Loading...
PC MINS 19940111APPROVED 2/8/94- A CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 11, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:37 PM by Chairman Rob Katherman at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Lois Larue. PRESENT: Commissioners Mowlds and Lorenzen, Co -Vice -Chairpersons Hayes and Alberio, and Chairman Katherman. ABSENT: Commissioner Clark Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Assistant Planner de Freitas, and Assistant Planner Klopfenstein. COMMUNICATIONS Director Bernard reported there were 12 items of late correspondence received after the Commissioners agenda packets were assembled and distributed. For Item VB, there was one letter; Item VIA, six letters; Item VIC, three letters; and Item VIIIA, one letter. Additional correspondence and a clarifying agreement was received from Staff for approval of the December 6, 1993 Minutes regarding Environmental Assessment No. 657, Conditional Use Permit No. 177, Grading Permit No. 1711, at 6100 Via Subida. All correspondence had been placed before the Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Katherman stated that because of a lack of quorum to approve the November 23, 1993, minutes at the last meeting, approval needed to be given tonight. A motion was made to approve these minutes by Commissioner Hayes and seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen. Approved (5-0) (STAFF NOTE: THERE WAS A QUORUM AT THE LAST MEETING; THEREFORE THE APPROVAL GIVEN AT THAT TIME WAS VALID.) VA. Minutes of December 6, 1993. Commissioner Mowlds stated that at the December 6, 1993 meeting, it was his understanding that the Commission had approved the tree removal and thinning profile provided by Mr. Angus Lorenzen for the proposed house on Via Subida. Director Bernard replied that Staff's understanding was that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 1 Director Bernard replied that Staff's understanding was that the Commission did make reference to the profile during the discussion. However, Mr. Lorenzen had provided two schemes, one was the existing foliage which was the upper red line and also offered, as his compromise position, a lower red line for the trimming and removal of certain trees. This was confusing because both lines were the same color. It was Staff's recollection that the Planning Commission did not select, in its entirety, the lower red line but, in making reference to other photographs, the Commission did select portions of the lower red line. Staff believes that the Resolution which the Chairman signed accurately reflects the decision of the Commission. Staff has gone back through some of the discussion and the verbatim transcript; but has not had a chance, given the short time, to transcribe it word for word. However, this transcription does reflect that the Commission did select portions, not all, of that lower red line. Also, Director Bernard noted that Mr. Lorenzen called for a meeting involving Staff (Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Project Coordinator Terry Silverman, and himself), along with Scott Yanofsky, Mr. Yanofsky's business partner, and Mr. Lorenzen. The meeting took place on the day City Hall reopened after the holidays (January 3), to discuss clarification of the already signed Resolution. It is an important date because that was the last day to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. Director Bernard added that copies of the clarifying agreement reached, which includes language agreed upon between the two parties at the January 3 meeting, have been provided to these parties for signature and have been placed before the Commission tonight. Staff believes that the agreement only clarified certain points in the approval and that the intent of the Planning commission to reach a compromise, remains intact. Chairman Katherman stated that his recollection is that when he and the other members of the Subcommittee viewed the applicant's property from the various neighbors' homes uphill, the Subcommittee picked out portions from a red and a blue line in certain areas (portions of the blue line, but primarily the red line). The resulting compromise required the removal of three identified trees, which were in the conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit, and then a great deal of it was left up to the discretion of Director Bernard to require reasonable thinning and thinning of trees throughout the rest of the property. Chairman Katherman expressed his opinion that the Resolution which the Planning Commission approved and the Minutes reflect this action and are consistent with one another. Commissioner Alberio recalled that when Mr. Lorenzen brought his chart, he had a red line and a blue (or green) line. The Commission discussed it, compromised and opted for the upper, or PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 2 red, line and that there was a building involved in that area. He did not remember that thinning was left to discretion of the Staff. Chairman Katherman asked Director Bernard if Mr. Lorenzen had agreed to the clarifications contained in the supplemental document prepared by Staff. Director Bernard replied that Mr. Lorenzen had not had an opportunity to sign the agreement, but said he would sign it and would return a signed copy to Staff. Commissioner Mowlds suggested that the parties involved be given an opportunity to review the agreement prepared by Staff and that the Commission postpone the approval of the Minutes until after the break. Chairman Katherman wanted to make sure that everyone understood the agreement is for clarifying the Minutes only, because the action the Planning Commission took is final. Director Bernard indicated that Staff was mainly interested in making sure that the intent of the Planning commission was made clear. When asked by Chairman Katherman, Director Bernard confirmed that both parties had the agreement and both would receive a signed copy when they both signed it. Chairman Katherman said that the Commissioners appeared to be in agreement to table this until after the break. Without objection, it was so ordered. VB. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 178- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 658; Steve Saparito, 28732 Highridge Road. (DJ) Chairman Katherman mentioned that there was communication received on this item regarding the noise standard contained in the conditions of approval and asked if the Commissioners wished to remove this item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He indicated that he head spoken to Planning Administrator Petru that afternoon and she said that the City does not have a noise ordinance. He confirmed that Rolling Hills Estates' noise ordinance indicates a maximum of 55 decibels at the property line. He further stated that there is a condition on the Conditional Use Permit which limits the noise level at the property line to 65 decibels. He suggested that language be added to require compliance in the event that a more restrictive requirement is established by a subsequently adopted noise ordinance, so that this project will not have non -conforming rights at 65 decibels. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 3 Commissioner Alberio reminded the Commission that if there is no City noise ordinance, the State requirement would have to be met. Chairman Katherman said that the State is 65 decibels and if a City ordinance is adopted which is more restrictive than the State guidelines, the City ordinance would apply to this project. Commissioner Hayes added that Rolling Hills Estates does have a 55 decibel limit for residential but 'allows 65 decibels for commercial and this is in Ms. Landau's letter. Commissioner Hayes pointed out this in line with the State's requirement which the Commission learned while investigating the Salvation Army project. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to adopt the Resolutions for the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit, which was seconded by Commissioner Mowlds. Approved, (5-0). Planning Administrator Petru asked if the Commission had adopted the Resolutions as written, and Chairman Katherman confirmed that they had. Chairman Katherman stated that he would be signing the Resolutions for the both the Negative Declaration and the Conditional Use Permit and that the 15 -day appeal period will begin the next day. VC. