car wash, but it is not a condition of completing the sound enclosure. Chairman Cartwright asked staff what the legal noise levels were that apply to businesses of this type. Associate Planner Louie answered that the OC -4 Guidelines do contain a 65 decibel noise limit, but that requirement is for mechanical car washes Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 19 Chairman Cartwright asked if the Commission had put any noise limitations on the mini -mart Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the Council Resolution approved does not have any conditions regarding noise decibel levels. Commissioner Paris stated that one issue that had not been addressed was that this proposal was for a hand car wash, not a mechanical car wash. He felt there was a tremendous difference between the two types. Chairman Cartwright asked if there were noise restrictions placed on the two other car washes in the city. Associate Planner Louie stated that there were no noise restrictions placed on the Highridge Car Wash or the Golden Cove Unocal Car Wash permit, which has since expired. Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Director/Secretary Rojas stated he was handed from one of the audience members a petition signed by 15 residents of Palos Verdes Estates asking that their City lodge a complaint with Rancho Palos Verdes regarding the proposed car wash. He asked if the Commissioners would like it distributed as late correspondence. Commissioner Slayden began the discussion by stating he was sympathetic to what he had heard from the neighbors and they had some excellent comments. He was amazed at the number of form letters but stated they did not influence him as much as what the speakers have said during the public hearing. He felt that the form letters were a mass campaign against the car wash with a negative approach. He felt the Commission should be trying to take a positive look at the Conditional Use Permit. He stated that nobody had mentioned the City's interest in encouraging business in the City. There are very few business properties and practically no sales tax income in the City He felt that business should be encouraged. He felt this project has been reviewed very thoroughly and the project should be approved with the condition that it be reviewed in six months. He did not think the project should go to the Traffic Committee as there was not enough new traffic generated to warrant their review. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he heard several issues that he felt were extremely important. He was concerned over the traffic issues but was satisfied with Mr. Allison's report regarding the traffic. He did not think there would be a major impact on the traffic situation due to the car wash. The other major issue discussed was the noise level. He felt that placing restrictions on the car wash regarding the noise levels would alleviate the problem. A six-month review would then pinpoint the Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 20 problem areas that needed additional review. He stated he would like to see more information and get clarification on the water reclamation issue. Vice Chairman Lyon stated the Commission had heard several good and valid comments from the audience He was particularly concerned with the noise issues, but felt the Issues could be solved He did not feel there was a traffic problem and saw no relationship between the accidents and the proximity of the gas station He felt the traffic flow was reasonable and felt that just because the Highndge Car Wash had to go to the Traffic Committee, was no reason that the same should apply here. He stated that every situation is unique and the Commission should address the issues that each application presents. He agreed that more information was needed on water reclamation and the Commission needed to understand the way in which the noise problem will be solved Commissioner Alberio stated he was not against Mr Myers having a car wash, however he wanted to make sure that there was some parity between this car wash and the Highridge Car Wash. He discussed the letters received and felt they were similar to petitions which are commonly used to express people's desires He felt that in the past, the promises that were made to the neighbors were not kept. He believed that the Traffic Committee should look at the traffic in the area. Concerning water recycling, he felt that it was something required by the EPA and was something the City should require Regarding the noise level, he felt that adding the car wash would be compounding the noise level by adding more equipment to the property. He was amazed that the noise issues had not yet been resolved from the mini -mart addition and felt that the new noise issues should be resolved by the Commission and not between the applicant and neighbors. He felt the item should be continued so the Commission could have some of their outstanding questions answered. Commissioner Paris did not think that traffic was a concern. He thought driving distances might be reduced as a service was being provided closer to the residents. Further, the peak car wash usage times would be on Saturday and Sunday, not during the rush hour. He felt that noise was a very valid consideration, especially the noise from the vacuums He did think there should be a distinction drawn between mechanical and hand car washes A mechanical car wash at the site would present a noise problem that would be horrific, but this proposal was for a small hand car wash. He felt the key was, if the Commission passed the car wash, a careful six- month review of the project for noise, drainage, traffic, and any other concerns of the local residents. Chairman Cartwright agreed there were many valid comments made by the residents. He was troubled by the comments that the City had made a commitment that there would not be a car wash at this