Loading...
PC MINS 1986120911 M I N U T E S PLANNING COMMISSION December 9, 1986 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Von Hagen at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: CONNOLLY, MC NULTY, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE ABSENT: NONE Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Associate Planner Steve Rubin, Assistant Planner Laurie Brigham, and Assistant Planner Jack Roberts. REORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION (APPOINTMENT OF A NEW VICE CHAIR) Chairman Von Hagen thanked the staff and the commissioners for making 1985-86 a positive year. He especially thanked Ann Negendank and Steve Rubin for their extra efforts during the period when the City was without a Director of Environmental Services. Chairman Von Hagen congratulated Mrs. Ortolano on her appointment as the Commission's 1986-1987 Chairwoman. f Chairwoman Ortolano thanked Mr. Von Hagen for leading the Commission during the last year. She appointed Mrs. Wike as Vice Chairwoman. COMMUNICATIONS Chairwoman Ortolano related a letter dated December 3, 1986 to Rolling Hills Estates May r. HL e h,,Miller from Mr. Elmer Grimes, President of the Palos Verdes I Association, expressing to the City of Rolling Hills Estates that the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission took action in connection with the Wallace Property which preserves an equestrian easement. Mr. Grimes encouraged Rolling Hills Estates to do the same and to deal with the cable television lot that is for sale there. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Von Hagen moved the Consent Calendar be approved; seconded by Mr. McNulty and passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS CUP No. 99 Associate Planner Steve Rubin T.W. Layman Associates recommended the item be contin- ued. Chairwoman Ortolano moved that the item be continued; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen. 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Two Mr. Tom Layman, 19725 Sherman Way, Suite 300, Canoga Park, 91305, ar- chitect representing the landowner and applicant, requested the Com- mission address the item. Chairwoman Ortolano withdrew the motion. The Commission agreed to hear the item. Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented the staff report. The Commission noted the lack of interested parties in attendance at the meeting. Staff said that residents within a 500 foot radius of the project were noticed. A Commissioner requested clarification on the 3 foot setback for the electrical room and questioned the size of the electrical room. Staff said that the Code allows equipment to be placed within 3 feet of an interior property line provided the equipment does not exceed 6 feet, 6 inches in height. Staff stated that the electrical room's size is not on the plans and that verification would be necessary. Chairwoman Ortolano opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Layman, applicant, discussed: efforts made to break up the building's architectural masses; light sand tones proposed for the ex- terior of the building with a darker brown trim; the tower elevation reduced to the 30 foot height code limitation; the pavement reflects the same sand tones as the building exterior; willingness to comply with staff's suggestions; desire to reduce the parking lot size to introduce a wider sidewalk or landscaping area since he originally thought the parking space length requirement was 20 feet and it is 18 feet. The Commission discussed that the City has not formulated the defini- tion of a minimart and clarified that a minimart is not presently pro- posed at the site. Mr. McNulty moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. Mr. McNulty moved that the Commission approve the application giving direction to the applicant to work out the concerns pointed out in the staff report and that staff bring back the applicable resolution to the Commission and a review showing the applicant's compliance to the Commission's satisfaction at the next available hearing date; seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously. 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Three Appeal rights were noted. TTM No. 35799 Associate Planner Steve Rubin So. Bay Engineering Corp. discussed that, at the time the staff report was written, in- formation regarding the alternative lot layouts was unavailable. Chairwoman Ortolano clarified that the applicant made a number of re- visions to the application which staff has had no opportunity to re- view. Ms. Louise Shipman, 3948 Admirable Drive, Seaview Homeowners' Associa- tion, requested to speak to the item. Chairwoman Ortolano opened the public hearing. Ms. Shipman discussed that the City should accept liability for poten- tial land movement which could occur as a result of the proposed con- struction. She voiced concern over view impairment as a result of the proposed building and over tree view blockage. The Commission discussed that it would not advise the City to accept liability for any potential land movement which could occur as a re- sult of the proposed construction. The Commission stated that Ms. Shipman's concerns were reasonable. The Commission encouraged inter- ested parties to attend the January 13 hearing. Mr. Von Hagen moved to continue the public hearing to January 13,, 1987; seconded by Mr. McNulty. Director Robert Benard invited interested parties to provide written comments in advance of the January 13, 1987 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. CUP No. 111, EA No. 500 GR No. 948 - Appeal Assistant Planner Jack Roberts presented the staff report. A Commissioner clarified staff's opinion that the tennis court light- ing itself would not interfere with a view but that the surrounding area would give off a reflective glow that would obliterate a view. The Commission discussed that previous applicants facing a similar problem have made attempts to reduce the glow. 