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 22, SIGN PERMIT NO. 647• Peninsula Rim Homeowners Association, Beechgate Drive. (KK) Commissioner Mowlds made a motion to approve Staff's recommendation, which was seconded by commissioner Hayes. Approved, (5-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS VIA. VARIANCE NO. 367, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1714• Mr. and Mrs. Milan Veteska, 5503 Graylog Street. (FF) Assistant Planner de Freitas read the Staff Report. This project has been before the Commission twice before and has been continued to tonight's hearing. Since the first two hearings, the applicant has constructed a temporary frame silhouette of the proposed addition to assist Staff and Commission analysis and to provide the neighbors an opportunity to see how the project would look. Staff's continued recommendation, after the construction of the temporary frame, is to deny the application. This recommendation is because all the findings for the variance cannot be made (primarily because of view impairment for an adjacent neighbor) and because the project does not satisfy several objectives of the General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 4 Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing and called the applicant or the applicant's representative. f I Irena Veteska, 5503 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. (applicant) Mrs. Veteska stated that five years ago she and her family of three moved to Rancho Palos Verdes. After her son was killed last year, she and her husband made the decision to build a bigger house and have more children. They have a newborn now and wish to have three more children, but the existing house is not suited for children. Mrs. Veteska added that they like Rancho Palos Verdes and do not want to move. Mariana Groisman, P. O. Box 22067, Newhall, CA. (representative for the applicant) Ms. Groisman stated that she designed the proposed addition. Because the lot is irregular and has very steep slopes, there was no other choice for expansion other than over the extreme slope, which is why the Variance is being requested. She passed around a drawing of the project and explained that the darkened section represents the existing house and everything beyond is a very steep slope. She explained that the addition was first designed across the highest slope and then, following Staff's advice, was modified. She stated that all the grading would be done under the existing house. The grading would not take place on the highest slope and would not change the natural slope because they were very careful about that. she added that, unfortunately, there is no other possibility of expanding the Veteska house without blocking the very limited view of the neighbor next door. She explained that they tried to plan the design to maintain the neighbor's view and, as a matter of fact, developed the project four feet lower than the required height limit to improve the situation. She passed around to the Commissioners some photographs to better illustrate the situation. Commissioner Alberio said that he had visited the street above the next door neighbor and there appears to be a land subsidence problem. The photographs indicate that this project could cause additional subsidence and he expressed concern that the house could be damaged by this condition if it existed. Ms. Groisman replied that grading was planned carefully and necessary steps were take to avoid land subsidence. Commissioner Alberio asked how steep the slope was in the area where the addition is proposed. Ms. Groisman said that parts of it are 2 to 1 (50%), while other parts are steeper. Commissioner Alberio asked if the steeper parts were 45 degrees and Ms. Groisman replied that some parts were even more than 45 degrees PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 5 (100%) . Another point Ms. Groisman wished to make was that the first time this project was presented, there was a misunderstanding as to how many property's views would be' affected and it really is only one neighbor. Commissioner Mowlds commented that Ms. Groisman had said the next door neighbor presently had an extremely limited view, but he reported that he was at the property the day before and he could see the whole city to downtown Los Angeles. Ms. Groisman answered that this is the view from the corner of the property. She added that the next door neighbor, in his letter to the Planning Commission, mentioned that he has a view from his kitchen, but from that position there is a very limited view. Commissioner Mowlds remarked that Ms. Groisman stated that this project only affects one property. He said the City's Code states that view impairment from only one property can still be considered significant. Commissioner Mowlds added that the Rancho Palos Verdes Code prohibits construction of buildings on extreme slopes and that is what is being proposed, with caissons and columns coming out of the ground. Ms. Groisman responded that the house next door is built in this same fashion. Commissioner Mowlds explained that, with the adoption of the Development Code in 1975, these structures are now considered to be non-conforming to the Code. Ms. Groisman repeated that there is no other way to develop this property. Ms. Groisman replied that she was guided by the Staff as to how best to expand the residence, in light of the difficult topographic conditions on the site. Commissioner Lorenzen described his visit to the next door neighbor's house and that the view from his kitchen and living room is very nice view. The temporary frame indicates that if this structure was built, the property owner would be looking at a solid wall. To keep his view, he would have to add a second story. Rollin Sturgeon, 5456 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Sturgeon expressed his opinion that the applicants have been given bad advice regarding enlarging this house on this particular lot. He further set forth his concerns that the enlargement of this house will not be good for the neighborhood because when this big PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 6 house, which he feels is unattractive, is resold, it will appeal to somebody who wants a multiple family structure, which would negatively impact the neighborhood. Richard Hanson, 5430 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Hanson stated that he has lived at this location for 32 years and also owns the house across the street at 5431 Bayridge Road. He reported that he sent a letter of November 22, 1993, objecting to the height of the proposed project,which would eliminate a significant part of his view. With the height reduction of four feet, the situation is improved. He expressed his opinion that this addition would not be in character with the rest of the houses in the neighborhood and that the heavy equipment necessary to install the caisson foundation for the addition would destroy a lot of the vegetation on the fragile hillside. He recommended that the project not be allowed. Stewart Widoff, 5502 Graylog Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. He confirmed that he has a great view of the Los Angeles basin from his back yard and from the living room and kitchen. If the proposed plans are approved, his view will be completely eliminated and the three houses above him would lose their canyon view, although they would retain some of their city view. According to Staff, similar house plans were submitted about a year ago and never even reached the Planning Commission; they were turned down at the onset. If a variance is granted to this applicant to block his view, he could then get a variance to build a second story which would block his neighbor's view and there could be a chain reaction of variances. Mr. Widoff reported that he had two letters from reactors indicating that the proposed addition's elimination of his view would reduce his property value from $15,000 to $50,000. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to close the public hearing which was seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Approved by acclamation. Commissioner Mowlds supports the Variance, because the City does slope and a Variance should not the view of a neighbor. Staff recommendation to deny the not allow building on an extreme be granted which would eliminate The recording secretary indicated there was one additional speaker who had completed a Request to Speak form before the meeting began, but had been missed during the public hearing. Commissioner Alberio made a motion to re -open the public hearing and it was seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Approved by acclamation. Dean Herbrandson, 5519 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 7 Herbrandson informed the Commission that he has lived in the neighborhood for three years and has a wonderful view. He opposes the project because the size and architectural style of the addition would not be compatible with the neighborhood and, although his view would not be directly blocked, he would look down at the proposed addition's 750 sq. ft. glass skylight. Because his view is of distant lights down the hill and the foreground is completely black, the light from this skylight would lessen the view quality. He also expressed concerned about building into the canyon's sensitive eco -system; it is a preserved area and should remain that way. He also added that his wife looked at the contour lines on the project plans and reported that the slope for the proposed addition is about 62%. Mr. Herbrandson explained that he has nothing against the Veteska's and believes that the house would be ideal for another location with flatter ground. Ms. Groisman clarified that, regarding square footage, the plan met the standards, as far as setbacks, open space, etc. Commissioner Alberio made a motion to close the public hearing and it was seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Approved by acclamation. Commissioner Alberio stated that this addition is proposed to be built on an extreme slope, which the Code prohibits. Because of that fact, along with the view impairment of the next door neighbor, he felt that the Variance should be denied. He also observed, though he admitted it would be no reason to reject the addition, that there will be no yard in which the children could play. Commissioner Lorenzen agreed that with the extreme slope this was not a very useable lot, and combined the blocking of the neighbor's view, it appeared to him that denial is the correct action. Commissioner Hayes concurred with Commissioners Alberio and Lorenzen's comments Commissioner Hayes made a motion to accept Staff's recommendation to deny the Variance and the Grading Permit and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen. Before a vote was taken, Chairman Katherman requested information from Assistant Planner de Freitas. Since the architect (Ms. Groisman) had indicated that she had been working with Staff on the design, Chairman Katherman asked if there were any alternative design schemes suggested, even one that would require a different type of variance. Assistant Planner de Freitas replied that the previous discussions between the applicant did not include him personally. However, he PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 8 said it was his opinion that, because of the difficulty of the topography of the lot and the configuration of the existing structure, in order to design a project that would not require a Variance, they would have to place the addition under the existing footprint, which would not increase the lot coverage. Chairman Katherman expressed his sympathy on behalf of the Commission to the applicant, who wishes to expand her home, but has a very difficult site. For the Commission to approve a Variance, one of the findings is that the action would not be detrimental or injurious to the adjoining property owner. However, the Commission cannot make this finding. His only suggestion was to seek an alternate design or site for this project. Without objection, the motion on the floor was approved. Chairman Katherman stated that he would be signing the Resolution that evening and the 15 -day appeal period would commence the following day. VIB. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 119 - REVISION "All, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 656• PacTel, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. (DJ) Commissioner Hayes excused herself from the dais, because of the proximity of her home to this site. ' Associate Planner Jerex was not present because of an injury. In her absence, Planning Administrator Petru read the Staff Report. The Commission first heard this item on November 9, 1993, and at that public hearing, Staff and the applicant were given specific directions to follow up on nine issues of concern. The issues were researched and brought back on December 14, 1993. However, due to a lack of quorum at that meeting, the Commission continued the item to January 11, 1994. Since that time, Staff and the applicant have had additional time to look over the proposed conditions of approval and the applicant has raised some questions regarding the specific language of a few of the conditions. The applicant's first question involved Condition #4. Staff revised this language to clarify that, if there is an increase in the power level and/or a change of the usage of the antennas on the monopole, a revision to the Conditional Use Permit would be required. An attempt has been made to be more specific, since the word "change" is such a generic term. The applicant's second concern was that there was nothing specified in the conditions regarding emergency situations. As a result, Condition #6 was added which states that in the case of a natural disaster or similar emergency, PacTel, at the discretion of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 9 City Manager, or his designee, may be permitted the temporary erection of antennas on the monopole on the City Hall site. Permission would be obtained within a specific time frame set by the City Manager or his designee and, if PacTel did not comply with this deadline, the Conditional Use Permit could be subject to revocation. In addition, on November 9, 1993, the Commission asked that a visual analysis be prepared for the Commission that showed not only the antennas proposed by PacTel, but also those proposed by L.A. Cellular and NexTel. The applicant has provided these graphics and they were included in the agenda packets this evening. Commissioner Alberio asked about the comparison of this site to the one in Yorba Linda and Planning Administrator Petru indicated that this information was included in the packets for the December 14, 1993 meeting. She also indicated that the amount of radio waves produced at the Yorba Linda site were well under Federal emission standards. Dean Brown, The Planning consortium, 111 Town & Country Road, #37, Orange, CA. (Land Use Agent for PacTel Cellular) At the last hearing, the Commission requested an additional visualization of all the future antenna changeouts that may occur on the monopole. Even though PacTel had no control over the additional antennas approved by City Staff for L. A. Cellular or NexTel and receives no revenue from these additional users, PacTel has been, made responsible for analyzing the visual and cumulative health impacts of the existing, approved antennas, as well as potential changes and impacts. PacTel has now prepared three computer visual simulations at considerable expense in order to provide Staff and the Commission with the best estimate of what the monopole will look like with everyone's antennas, including future antennas as shown. He re-emphasized that PacTel's Cellular's antennas modifications involve taking off three omnidirectional slender whip antennas that are pointed in the upward fashion and attaching ten channel antennas to the existing triangular support structure at the top of the monopole and attaching one dish antenna. The size of the dish antenna has been reduced from 61 to 41 to reduce the mass of the antennas, while providing the smallest antennas that still be functional. These modifications lower the overall height of the antennas and reduce the power levels of the radio wave emissions. L.A. Cellular and NexTel received administrative approvals for their antennas and, apparently, now Southern California Edison wishes to add three small whip antennas. Since PacTel has been required to go through a lengthy Conditional Use Permit process, that analyzes not only the aesthetics but the health effects, it PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 18 seems reasonable that when other users came on the monopole they would have to do the same. The local radio club technical experts reviewed the technical data, including the report comparing this facility with the one in Yorba Linda that operates at significantly higher power levels, and it is their opinion that neither facility poses health risks. PacTel Cellular entered into a lease with the City in 1988. The City Attorney has indicated that the monopole cannot be moved or be