location. His understanding of what the City committed to was that the action they approved at the time did not include a car wash, and if a car wash were to be considered it would have to go through a new Conditional Use Permit process. Therefore he did not think the City had breached their faith with the community, but rather a misunderstanding had taken place. He Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 21 too did not believe that the traffic problems at that intersection were directly related to the service station. He agreed that noise was an issue, however he did not know how to place noise restrictions on the property if they did not know what the noise levels are now or if they have no idea what this proposed operation will do to those noise levels. He stated that water reclamation was a concern, but he did not fully understand the issue and needed more information on what the requirements were and if the car wash was proposing to be in compliance with those requirements. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt it was best to put a noise limit on this project in the conditions of approval. The policy established in the past was to establish a decibel level at the property line of the recipient. Director/Secretary Rojas suggested using the language similar to that used with Wayfarer's Chapel where that the applicant is responsible for conducting a noise survey to obtain the ambient noise levels and the levels of the car wash use and then report back as to whether the vacuums are exceeding the noise level. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that was a good solution but asked that the public hearing be reopened to ask Mr. Glantz a question. Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearing Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Glantz if he has had any noise problems from the auto repair located at the Mobil Station Mr Glantz stated that he still hears noise every night, though it is substantially mitigated from what it was. He does hear noise very frequently from cars that are in the back of the station playing their radios. The sound expert he had hired said that the surest way to mitigate the noise affecting the neighbors and to provide some safety was to erect a 10 -foot wall on the property line. Mr Myers stated that there were two block walls at the site previously which both eventually started to slant down hill due to their weight. He also felt that to build a 10 - foot wall would be astronomically expensive Mr. Glantz added that a wall with proper footings would not have a problem at that site. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing Vice Chairman Lyon urged Mr Myers to continue to work with his neighbors on individual problems at the site and Commissioner Vannorsdall urged the neighbors to continue to work with Mr. Myers. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to accept the staff recommendations with three conditions: 1) The water reclamation process meet all existing government Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 22 requirements and all established industry standards on water clarification and reclamation; 2) The noise at the property line be limited to no more than 55 decibels and that the applicant be encouraged to work with affected neighbors on specific noise issues; and 3) To be sensitive to visual impacts on the neighbors. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked that the decibel level be raised to 65 decibels since the Commission had found that 55 was unreasonably low. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the State had set 65 decibels as acceptable in residential neighborhoods and reminded the Commission that at Wayfarer's Chapel the ambient noise measured above 55 decibels. Vice Chairman Lyon amended his motion to state that the noise at the property line be limited to no more than 65 decibels. Commissioner Vannorsdall seconded the motion. Director/Secretary Rojas suggested bringing the Resolution back to the Commission at their next meeting for their review. Chairman Cartwright felt that was the best thing to do. The motion passed with a roll call vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Alberio dissenting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS The Commission briefly discussed the agenda for the February 8, 2000 meeting Director/Secretary Rojas discussed the up -coming Planning Conference in Monterey and announced the promotions of Kit Fox and Lisa Louie and the change in fob title for Carla Morreale. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road questioned the height of fences and thought they could be 42 inches in height. She also discussed the new procedure at the City Council meeting where public comments are heard half way through the meeting rather than at the end of the meeting and suggested the Planning Commission adopt a similar format The Commission discussed the idea of moving the comments from the audience section to a point earlier in the agenda to allow anyone in the audience a chance to speak without having to wait to the end of the meeting Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 23 Commissioner Alberio moved to change the format of the agenda to allow for comments from the audience to take place at the first opportunity after the break, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Commissioner Paris commented that he would like to finish an item that has been started before starting audience comments The Commission agreed Commissioner Alberio modified his motion to include that the Commission would finish the item being discussed before beginning audience comments. The motion passed, (6-0). W oil ISM V z Commissioner Paris moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 p.m. to the next regular meeting on February 8, 2000. Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2000 Page 24