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Four Staff stated the applicant's willingness to hire a tennis court expert to mitigate the lighting issue. Staff's opinion that there is no vi- able alternative to the tennis court lighting was noted. Staff said the Commission could continue the public hearing in order to analyze the amount of light necessary to play tennis at night. The Commission discussed whether the use of colored lighting to reduce the glow would be possible. Staff said that the influence of colored lighting or a colored surface should be decided by a lighting expert. A Commissioner discussed that the reflection of the court's surface would pose more of a concern than the lighting and noted that the darker the surface the more the lighting would be absorbed and the less it would be reflected. The Commission questioned whether other courts in the area have lights. Staff said a nearby court does not have lights but that, according to the applicant, one court upslope from the applicant's does have lights. A Commissioner noted that, in this day of technology, an alternative lighting design should not be an insurmountable problem and questioned whether staff would recommend no tennis court lights in the City. Staff said that any lights in the area of the proposed project would have an effect and stressed that the proposed 4,000 watt lighting would have a significant effect. Staff stated the applicant's pro- posed lighting fixtures would not allow spillover but would present a problem in adequately lighting the courts. Staff emphasized that the way the court is positioned in terms of the area affected would leave no alternative solution to the lighting problem. The Commission discussed the idea of obtaining an expert's analysis of the tennis court lighting. The Commission discussed that only li feet of the proposed 7 foot wall would be seen from Daladier due to the terraced effect of the prop- erty. Staff said that the 7 foot wall would not affect the visual relation- ship of the site's topography but that it would require 47 cubic yards more of grading than two 3J foot walls. The Commission discussed whether the contour of the lot is artificial. Staff stated that the lot was regraded and that two 31 foot terraced walls would be closer to the natural contour than a 7 foot wall. 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Five Chairwoman Ortolano opened the public hearing. Mr. Marshall Lewis, 721 Latimer Road, Santa Monica, 90402, architect representing the owner and applicant, presented a model of the propos- ed project and discussed: the tennis court lighting of four fixtures at 1,000 watts per fixture was proposed on the advice of a tennis court lighting expert; the 7 foot wall would be behind the tennis court recreational fencing; the recreational fencing would be camou- flaged by landscaping which would not be detrimental to the 180* view; the 47 cubic yards of grading for the 7 foot wall would be used as backfill for the 7 foot wall; and there would be no problem with a dark colored court to reduce the amount of reflection. Mr. Lewis pre- sented a handout showing written consent of the tennis court lighting from surrounding neighbors. The Commission discussed that the proposed landscaping around the recreational fencing could impair the view. Mr. Jerome Sorkin, 27 La Vista Verde, landowner, presented letters from surrounding neighbors in support of the tennis court lighting. He noted he received verbal approval from the next door neighbors. Mr. Sorkin discussed: not originally realizing that the construction of a pool and tennis court would be a problem; a 7 foot wall would be more appropriate than two 31 foot walls; the great effort made to find lights which direct down; and his attempts to reduce the impact of the tennis court lighting. Mrs. Wike moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Mr. McNulty and passed unanimously. C A Commissioner CL�usdsesl that the contour of the land was previously changed and staff's concern of retaining the natural contours is, therefore, inappropriate. A Commissioner said that the proposed im- provements would give the applicant better use of the property without impacting surrounding properties. A Commissioner noted that the Com- mission's original approval of the project allowed the tennis court with the provision that the applicant provide terraced grading and stressed the applicant has created the need for a 7 foot retaining wall as a result of the way the property has been graded. Staff clarified that the original approval of the tennis court was made with the provision that the grading conform to the Code. The Commission discussed that the property had some serious land move- ment problems and that, after litigation, the previous structure was removed and the property was recompacted to provide a stable area for construction. A Commissioner said that he proposed 47 cubic yards of grading would not be significant when compared to the amount of the 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Six original grading, that the overall intent of with the Code was a usual intent on the part allowing the 7 foot wall would not affect the A Commissioner voiced concern over the drainage flat concrete areas. 