lowered in height unless the City constructs a new City Hall. There were six City Council hearings in 1988 during which local residents provided input and the City decided on the current location and height. PacTel Cellular has complied with all of Staff's and the Commission's requests and has renegotiated a new lease with the City's Finance Director. In addition, PacTel has met with local resident groups to discuss visual and health impacts. PacTel has reviewed the revised conditions and agrees with Condition #6 regarding emergency situations except that it only addresses additional antennas, not more channels or the incremental power increase needed for those channels. In an emergency situation, typically, additional antennas are not added, although it might be necessary to add an additional microwave dish to provide a microwave line rather than a land line if the land lines have been severed by an earthquake or a fire. Therefore, in an emergency, PacTel would be requesting to increase the power level at 100 watts per additional channel and possibly an additional microwave dish, but the new Condition #6 only refers to additional antennas. Commissioner Mowlds suggested that Condition #7 be added stating that, in case of a natural disaster, PacTel should be allowed to add an additional microwave dish, increase the power level, and the number of channels for five days without previous written permission from the City. After the emergency has passed, formal approval must be given by the city Manager or his designee. Mr. Brown said that PacTel currently has 13 channels operating. If they wanted to increase channels and increase power by 100 watts for each channel, would PacTel be required to come back to the Planning commission for approval? If so, this process could take three to six months and, during that time frame, cellular traffic may drop and the extra channel would not be needed by then. This is the technical aspect of how these cell sites work. Commissioner Mowlds asked the number of channels that PacTel will need in two years. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 11 • • Mr. Brown said 15 channels, and if all the development projects along the Coastline go forward, with everyone using cellular phones, it is possible they would need more than 15. Commissioner Mowlds asked if approval for 15 channels at this time would mean that PacTel would not have to come back for further approval. He added that the City would want additional revenue for the additional channels requested and stated that he assumed PacTel is paying by the channel. Mr. Brown replied that the contract requires that PacTel pay an annual fee, plus CPI increases. The recently renegotiated lease with the City Finance Director has resulted in an increase in the annual payments from $22,500 to $25,500, just for the minor antenna modifications. None of their PacTel's leases, at 300 sites, provide for payment per channel, since this number can vary throughout the year. He added that PacTel will not need any additional space within the City Hall building, where the electronic equipment is kept, nor will additional antennas be needed. Commissioner Lorenzen asked whether the placement of the different layers of antennas on the poles required minimum space between them, or if more antennas could be placed between the current ones. Mr. Brown replied that there is a required distance, especially between the whip antennas. The L.A. Cellular layer of antennas under PacTel's antennas was specifically set to avoid conflict and NexTells antennas, which are not on the monopole yet, will require that same spacing. Commissioner Lorenzen questioned whether or not another level of antennas could be added on the pole. Mr. Brown answered that he thought the antennas were about as low as cellular carriers could go because the lowest one is just above the height of the roof of City Hall. Jeff Cameron, 30963 Via La Cresta, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Cameron is the President of the Sunset Ridge Homeowners Association and had spoken at two recent hearings against the monopole itself and any additions to it. He added that their arguments are clear and concise and a matter of record so there is no need to be redundant; however, he did want to mention that the neighbors feel they have little power in this situation. He requested that a correction be made on the photo board to show that the view from the balcony of the lower right corner is from his property, not 30961 Via La Cresta, as was indicated. Commissioner Alberio asked if Mr. Cameron was worried about any PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY Ill 1994 PAGE 12 health hazards created by the monopole. Mr. Cameron replied that he had lived in the Los Angeles basin all his life, where there are hazards in the air everywhere, and felt he is far enough away from the pole to be unconcerned, especially because the applicant seems to have determined that there is no health risk. He repeated that the residents' objection is to impairment of their views, the by-product of which is a decrease in their property values. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue related that she began attending City Council meetings in 1988 and did not recall any public hearings about this monopole. She expressed her opinion that the monopole is an abomination and that she is very much concerned about the health hazards. Director Bernard stated that the City files indicate that there was a public hearing on March 1, 1988, and that the Council did approve an 801 monopole, at that time. Dean Brown, in rebuttal, commented that these facilities offer substantial public safety benefits. They have proved to be very valuable in emergency situations and there are hundreds of thousands of calls made from cellular phones every year that report emergency situations. He added that PacTel is required to come back to the Commission regularly to report on new technology. If this new technology will enable PacTel to lower the height of the monopole to reduce the visual impacts and to reduce the effective radiated power of the signals being produced, this will be done. Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Brown if he had an option to improve Mr. Cameron's view, something that hadn't already been mentioned. Mr. Brown responded that PacTel's agreement with the City required them to relocate the monopole if a new City Hall is built and that they would be happy to incorporate their antennas into the design of the new structure, possibly a screened roof mounted configuration. Chairman Katherman asked if PacTel's antennas could be moved down the pole and Mr. Brown replied this was not possible without conflicting with the other users. Commissioner Alberio made a motion to close the public hearing and it was seconded by commissioner Lorenzen. Approved by acclamation. Commissioner Alberio compared the determination that the monopole poses no health risk to the fact that, in the past, both asbestos and breathing secondary smoke were considered safe. He wanted to go on record that he was concerned about the health hazard of these PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 13 • antennas. Ll Commissioner Lorenzen asked Staff if the City has committed on the location for NexTells antennas. Planning Administrator Petru responded that a lease was signed with NexTel almost a year ago but no antennas have been installed yet, even though they are paying the City monthly. Commissioner Lorenzen asked if this lease is renewed annually and could they be removed. Planning Administrator Petru answered that the lease runs until a modification is made to the configuration and they cannot be removed, unless a new City Hall is constructed. Commissioner Mowlds said that he remembered the public hearing for the original installation of the monopole. On the question of health risk, he felt reassured by the fact that there will be less emissions with PacTel's modifications and by discussions with city Councilman Byrd, who he considers an expert in this field, and findings of the U. S. Navy study in San Diego. He added that this site was chosen carefully in 1988 and Mel Hughes, who is a member of the local radio club, was involved in the approval at that time. Director Bernard suggested making the following changes to Exhibit "All Conditions of Approval. For Condition #4, on the third line which begins "any increases in power levels and/or changes in usage...", add "other than for natural disasters or similar emergency situations". For Condition #6, change it to read "in case of natural disaster or similar emergency situation and, at the discretion of the City Manager or his designee, be permitted to erect temporary antennas and related ground equipment, and/or increase the power levels on and for the monopole. Said antennas shall be removed within the time parameters authorized by the City Manager or his designee, or this Conditional Use Permit may be subject to revocation". He also recommended adding Condition #7 as per Commissioner Mowlds suggestion above stating that, "In case of a natural disaster, PacTel should be allowed to add an additional microwave dish, increase the power level, and the number of channels for five days without permission. After that period, approval must be given by the city Manager or his designee." Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Brown if he had any objections or comments to these suggestion conditions of approval recommended by Staff. Mr. Brown responded by asking if it would be possible to set a limit for normal operation of 15 channels instead of the 13 currently in use without having to come back for a modification to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 14 the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Katherman answered that it was his opinion that it would not be necessary to have a public hearing for what he would view as an insignificant increase. Director Bernard said that Staff had no problem if there was a reasonable request. Chairman Katherman clarified that these modifications would be take place inside City Hall, not on the pole. Director Bernard said the channels should be limited to 15 and a revision would be required to exceed that. Planning Administrator Petru suggested the following language: "Any increase beyond 15 channels, not to exceed of 100 watts per channel, shall require a separate revision to this Conditional Use Permit. She also suggested another change regarding Condition #6 to add "the related ground equipment and/or increase in the suggested power levels and channels". Chairman Katherman commented that, although he appreciated the asbestos argument, he is swayed by the fact that the radio wave emissions are actually being decreased, so any possible health risks would be diminished, if not eliminated. Moreover, the Commission has to deal with the reality of the lease commitments the City has made. He also expressed sympathy to Mr. Cameron and wondered whether there could be some other way of screening the pole. He added that denying this request would not cause the removal of the pole and the City has an obligation to meet the technological requirements of the cell site, so he would in favor of approving the Conditional Use Permit, as modified, and asked for a motion to that effect. Commissioner Alberio said that he still had reservations about the health risks and mentioned information from the Wall Street Journal regarding electro magnetic fields causing cancer and other health problems. Commissioner Mowlds made a motion to adopt the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 656 and it was seconded by Chairman Katherman. Approved (3-1-1) with Commissioner Alberio dissenting and Commissioner Hayes abstaining as she had excused herself from the discussion because of the proximity of her home to the site. Commissioner Mowlds made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 119 - Revision "A" and it was seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 15 Before a vote was taken, Planning Administrator Petru proposed clarifying language for Condition #7: "If the applicant is unable to obtain approval from the City Manager or his designee during a natural disaster or other emergency situation, the applicant shall obtain written authorization from the City within five working days of the event". Approved (3-1-1) with Commissioner Alberio dissenting and Commissioner Hayes abstaining as she had excused herself from the discussion because of the proximity of her home to the site. Chairman Katherman stated that he would be signing both Resolutions that evening and that the 15 -day appeal period will commence the following day. Planning Administrator Petru said that she failed to mention during the Staff Report that the Staff is still seeking direction from the Commission on the issue of additional antennas. Chairman Katherman replied that other cellular companies should go through the same public process. The public needs to be notified and included. Commissioner Mowlds made a motion that if any of the other companies elect to modify their antennas, they must be reviewed by the Planning commission as a Conditional Use Permit or Revision (which would require a public hearing) and it was seconded by Chairman Katherman. Approved (4-0-1) with commissioner Hayes abstaining as she had excused herself from the discussion because of the proximity of her home to the site. Break from 9:25 to 9:47 P.M., at which time, there was a brief caucus in the back room between Scott Yanofsky (the landowner's representative), Andy and Gail Lorenzen, Director Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Chairman Katherman and Commissioner Alberio (two of the three members of the Subcommittee), and Lois Larue. CONSENT CALENDAR VA. Minutes of December 6, 1993. (continued discussion) Director Bernard reported that during the discussion of the clarifying agreement, each party had some difference with one of the sections in the agreement so no final agreement was reached. Chairman Katherman stated that each party would have one minute to restate their case. Angus Lorenzen, 15 Diamonte Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Lorenzen said there is a minor problem with understanding intent of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 16 the Planning Commission from the December 6, 1993 meeting. When he proposed the compromise solution, he and his neighbors believed it was the intent of the Commission to accept that compromise as the basis for the trimming of the trees. The Staff Report had proposed removing approximately seven trees with no trimming of the others. He proposed in the compromise that three additional trees be removed and that trees be trimmed lightly in this area (pointed to the left side of his drawing) to return views of the San Pedro channel and down to a lower level (pointed again) that would return the Long Beach Vincent Thomas Bridge views. The Resolution and the Conditions are vague, which puts the burden of the decision on the Staff. Mr. Lorenzen mentioned the letter he had written asking the Commission to provide the Staff with more specific direction. Scott Yanofsky, 1142 Manhattan Avenue, #311, Manhattan Beach. Mr. Yanofsky stated that the process has already begun and close to $10,000 has been spent on cutting trees. Approximately eight trees have been removed on Diamonte Lane. The north slope has been worked on and the north ridge of the property. He stated his opinion that Mr. Lorenzen's drawing was unclear and not to scale. Mr. Yanofsky said he was willing to talk further with Mr. Lorenzen and expressed his desire to continue the process, which would mean Staff would review the progress so far. He said that if more trimming is needed, it will be done, and added that all the Commission's requirements will be met. Commissioner Mowlds indicated that it was difficult to pinpoint the trees affected and that he had suggested at the last meeting that a chart be made. He is concerned about confusion and controversy into the future. Mr. Yanofsky said that, in reviewing the minutes, it seemed like the Lorenzen's had indicated the channel was the most important view to them. By cutting down the trees on Diamonte Lane, it would expose this view. By trimming the trees near the front door of the house, a small amount of the channel view was exposed, as well as the Vincent Thomas Bridge view. He expressed his opinion that any more changes to the trees should be left to the discretion of Staff. Commissioner Mowlds repeated that it was important to make the situation as clear as possible and that the approval of the December 6, 1993 minutes will be the last issue for the Planning Commission. After that, it would become a matter for the View Restoration Committee. Mr. Yanofsky said there was one particular tree that was talked about in the meeting that is being removed. He repeated his willingness to continue with the process and comply in any way necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 17 Chairman Katherman remembered