Loading...
PC MINS 19820323M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Ad3ourned Meeting March 23, 1982 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt, and Assistant Planners Jonathon Shepherd and Joseph Gamble. Mr. Hughes introduced Donald Guluzzy, City Manager, who was seated in the audience. CONSENT CALENDAR At Mr. McTaggart's request, Item A, the minutes of the meeting of March 9, 1982, was pulled from the Consent Calendar, to be discussed and acted on at the end of the meeting. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, the Commission unani- mously passed the remainder of the Consent Calendar items, thereby approving the following: B) six-month extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 11896; C) one-year extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 12578; D) six-month extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 57; and E) six-month extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 72/variance No. 57 and No. 64. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37885 Ms. Lavitt said the Commission last CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79 reviewed this project on February 9, Forrestal northwest of Pirate Dr. at which time the item was continued Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties and the applicant was directed to Applicant: Sikand Engineering respond to several issues, as listed in the staff report. She reviewed Dr. Ehlig's response regarding blasting and capping. Re hydrology she said the City Engineer recommended that modi- fication be made to the outlet which would include adequate energy dissipa- tion devices that would meet Flood Control standards. She referred to the grading methods for alternate site plans. She said staff felt design alter- nate C was an improvement aver the previous alternatives and in terms of grading appeared to be a balanced project. She said the developer has agreed to standard curbs and gutters. She said design alternative D re- quires more grading and that the street design poses problems with sight distance and grade at the curves and will institute six street names. She said the plan also indicates the elimination of Intrepid Drive. She said it was indicated that the location of the equestrian trail along the wall of Klondike Canyon would require a brow ditch. She said the applicant's preferred location for the trail is to place it along the outside of the debris fence along Forrestal and continue along Intrepid, then down toward the existing road cut, avoiding the buttress and eliminating surficial water penetration. Staff recommended that the Commission open the continued public hearing, take testimony and consider the issues. She said the geology evalu- ation had not yet been received from the County and staff recommended that a tentative approval not be rendered until the report is received. In response to a Commission question, Ms. Lavitt said staff was in agreement with the applicant's proposal for the equestrian trail as it could actually be a trail and be delineated as one. Mr. Hughes noted that this was a continued public hearing and opened the hearing. Ken Marks, Sikand Engineering, Irvine, said they had addressed all of the issues discussed at the last meeting. He said hopefully at this meeting they could identify a direction to zero in on a site plan. He expressed concern about a 24 -inch wide equestrian trail along Klondike Canyon and referred to the exhibits showing the alternative trail. Mark Bryant, Converse Consultants, said in his discussions, Dr. Ehlig did not recommend a 12:1 slope but indicated that there would be no rock fall hazard with a slope flatter than that, and that if the slope is steeper there would still be a potential hazard. He said Dr. Ehlig indicated that the applicant's proposal to trim and remove the loose rocks would be satis- factory but that the final review should be left to the County. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Bryant said they proposed to re- move the steep area and loose material. He said the area was now about 65-70 degrees, that the slope was 2:1. He said for aesthetics and stability the steep area would be brought back to be more uniform, but that it would not look all that different than it does now. He could not estimate what the resultant maximum slope would be after it was dressed back. He said following excavation, future debris might come loose during the first few years. He felt dressing would be adequate to reduce rock fall for the design life of the project. Dr. Brown asked in terms of ultimate stability which would be the better choice: dressing the rock face or going with a 2:1 or 12:1 slope. Mr. Bryant said each had advantages and disadvantages and that it was difficult to choose one over the other at this time, since they did not know what would happen if they cut into the rock. He said cutting back into the material may cause stability problems that do not exist today. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern related to rock spillage which may occur from time to time and the cost to the residents of the area. He asked if the developer had some mechanism proposed to help defray that cost from the potential homeowners if it is found that the dressing is not adequate. Monte Brower, Palos Verdes Properties, said if they cut back the slope face to 2:1 or 12:1, blasting would be required. He said the maintenance costs of clearing the debris basin once every five years is substantially less than for maintaining vegetation or ground cover on a 2:1 or 12:1 slope. He said he could get exact costs from landscape architects. He said the time- line for grading is based on how fast they could export. He said they had two problems with the equestrian trail along Klondike Canyon: one was erosion, and the other was the small percentage of people that abuse it with motorcycles. He said no blasting was required with any of the alternatives and would only be required with a 2:1 or 12:1 quarry face. Mr. McTaggart asked if the applicant would be open to an agreement to foot some portion of the cost of cutting to the extreme by placing an amount in trust for some period of years to indemnify the residents if there are problems with the dressing. Mr. Brower said they had to depend on their consultants and the City to properly design it. He said they felt confident with their consultant's recommendation and more confident because of Dr. Ehlig's concurrence. He agreed with staff's recommended changes for the drainage system. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Dr. Brown agreed with the staff recommendation for design alternate C and felt it was a more reasonable layout. 3/23/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. McTaggart concurred. He felt the proposed location for the equestrian trail presented the least amount of hazards, with an equestrian marking in the street and some demarcation like a three -rail fence. He felt the applicant should make some arrangements to indemnify the future homeowners, and said he did not think any fence would retain a chunk of basalt that falls down as the result of an earthquake. He said there has been no con- flicting evidence of stability of the quarry face. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed with design alternative C, and added that it was im- portant to provide access to the soccer field. Dr. Baer said horses were capable of going up any kind of terrain, but felt it would be more interesting for the riders to come down and go through the channel. He said design alternate C was acceptable. Mr. Hughes noted that there was clear consensus for grading alternate C. Re slope method, Dr. Brown agreed with what has been said. He felt the issue of indemnification should be explored. Re hydrology, he suggested a condition that addresses maintenance of the drainage facilities in an adequate manner. Mr. Hinchliffe said if it could be adequately demonstrated that maintaining the debris basin was no more costly than landscaping, the applicant should not be burdened with coming back to clean the debris basin. Mr. McTaggart said the falling rocks would occur fairly soon after excava- tion. He felt a ten-year bond was not unreasonable. Mr. Hughes favored alternate C with the minimal dressing on the rock face and was satisfied with the trail as shown. He said there was a clear con- sensus for those items. He suggested that staff and the applicant review a mechanism with the CC&Rs or whatever else is available to address the ques- tion raised by Mr. McTaggart and Dr. Brown to make sure there are adequate funds and that maintenance of the slopes for the lifetime of the project is really feasible. He was also concerned about fences and walls falling into disrepair with no one responsible to maintain them and felt alternatives should be explored. Re the sidewalk and parkway configuration for the local streets of the development, Dr. Baer preferred case B. Mr. McTaggart said the problem with case B, besides no opportunity for street trees, is that the mail boxes would be in concrete, in the middle of the sidewalk. He favored case A. Dr. Brown favored case A because of the proximity of the horses. Mr. Hinchliffe said his first choice would be to give the applicant the choice, and that his second choice would be case A. Mr. Hughes favored case A. Ms. Lavitt noted that street trees could still be required on case B, that they could be planted in the right-of-way. Mr. Hughes noted that there was consensus for case A. Dr. Brown said since the Commission was getting close to decision on this project, it would be wise to have conditions ready at the next meeting so the Commission may begin reviewing them. Ms. Lavitt said preparation of conditions would be appropriate after comments are received from the County. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that the proposal be presented to the Commission again in its entirety, showing drainage systems, recreational area, etc. Mr. Hughes agreed the Commission should see a complete overview. 3/23/$2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- RECESS At 8:52 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. with the same members present. SIGN PERMIT NO. 141 Mr. Shepherd said this request was for 6118 Palos Verdes Drive South three new signs: 1) A free-standing Landowner: Brown directory sign with an overall height Applicant: Forster of approximately 13 feet from grade, to be located in the northeast corner of the property approximately five feet inside the front property line and two to three feet inside the side property line. 2) A wall sign on the eastern side of the existing structure, running approximately 34 feet across the top of the building, approximately two feet six inches in height. 3) An identification sign along the building frontage which would identify the two new businesses, with dimensions of two by nine feet (per the application) or one and one-half by fifteen feet (per the scale on the plan). He reviewed the zoning and the Code considerations. Staff recommended denial of the free-standing sign and the wall sign for the reasons listed in the staff report and recommended approval of the building frontage sign with the condition that it not exceed 30 square feet. W. J. Brown, 2860 Via De La Guerra, Palos Verdes Estates, owner of the build- ing, distributed copies of his presentation to the Commission and staff. He said the free-standing directory sign meets the criteria for exceptional cir- cumstances and that the staff report did not address the obscure nature of the property. He said if the sign was set back 20 feet it would not be in direct line of sight. He referred to the map showing the site location and the adjacent proposed six-foot block wall and landscaping, and the existing pepper tree. He discussed obstructions to be considered in selecting sign height, including a rise in the road, plantings, building setback, and the fact that the building is set below grade. David Forster, 203 Seascape, applicant, said the building cannot be seen until people are right on top of it and that without proper signing it would create a hazardous condition for motorists. He presented photographs of the site, taken from various distances away. Dr. Brown could not agree to the request for a sign on the side wall. Re the frontage sign he agreed with staff's recommendation. Re the free- standing sign he felt they should reach a compromise that would meet the needs of the applicant and also meet the intent of the Code. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed that the site was obscure and felt they might find some compromise with regard to the free-standing sign. He agreed with staff's recommendation with respect to signs #2 and #3. Mr. Hughes concurred about the side and front signs, and was strongly opposed to the proposed free-standing sign, as the purpose of the ordinance was to minimize signs in the community. He felt that the Code allowed for adequate signing. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to deny the appli- cation for sign #2 (the wall sign on the eastern elevation) because there is no provision in the Code for side wall signs other than street -side walls; to approve sign #3 (the building frontage sign) subject to the condition that it not exceed 30 square feet; and to table sign #1 (free-standing sign) and allow the applicant to work with staff to come up with another solution for a sign that would come closer to meeting the Code requirements. Dr. Baer felt the applicant would have to present evidence that is convincing. The above motion -was unanimously carried. Mr. Hughes explained that the front sign was approved per the staff recom- mendation, the side sign was denied, and the free-standing sign was tabled. He advised that another alternative was to appeal -the Commission's decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. 3/23/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- 0 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 26 REVISION Mr. Gamble said the request was to ex - 30850 Hawthorne Bouelvard tend the hours of lighting on courts Landowner: Salvation Army 1-12 to 10:00 p.m. Monday thru Saturday Applicant: Peninsula Racquet Club and to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. He said the primary issues and concerns were visual character, noise, traffic, and community benefit. He discussed the ad-Jacent properties and said due to the elevation difference and proximity, the residences on the south side of Via La Cresta were considered the most affected. He said it was felt that the nighttime noise level would not increase audibly. He said the potential increase of vehicular traffic was not expected to generate significant noise. He said the volume of traffic did not significantly impact Hawthorne Boule- vard which currently has a 27 percent peak -hour capacity. In order to assess community benefit, staff took into account the policies and objec- tives of the General Plan, and he discussed the concepts related to this request. Staff recommended that the Commission hold the public hearing and, unless the presented evidence can substantiate significant community benefit, that the proposed amendment be denied since the request could result in con- flict with the General Plan. Mr. Hughes asked if the City had received any complaints about the subject site regarding lights or noise. Mr. Gamble said none were received prior to the filing of this request. Public hearing was opened. Maury Myers, 2541 Via Sanchez, Palos Verdes Estates, president of the board of directors of the Peninsula Racquet Club, said there were a number of supporters present tonight and he asked them to rise. He felt the club members should be provided with a facility that meets their needs, and that there was a significant need for more lighted hours based on the survey which they recently conducted. He said currently there were no lights on Sunday and that other local clubs were lit daily and for longer hours. He said the additional hours were needed during the week because professional people do not get home from work until late. He explained that each court is switched separately and that the lights can be, and are, turned off when any court is not in use. He said the club has one of the most active junior programs in the area. He said they changed to a Bieber lighting system in 1978 or 1979 to prevent light from escaping the courts. Dr. Baer was concerned about the high visibility of galvanized fencing and suggested a black fence instead. He also suggested the planting of some fast-growing trees to screen the lighting. Dick Meng, 6601 Lautrec Place, said he, his wife, and their five children all play tennis. He said he and his wife both work downtown and the average time they get home is 7:00 p.m. He said the current hours allow a very limited amount of playing time and, therefore, they do not use the club as much as they would like to as a family. He said the weekend was a nice socialable time to play and offered entertainment for the youth. Jim Montgomery, 30533 Camino Porvenir, said he had the same problem, getting home from work about 7:30 p.m. He said the four members of his family ac- tively play tennis and that in addition to family and social use, he would like to use the courts for entertaining clients. Kenneth G. Moses, 6330 Sattes Drive, said all of the fences are covered already. He did not feel the light impacted the neighbors because the homes were 126 feet above the courts rather than at the same level. He questioned the issue of nighttime view. Russ Schweiger, 30828 Via La Cresta, said he was representing the 11 home- owners directly affected by the lighting from the tennis courts. He said the homeowners opposed any extension or expansion of lighting on the tennis courts. He said there was a noise problem, the lights were offensive, and the courts were poorly utilized. He said the survey taken by the applicant 3/23/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- in October 1981 of other tennis clubs differed with the information he re- ceived in a recent survey which indicated a reduction in hours of operation. He said while the club denies the existence of a nighttime view, the club's brochure refers to the view of spectacular sunsets and lights in Avalon. He proposed one of the following: 1) no lighting; 2) lighting for only courts 7-12 Monday thru Thursday until 10:00 p.m. and no lighting on week- ends; or 3) leave the courts as they are. He recommended a survey be con- ducted over a several month period. He said the homes face Catalina and that on a clear night you can see the lights in Avalon and boats going by. He said the lights interfere with that view. He said they did not ob3ect to the lighting on courts 7-12 but felt there was no way to reduce the effects of the lights on courts 1-6. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown did not think the Commission had sufficient information to deter- mine community benefit. He said evidence was needed to show the need for more hours and thought perhaps a survey, as suggested by Mr. Schweiger, was necessary, due to the conflicting testimony this evening. He felt they needed some way to assess the need for increased lighting. Mr. Hughes said monitoring the late-night play would provide a basis on which to survey community need. Mr. McTaggart was not sure of the accuracy of the statistics presented and said it was not clear that 39 percent of the club really favored additional lighting or that there was a need for longer hours. He did not feel commu- nity benefit had been demonstrated. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the issue of the members wanting additional lighting was valid. He said he could support increased lighting of courts 7-12 on week- nights and reduced hours of lighting on weekends. He felt there was some resolution that would accommodate everyone and that perhaps the club should decide with some reasonable limits when it would want those additional hours. Dr. Baer agreed with Mr. Hinchliffe that it was difficult to reach a decision tonight on the basis of the information received. He supported something on a trial basis and suggested a six-month period with modified hours coupled with some effort on the part of the club to mitigate the light reflection and view obstruction. Dr. Brown felt they should check to see if shields could be added to the present lighting fixtures and also suggested looking at changing the court surface. Mr. McTaggart suggested that the lighting hours be extended on courts 7-12, which are not objectionable, during the trial period and that perhaps they try shielding the lights on courts 1-6 to see if that mitigates the problem further. Mr. Hughes suggested that the applicant work with staff and arrive at some proposal that would allow for the testing of modified lighting for a six- month period. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to continue the item to allow the applicant and staff the opportunity to work out an arrange- ment that would have a six-month trial period maintaining the same total number of operating hours as is currently permitted, but extending the hours to 10:00 p.m. on Monday thru Thursday, and that some mechanism be provided to survey and monitor the operation for review and reporting to the Commis- sion the number of hours the courts are in use during that trial period, and that during that period the lights on courts 1-6 be fitted with Bieber's latest shields so as to eliminate as much as possible the light that causes the glow that interferes with the view from above, and that after six months a review of the utilization of the courts during nighttime play and the lighting hours would be conducted by the Commission. 3/23/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Mr. McTaggart added the stipulation that the courts not be lit when not in use. Dr. Baer proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to amend the above motion by striking the words "Monday thru Thursday" from the motion, and instead leave it open for working out a proposal, but that the number of hours stay the same. Mr. Hughes said he was not in support of increasing the lights on weekends. Dr. Baer said the Commission would still have to determine whether or not the proposal was acceptable when it comes back. Vote on the amendment to the motion was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, McTaggart NOES: Brown, Hughes ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe noted that although he did not support lighted courts on weekends, he did not feel at this point they should restrict the proposal. Vote on the amended motion was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes directed the applicant to work out a proposal with staff, and for staff to come back with a recommendation on that proposal and with a pro- posed survey to accurately monitor the test period. TRAIL STANDARDS Mr. Gamble's presentation of the pre- liminary draft standards included schematic drawings with the use of an overhead projector. He said the considerations for trail standards were safety, convenience, comfort, and aesthetics. Director Hightower explained that the next step will be to put the draft standards into a more final form and bring it back to the Commission for further review. She said at this time they were just looking at standards and not selecting trail locations, etc. She said staff had not yet dealt with surface materials or maintenance, etc. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of March 9, 1982 were approved with the following amendments: page 1, last paragraph, line 1, should read "...court was twenty feet higher than the road..."; page 2, paragraph 3, should read "...was inappropriate because it was one of the prime scenic areas of the City."; and page 3, last paragraph, change "Mrs. Johnson" to Mr. Johnson" and "she" to "he". COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes asked if the Commissioners had any suggestions for the agenda of the meeting with the City Council on Tuesday, March 30, 1982. No one had any suggestions. ADJOURNMENT At 11:56 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, March 30, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. 3/23/82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-