11 the grading complying of the Commission, and aesthetics or contours. of the proposed large, Staff said that the Building Division would require a drainage plan upon approval of the project. Mr. Von Hagen moved approval of GR No. 848 - Appeal as presented; sec- onded by Mr. McNulty and passed by majority with Mrs. Wike dissenting. The Commission discussed that the approval of CUP No. 111 and EA No. 500 could be made with the following conditions: a dark color on the tennis court surface; some form of landscape plan to be approved by staff; and hour limitations on the use of the tennis court lights. Staff said that the use of the tennis court lights should be no later than 9:00 P.M. and no earlier than 7:00 A.M. The Commission said that the City's Nuisance ordinance could be en- forced should there be any problems related to the tennis court use - age. A Commissioner voiced concern over the applicant's lot being very pro- minent and said that the proposed wattage should not be allowed in such a rural area where there is no street lighting. The Commission discussed the idea of delaying approval of the project until the pro- posed lighting is field tested. Staff noted that the Code's 2,000 wattage maximum was not designed for tennis court lighting and that any recreational area lighting would require a CUP. Mrs. Wike moved approval of staff's recommendation to deny the tennis court lighting. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. McNulty moved that the Commission approve the tennis court light- ing application with the following conditions: (1) the surface of the tennis court be of a sufficiently dark color to help alter any reflec- tive light and glare; (2) the architect will submit to staff for their approval of landscape plan which will assist in attenuating the light spill; and (3) the applicant not be allowed to use the lights after 9:00 P.M. nor before 7:00 A.M. nor use the tennis court before 7:00 A.M. or after 9:00 P.M. A Commissioner clarified that the motion included staff's approval of a sufficiently dark court surface color. A Commissioner suggested that staff's approval of the landscape plan require more than one tree to attenuate the light spill. 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Seven Mr. Von Hagen seconded the motion. Staff noted a set of conditions used on a similar project which would be appropriate for the applicable resolution: (1) wattage set and cannot be changed; (2) black housing of the fixtures; (3) no commer- cial play of the court is possible; (4) non -glare court; (5) applicant agrees in writing to the conditions; and (6) at the end of 90 days the application will be reviewed by the Director of Environmental Services and changed if appropriate. A Commissioner voiced concern over a condition which would preclude the court from being used to raise funds for local charities. Staff said a Special Use Permit is required in residential areas for tournament play. Staff noted commercial use would mean playing for pay. The Commission discussed that a Special Use Permit would be appropri- ate in residential areas for activities such as charity play to notify surrounding property owners of the function. The Commission agreed with staff's recommended conditions. The motion was passed by majority with Mrs. Wike dissenting. Appeal rights were noted. CONTINUED BUSINESS Resolution P.C. No. 86- Associate Planner Steve Rubin TTM No. 44515 noted that the Conditions to Exhibit A were redrafted and a memorandum further clarifying specific conditions was distributed to the Commission. Chairwoman Ortolano inquired of the applicant as to whether there were any particular Conditions which were of concern. Mr. C. Gordon Utt, 14 Cresta Verde Drive, Wallace Ranch Associates, stated that staff clarified the majority of his questions regarding the revised Conditions. Mr. Utt discussed No. 21 and noted that the right-of-way issue will be resolved within five years. He requested that it include language to the effect that, "...for a period of five years or when resolved...". The Commission discussed that No. 21 should remain as is. 