that Associate Planner Silverman had suggested using a series of photographs rather than a drawing, because the sheer volume of trees made it impossible to physically locate them all. In addition, the thinning and removal process would be iterative; since, as foliage is removed, it may reveal trees behind that also block the view. Indicating it was also his recollection, Chairman Katherman read from the minutes of December 6,1993, top of page 9: "Mr. Lorenzen also requested minor trimming in a grove of eucalyptus and a grove of pines that would contribute to restoration of his harbor/Vincent Thomas Bridge view. He indicated these two groups of trees on the photo board". Chairman Katherman's memory was that Staff would review the trimming process in this area of the property and that Commission had asked that only three additional trees be completely removed. Commissioner Alberio agreed that Staff was given some discretion to go in the field and to work with both parties. Commissioner Hayes added that she did remember the problem of trees behind trees, i.e., finding more trees to be trimmed after the trimming started. Comm ' issioner Alberio suggested that an exact transcription of the tape might be helpful. Director Bernard suggested that approval of the December 6, 1993 Minutes be postponed until the next meeting, when a complete verbatim transcription of that meeting could be provided. Chairman Katherman announced that consideration of December 6, 1993 Minutes would be continued to the January 25, 1994 meeting and returned to the regular agenda order. VIC. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96 - REVISION "B" AND MISCELLANEOUS HEARING; St. John Fisher Catholic Church, 5448 Crest Road. (KK) Chairman Katherman excused himself because he has performed work for the Catholic Archdiocese on other projects. He turned the chair over to Co -Vice Chairperson Alberio. The Staff Report was read by Assistant Planner Klopfenstein. St. John Fisher Church has submitted Conditional Use Permit No. 96, Revision "B" and a Miscellaneous Hearing to expand the existing sanctuary, and add an elevator and an 851 tower with a cross. At the December 14, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, the concerns expressed by the adjacent neighbors centered on the proposed bell tower, particularly its height, mass, visibility from surrounding properties, potential night-time illumination and noise that would be created by the ringing of bells. The Commission directed Staff PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 18 • • to conduct a visual analysis of the bell tower using helium balloons prior to this meeting. on January 4, 1994, Staff held a meeting at the St. John Fisher Church to view an estimation of the height of the proposed bell tower. Based on the results of the "balloon test", Staff feels that the potential adverse impacts of the tower could be mitigated through a redesign of the bell tower and placement of the following conditions: 1. Reduce the height of the bell tower to 301 with a 101 cross above it, for a maximum combined height of 401-011. 2. The bells shown on the plans for the tower shall be decorative only, and rendered inoperable, and there shall be no "actual" ringing of bells. Staff recommends that, if allowed, a recorded tape of bells should be used only on Sundays and special religious holidays (as approved by the Director), and be further limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on those days, and not to exceed 65 decibels as measured at the adjacent residential property lines. 3. Any illumination of the bell tower shall require a subsequent Site Plan Review application, and shall be subject to the review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Staff recommends, again if allowed, that illumination of the tower shall not exceed 10:00 P.M., except as permitted by the City for special occasions. Staff recommends approval of the project subject to these modified conditions, attached as Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report. Mr. Roy Young, 118 S. Catalina Avenue, Redondo Beach, CA. (architect for the project) Mr. Young stated that they have read the conditions and he wished to address Condition #3, which limits the size of the bell tower to 100 sq. ft. in area and 301, as measured from the lowest foundation adjacent to the building to the top of the tower and the maximum 101 cross may be affixed to the top of the bell tower, for a maximum combined height of 401. His concern is that these conditions compromise the aesthetics of the project. He suggested that it is not appropriate for a bell tower to be as low as 301, and would consider a 651 tower to be more appropriate. Commissioner Mowlds asked Mr. Young about his professional experience and to give his opinion about the "out of scale" comment made by Staff. Mr. Young replied that he has been a licensed architect since 1959 and considers himself an expert at determining whether an PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 19 architectural element is "out of scale" project. He feels the 301 tower would be with the church building. with the rest of the very much "out of scale" Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Young what is used for a comparison in determining "out of scale" and Mr. Young said the size of human beings, buildings and other things people regularly come in contact with, the same way a room is determined to be large or small, etc. Commissioner Alberio asked about the normal height of church towers. Mr. Young gave examples of two Catholic churches in the South Bay: St. Lawrence Martyr in Redondo Beach has 751 twin towers and Holy Trinity in San Pedro has a 1001 tower. Commissioner Hayes suggested that at the 301 height, possibly the sauare footaae would have to be less for balance. Mr. Young agreed, and, conversely, a 651 tower would have to have more area than 100 sq. ft. and he recommended approximately 400 sq. ft. Monsignor Gill, 5448 Crest Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. (applicant) Monsignor Gill expressed his appreciation to the Staff on the efforts they made at the site measuring with the balloons under very windy conditions. He explained that the building currently being used as the church was intended to be converted to a social hall later and a new, permanent church building erected, but economic conditions have changed. Now the plan is to modify this building so that it is functionally and architecturally more like a church. He indicated that he agreed with the architect that a 651 height for the bell tower would be acceptable because of proportion of the buildings, but also because other churches on the hill have high towers. He gave examples of other towers such as the Lutheran Church at 731, the Baptist church at 681 and the Wayfarer's Chapel at 601. Bob Cooper, 25 San Clemente Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Cooper stated that he lives in the Island View Development across from St. John Fisher Church and that his children attend St. John Fisher School. He indicated that he did not find a 651 tower offensive and felt that it is in keeping with other facilities in the area, particularly the Baptist and Morman Churches on Crestridge Road, which have towers 651 or higher and are located adjacent to residential areas. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Cooper his opinion on the ringing of bells. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 20 Mr. Cooper replied that he thought that the height of the tower was more the issue and that it was his understanding that a carillon would be used. He recommended that the time be extended from 5:00 to 6:00 PM on Sunday evening because there is a very well attended mass at that time. Lorna Burrell, 1 Park Place, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Burrell stated that she lives south of the church and enjoys the ringing of bells. She related that when she attended UCLA, bells rang all the time and she believed it provided a tranquil atmosphere. She added that she felt real bells would be preferable to a simulation. Allan Colman, 18 Mela Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Colman stated that his home is in the Villa Verde area, diagonally across from the church. He is representing the Homeowners Association, who oppose anything being developed above 30' and do not want illumination or sound from the tower at any time. He emphasized that this project will provide visual and noise pollution and nothing more. He commented that he understood, from talking to Staff, that the applicant originally intended the tower to provide an identity on the site for the expanded sanctuary. He felt this tower was more like a sign identifying the church to the entire peninsula since it will be visible for a great distance. He expressed his opinion this project is offensive and that destruction of the character of the neighborhood is at risk, even though the church has existed for years in relative harmony with the neighborhood. He added that the other steeples referred to are clearly in areas of more mixed use and don't have the impact on wide areas of residential neighborhoods. Mr. Colman said that State law requires that in granting any exception to find at least three things: Ill Is it materially detrimental to the surrounding properties (he feels it is), {2} Is it contrary to the objectives of the general plan (he believes this will impair the site of perhaps hundreds of people) and {3} Is it necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right of the applicant which right is also possessed by others in the neighborhood (he feels the answers is no). Mr. Colman also addressed the issue of "scale". Although he did not believe the architect was wrong in the scale of the bell tower to the church, the scale is totally wrong in connection with the surrounding neighborhood. He explained that he was a planning director, redevelopment agency director, and county administrator for 20 years in the cities of San Diego, Inglewood, and San Mateo and in Fresno county, and consideration of the neighborhood in nonconforming uses was always a key concern. Mr. Colman provided photographs mounted on a board showing a church PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 21 in Rolling Hills Estates currently under construction just north of the corner of Crenshaw Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive North with a 601 tower with a 201 cross on top of it. Since the cross had not yet been added, he explained that he had drawn in the 801 height and taken photographs from 4001 and from 3001 away from the tower. Another photograph showed the view of the proposed St. John Fisher tower from the houses at #6 and #8 Mela Lane, a distance of approximately 3501 away. Mr. Colman expressed his opinion that this photograph showed the tremendous impact this tower would have on the adjacent neighbors, even at 401 in height. Commissioner Mowlds asked Mr. Colman if he was at home when the balloons were up. Mr. Colman said that, unfortunately, when he was there, the wind was blowing so badly, the balloons were about 401 off the ground and never went straight up, but if they had, they would have been at about the height indicated in one of his pictures. There was a discussion between Commissioner Mowlds and Mr. Colman regarding the zoning in this area. The determination was ultimately made that the subject property is in an Institutional zone. In addition, when this land was part of Los Angeles County, it was an institutional nonconforming use. Douglas Butler, 5417 Valley View Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Butler stated that he lives adjacent to the church and is representing the Rancho Crest Homeowners Association, which owns and maintains the open space between the homes and the church. Mr. Butler expressed his opinion that St. John Fisher is a unique site because it is at the crest of a hill, surrounded by homes. He felt it was appropriate to compare it to St. Lawrence in Redondo Beach, since it is in a urban area, facing apartment houses, and Pacific Coast Highway and shopping centers are one block away. He stated that this project is out of character for the neighborhood, which is quiet and rural. He mentioned other churches in the neighborhood that do not have bell towers at all, for example, Ascension Lutheran Church on Silver Spur, St. Paul's Lutheran Church Palos Verdes Drive West. Mr. Butler passed around photographs to the Commission showing the height of the balloon and some pictures of Ascension and St. Lawrence churches. He listed three problems with the proposed tower, the height and mass, the sound, and lighting. The Rancho Crest Homeowner Association would not oppose a tower of 301 with a 101 cross, but would request that the church plant trees so the tower and cross would not be seen off-site from neighboring homes. However, the Association is strongly against bells or additional lighting. He added that if sound is allowed, the 65 decibel level being PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 22 discussed is too loud. Commissioner Alberio asked if the church or the subdivision was there first, and Mr. Butler indicated that the church was. Commissioner Alberio asked if he did not anticipate there could have been bells and towers. Mr. Butler said he knew there was a church there, but it was well hidden from view. He realized there would be some be noise from the church, but had never considered that there might be a bell tower. Alan Weissman, 5306 Valley View Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Weissman's concerns are about the bell tower and related issues. He recalled that when he was president of the Homeowners Association in 1986, they were cooperative with the City in giving up curbs and street cleaning in order to maintain a rural atmosphere of their neighborhood. He felt that a tower, whether it is 85 or 651, violated that rural atmosphere. Mr. Weissman moved to the neighborhood in early 1985 and was told by the real estate broker and the developer that there would not be any bell tower or steeples at the church. Carl Anselmo, 5249 Valley View Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Anselmo, stated that he first moved to the neighborhood in May 1984 and feels the proposed 65 decibel level is too high. He distributed to the commission and Staff a table which lists the sound levels of common activities. He indicated that he believes the noise level on his street is probably about 30 to 35 decibels and that, if the tower does have bells or recorded music, the maximum sound level should be reduced substantially below 65 decibels. Fred Wright, 5327 Valley View Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Wright stated that he is a member of the Rancho Crest Homeowners Association and has lived in the neighborhood since 1981. He explained that St. John Fisher has been a good neighbor and that the only thing that has bothered him is the parking lot lights. Therefore, he is concerned about lighting of the tower. He indicated that he is not bothered by the proposed height (65f) of the tower. Joan Olenick, 5431 Valley View Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. olenick purchased her home in 1980 and at that time drove to the site on Saturday and Sunday specifically to listen for noise from the church and eventually found out there were no church bells. She added that many residents in the Island View area were not noticed about the hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 23 • • Planning Administrator Petru explained that the legal notification area is a 500' radius which included only the first row of homes along Crenshaw Boulevard. Stan Olenick, 5431 Valley View Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Olenick expressed opposition to ringing or recorded bells because his work requires him to work many weekends and often all night; therefore, his sleep is precious to him. He recalled an incident when they were having an open house after they had been living in the neighborhood about a year. They had a band consisting of a guitar and keyboard band which was practicing in the afternoon with no amplifier. Two of the St. John Fisher sisters came by and asked if they could stop the music until their services were finished. They complied and would like the same consideration from the church. There was a break from 11:10 to 11:17 PM Roy Young rebutted by saying that many times churches are located in residential areas and that trees should not be used to conceal buildings, but to enhance their appearance. He surmised that the bells, rather than the tower, seem to be the most troublesome issue. Notion made to close the public hearing by Commissioner Mowlds and seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Approved, (4-0). Commissioner Mowlds opined that, based on his many years of construction experience, a 101 square obelisk would not be massive. He also felt that a 301 tower would be too short and that a compromise height of 651 seemed fair. The parking lot