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Eight The Commission discussed the vehicular access rights to Armaga Spring and Highridge mentioned in No. 11. Staff said that No. 11 enables the City to control all vehicular ac- cess on Highridge and Armaga Spring and that such a Condition is stan- dard for collector and arterial streets. The Commission questioned whether it was the Commission's original intent to have no curb cuts on Armaga Spring as indicated in No. 49. Mr. Benard said it was staff's original intent that there be no curb cuts on Armaga Spring. A Commissioner stated that it would be appropriate for houses facing Armaga Spring to have curb cuts on Armaga Spring. Mr. Utt said he understood there would be no access onto Armaga Spring and that Wallace Ranch Associates never considered access onto Armaga Spring. Mr. McNulty moved approval of the redrafted Conditions No. 49 and No. 11; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. The Commission reviewed No. 20 and No. 21 and stressed that whatever acreage is left after dedications must be at least one acre. Mr. Benard said that the revision clearly states there will be one acre remaining after the right-of-way is improved. The Commission stated its approval to the redrafted Conditions No. 20 and 21. The Commission reviewed No. 22 and a Commissioner voiced concern over trail maintenance costs. A Commissioner questioned whether there would be pedestrian access from the tract to a pedestrian trail. Staff said that No. 22 could be modified to include pedestrian and bi- cycle trails in addition to an equestrian trail. Mr. Benard discussed staff's concerns over the cost to maintain the trail, the establishment of the trail, and its relationship to the City's Trail Network Plan. He emphasized that the easement would be vacated if it was determined that there was not a similar grant of an easement from Rolling hills Estates. A Commissioner related that the number of horses boarded on the Peninsula from outside the Peninsula cities is tremendous and questioned whether the Peninsula cities should provide maintenance costs and property acquisition so that people from outside of the community can use the trails. 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Nine A Commissioner suggested No. 22 be removed as a Condition and said the equestrian easement should be left entirely up to Rolling Hills Estates. A Commissioner discussed that the trail easement is appro- priate and that the City's Trail Network Plan should be considered the minimum that the City would have and that the City could decide not to implement the trail for budget reasons. The Commission discussed that the trail would traverse the general park area and there would be ac- cess there for pedestrian useage. The Commission said that No. 22 could include flexibility for the City to implement a multi -use trail. No. 22 was modified to read, "A 7.5 foot wide equestrian or pedestrian or bicycle trail easement ... has been dedicated in the City of Rolling Hills Estates and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not choose to implement the trail, the securities shall be released and the easement vacated by the City." The majority of the Commission agreed to No. 22 as modified. Mrs. Wike voiced objection to a trail easement. Mr. Benard discussed No. 24. He said that the Commission did not take specific action to preserve the main existing structure but deferred the decision to Council. Mr. Benard noted the City Attorney's opinion that, because there was no specific Commission action, it would be in- appropriate to include No. 24 as a Condition (even though it reflected direction that the Council had previously given). He stated No. 24 could be modified to include that, "The Planning Commission requests that the City Council make a determination that the developer of Tract 44514 shall relocate the main...". A Commissioner stressed that a Condition is not the appropriate place to include a recommendation to Council and voiced objection with the implication that the Commission has approved preservation of the building. Mr. Benard stated that approval to move the building would give the applicant the ability to work on the site and that No. 24 does not imply approval of the preservation of the building, but is consistent with the EIR. He emphasized that, if the park site were not accepted by Council, there would be no place to move the building. The majority of the Commission agreed to include No. 24 as proposed. Chairwoman Ortolano voiced objection. Mr. McNulty moved approval of the Conditions as approved and amended; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and no action was taken on the motion with Mr. Connolly abstaining and Chairwoman Ortolano and Mrs. Wike dissent- ing. Mrs. Wike voiced objection to the trail easement and Chairwoman Ortolano voiced objection to the preservation of the building. 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Ten A Commissioner emphasized that, when Conditions are previously approv- ed, a project cannot It be "enie4. I'Ars Or`k-00-no "kk�e& N +VcLk 0 �VVa, lresj\w�;or\ w"e- M�. Benard discussed that it would be inconsistent to not approve the entire package when the Conditions and the modifications have been accepted. Mr. McNulty moved that the Commission recommend approval of the project to the City Council in the manner in which each recommended Condition has been approved by the various members of the Commission in their votes; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen. Mrs. Wike said she would be willing to accept the project with a nota- tion to Council that she does not support No. 22. The motion passed by majority with Mr. Connolly abstaining and Chair- woman Ortolano dissenting. (Mrs. Wike's objection to No. 22 noted.) Staff noted that the Commission's approval is strictly a recommenda- tion to Council. Staff said the item would be on Council's Decem- ber 16 agenda. Appeal rights were noted. Resolution P.C. No. 86- Mr. Benard discussed that, upon GR No. 954 receipt of the Conditions, Mr. DeLossa prepared the letter which was distributed to the Commission. He said staff could support Mr. DeLossals request to modify No. 5 to include more time for the recommended changes to the property. By consensus, No. 5 was amended to read, "...within 9 months of the date of approval." Chairwoman Ortolano commended staff on the drafting of the Conditions. The Commission clarified that No. 2 states that, if a worse condition is created with the removal of the railroad ties, then they can remain. A Commissioner stated that the compaction involved in removing the ties could be more of a hazard than leaving them in. The Commission discussed Mr. DeLossals request to remove the "only if" phrase from No. 2. The Commission agreed that the Conditions of Approval were as the Commission intended. Mr. Robert DeLossa, 2345 Sparta, applicant, stated his concern over the costs associated with carrying out the Commission's recommenda- tions. He voiced concern over his impression that the City Engineer stated the hill must be reinforced with a cement wall. 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Eleven Mr. Benard noted that there is a need to control the erosion and the City Engineer may have said one way to do so would be to put up a block wall. He stressed that this is not the kind of solution the Commission was intending to secure. The Commission discussed that, if the restoration costs are tremen- dous, the applicant has the right to re -petition. The Commission em- phasized that its intent was not to cause punitive damages to Mr. De- Lossa. Mr. DeLossa requested clarification on No. 4. Mr. Benard discussed No. 4. He said it is the City's desire to have landscaping consistent with the Natural Overlay which does not require the need for excessive watering. He stated this would necessitate the re -planting of the lower portion of Phase I. A Commissioner voiced concern over the property containing at least two separate sprinkling systems. Mr. Benard said that, technically, a landscape plan would cover an ir- rigation system. Mr. McNulty moved approval'of Resolution P.C. No. 86-39 conditionally approving GR No. 954; seconded by Mr. Connolly and passed unanimously. Appeal rights were noted. NEW BUSINESS Sign Permit No. 327 Assistant Planner Laurie Brig- ham presented the staff report. Mr. Matt Brunning, 41 Palos Verdes Shores, San Pedro, applicant said he presumed the signage was approved with the building. Mr. Brunniing discussed: request for a plan which would be architecturally designed to fit the unusual configuration of the building; street trees obscur- ing signage; request including six signs in front and 17 in the rear; staff's recommendation allowing for twelve signs with a total square footage of 147 whereas his request is much less cluttered and much more aesthetically appealing than staff's recommendation; not desig- nating the building as a financial center since there is only one financial tenant; the Code addressing signage more appropriate for smaller buildings; little pedestrian traffic on Silver Spur and staff's assumption that the directory would be for pedestrians only; and his plans to submit for a small building award if it is approved. 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Twelve The Commission reviewed the square footage numbers referred to in staff's memo. Staff said that the total of 147 square feet included the directory square footage and the window signage. Staff stated the application could be conditioned to include that there shall be no window signage. Staff voiced concern that the existing landscaping would eventually conceal the wall signage on the south face of the building. The Commission discussed that a major identification sign with one tenant directory on each end of the building might be more appropriate than four signs on the front of the building. The Commission discuss- ed that, since the building is long, identification from more than one direction could be appropriate. The Commission discussed that the window signage could be restricted and that the applicant will surely maintain the landscaping. Mr. Von Hagen moved to adopt staff's Alternative No. 1 with a square footage reduction to 75 square feet on the south side and that there shall be no window signage; seconded by Mr. McNulty. A Commissioner voiced concern over setting a precedent with the ap- proval as proposed. The Commission discussed that the Code permits a total of 123 square feet and applicant's request is for 90 square feet of signage. The Commission said that the situation is unique due to the length of the building. The Commission stressed that each appli- cation is considered on its own merits. A Commissioner voiced concern over the sign restrictions not being carried out with the sale of the building. Mr. Benard stated that the sign restrictions would be a condition in the City's file and that the City would notify any new owner as well as any new tenants of the restrictions. The motion passed unanimously. Appeal rights were noted. Sign Permit No. 332 Assistant Planner Laurie Brig- ham presented the staff report. The Commission questioned whether the window signs were taken into account. Staff said the window signs are temporary and have no bearing on the application. 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Thirteen The Commission discussed that its previous consideration of tenant signage on the building included a concern that the applicant would eventually request additional signage. Mr. James A. Hirtle, 450 Silver Spur, Suite 100, owner of Remax Real- ty, discussed: lease with Home Federal for twenty years; there will be no window signage; Home Federal is in complete agreement with Remax's proposal; the signs need to be visible from the street; the proposed signage is essential to running a successful business; the signage would be nonilluminated; the east wall signage would be con- sistent with the Code; he was aware of the City's Sign Code when he leased the building in January 1986; Remax occupies an equal number of square footage with Home Federal; there are only two tenants in the building and the owner is one so signage for other tenants should not be a consideration; Home Federal would not allow signage for subless- ors to Remax; the Remax signage is a corporate registered logo and it would not be in the Remax shades of red, white and blue but in a gray color. Mr. Mark Frank, 1700 West Anaheim Street, Long Beach, 90815, Remax, discussed: even with two major identification signs for each tenant the maximum signage of 75 square feet would not be used; the word "Realty" would be necessary due to the corporate code and for identi- fication purposes; and other area tenants have much more signage than the proposed. Mr. John Newhouse, 450 Silver Spur, Horne Federal, discussed that Home Federal has made an attempt to keep the building simple and that the proposed signage would do so. The Commission discussed that Home Federal would not be willing to sacrifice any of its signage to Remax. Staff noted the Code allows for 3 square feet per tenant and the ap- plicant's proposal includes 18.6 square feet total, 15.6 over that allowed for each tenant. Staff noted the existing signage exceeds that allowed by the Code. Mr. Benard discussed that the 75 square feet allowed by the Code is for one major identification sign and that the secondary tenants are limited to 3 square feet per tenant. Mr. John Criss, 2416 Paseo Del Mar, Home Federal is the only financial does not have an illuminated sign. Mr. Curt Bauer, 10845 Wheatlands, Signs, discussed that, at the time tenant was not anticipated. 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Vice President of Remax, said that institution on the whole block who Suite D, Santee, 92071, Integrated of the original request, one major Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Fourteen The Commission discussed that a monument sign would be appropriate since it would be seen from both directions, since it would be seen from the major roadways, and it would not clutter the front of the building. Staff introduced an additional alternative of denying the application and permitting 6 square feet of wall mounted signage at the primary southeast entrance and, if any subleasing occurred, the approval would be revoked and a new sign program amendment would be required. The Commission questioned the Code requirements for a monument sign. Staff said that, usually, a monument sign would be considered as a major identification sign. The Commission discussed the idea of continuing the item to give the applicant the opportunity to consider a monument sign which would be more in tune with the building. A Commissioner voiced concern over setting precedent. A Commissioner said Home Federal and Remax should negotiate for signage and return to the Commission with a new proposal. Mr. McNulty moved to continue the item to January 13; seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. The applicant requested temporary signage. Mr. Benard said that the proper procedure for temporary signage is a Temporary Sign Permit. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Sunshine, 6 Limetree, repre- senting the Palos Verdes Penin- sula Horseman's Association, discussed that there is a Trail Plan Amendment under review, the trail in the Wallace Ranch would not go all the way up to the City line, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horseman's Association approved the City's Trail Plan as an appropriate way to preserve the trails, the trail would not require any capital improve- ments, and the trail maintenance would be nothing more than weed abatement. The Commission noted that trails should not be installed if the City cannot maintain them. The Commission stressed that, with City recog- nition of a trail goes liability and that the trails must be a certain width and legally dedicated. 601CP/MIN3.1-15 Minutes December 9, 1986 Page Fifteen REPORTS Staff None. Commission Mr. McNulty gave an overview of the Four Cities Planning Group meeting at Hesse Park on December 6. He said the presenting City, Rolling Hills Estates, basically presented an overview of its new Neighborhood Compatibility ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion of Mrs. Wike and seconded by Mr. McNulty, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P.M. 601CP/MIN3.1-15