lighting appeared to be a valid problem, which could be solved by shielding and directing the lights away from the residences. He added that possibly the noise at 65 decibels is too loud, especially carrying down into the valley. Commissioner Mowlds made a motion to approve a 651 cross tower with no bells or amplified sound. He suggested that a noise study be conducted and that the bells be dealt with separately at a later time. commissioner Hayes seconded the motion. Commissioner Lorenzen agreed on the 651 tower height and that the sound issue was serious. He stressed that lighting should be regulated so it is turned off at a decent hour. The proposed time of 10:00 PM seemed late, although the lights could be directed so they did not disturb the neighbors. Monsignor Gill came forward to mention that their lights already have time and directional restrictions and that they will comply with recommendations regarding additional lighting. He added that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 24 the 10:00 PM time is necessary because that is the usual completion time of their evening activities. Commissioner Alberio asked if the compromise about the 651 tower height was acceptable with the Monsignor, and he said it was. Commissioner Alberio asked about the bells. Monsignor Gill explained that if bells are allowed, they would be used as part of the religious liturgy; for example, during funerals it is customary to toll the bells for the deceased. Funerals could be at many different times and this would have to be considered in the time restrictions for ringing the bells. Also, sometimes the President of the United States asks all churches to ring bells for special occasions, which wouldn't necessarily follow the restricted schedule. He stated that he understood the decibel level concern and is willing to be cooperative. Planning Administrator Petru suggested modifying Condition #3 to reflect that "the cross tower shall not exceed 100 sq. ft in area and shall not exceed 501 in height, as measured from the lowest foundation adjacent to the grading to the top of the tower and a maximum 151 cross attached to the top of the tower, for a maximum height of 651". Commissioner Mowlds emphasized that his motion contains no sound - producing devices, only the tower itself. Planning Administrator Petru asked if Condition #5 should be eliminated. Commissioner Mowlds said yes, if that what is needed to get the cross tower approved. He asked if the Resolution should be modified to say that, at some later date, with approval of the Staff and the Church, bells or electronic music could be added. Commissioner Alberio asked if resubmittal or another public hearing would be necessary. Planning Administrator Petru said that it is Staff's opinion that the Planning Commission should be specific now and recommended accepting the Resolution, as written, or modifying it to disallow sound at this time and require subsequent Conditional Use Permit Revision. Commissioner Mowlds asked the cost of a Conditional Use Permit Revision. Planning Administrator Petru said the cost was $600 and that the hearing would require pubic notice. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 25 Director Bernard suggested that the Commission look at two or three different sound measurements levels on the table provided and choose an acceptable decibel level. For example, 40 decibels is a bird call and 50 decibels is the hum of a large transformer. Commissioner Mowlds proposed that a maximum 50 decibel level should be selected. Commissioner Hayes mentioned that the 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM time restriction needed to be addressed because it appeared to be an issue. Commissioner Mowlds suggested 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM because 8:00 AM is very early and the 6:00 PM Sunday service could be included. Monsignor Gill indicated that those hours would be acceptable. Planning Administrator Petru suggested modifying Condition #5 and remove reference to bell tower. Begin with second sentence which reads "a recorded tape of bells can be used for Sundays and special religious holidays as approved by the Director". Commissioner Hayes said that bells themselves could be allowed if they can be kept to 50 decibels Planning Administrator Petru asked if these bells would be on the tower or in another location. Commissioner Mowlds replied that they should not be on the tower. Planning Administrator Petru further modified Condition #5 stating "bells, not located on the tower, or a recorded tape of bells to used on Sundays or special religious holidays between 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM and that the sound level by either shall not exceed 50 decibels as measured from the adjacent residential property line". Commissioner Mowlds accepted the amended motion and Commissioner Hayes seconded it. Planning Administrator Petru 'clarified that no change was being made to the condition regarding illumination of the tower. Approved (3-1), with Chairman Katherman excusing himself and Commissioner Lorenzen dissenting. commissioner Alberio stated that the Resolution would be signed that evening with 15 days to appeal to the City Council, commencing the following day. Chairman Katherman returned to the dais. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 26 NEW BUSINESS VIIA. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1691 - REVISION "A"; Mr. Kenneth Burrell, 11 Marguerite Drive. (FF) Reading of the Staff Report was waived. Lorna Burrell, 1 Park Place, Rancho Palos Verdes. (applicant) Mrs. Burrell stated that there has been confusion about this project because this property has been incorrectly labeled as a dump site, and it is not. The Burrell Group has paid for three permits to accumulate dirt on the property in order to be able to present a grading plan. Mrs. Burrell distributed a map to Commission and the opposition in the audience showing the subject 5.4 acres at Lunada Pointe and pointed out that Lot 1 is part of Tract 40640. She continued that this lot was restricted to a maximum ridge height of 4' and last year the City Council amended it to 12.' Planning Administrator Petru, at that time, brought up the fact that at 12' the future residence built on Lot 1 would cause a view impairment from the lot upslope (11 Marguerite Drive) , which is also still vacant. Mrs. Burrell clarified that, according to the grading plan, all this dirt spread and compacted over the two acres (87,121 sq. ft.) makes the land only 5' higher and only affects these two acres, not Lot 1 or the other bluff top lot. The dirt is now on those two bluff lots and they wanted to move it to the appropriate two -acre section but the City would not allow it. She also mentioned that the grading plan provides (distributed pictures) a pipe to remove water from an existing drain under Palos Verdes Drive West, so that the runoff water will not continue to erode this ditch, which corrects a problem created by the County. Mrs. Burrell described their years of development experience on the peninsula and the fact that they are easy to contact. However, when the dirt was placed on land, no one informed them, but just complained to the City. She indicated they would have prosecuted if they had been provided with the license plate numbers of the trucks doing the illegal dumping. She added that they have now chained the driveway to prevent access. Commissioner Mowlds asked how many loads of dirt were delivered and Mrs. Burrell said she did not know. Commissioner Mowlds questioned why the two families of Burrells who live on this street did not notice the illegal dumping. Mrs. Burrell said that they knew about it, but complaints went to City Hall and no Burrells were called directly. Commissioner Mowlds asked why Burrells should be called and Mrs. Burrell said because they had control of the land. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 27 Mrs. Burrell stated that 950 cu. yds. of the grading was legal; that they had approved permits. Planning Administrator Petru explained that only 500 cu. yds. of stockpiling was actually approved; the application before the Commission that evening requested an additional 950 cu. yds. to be placed on the property. Director Bernard explained that the reason there is a grading permit before the Planning Commission is because of the complaints received by Code Enforcement. The Burrells had been given these options: (1) Bring their property into compliance with the permit they had at the time, which was not to exceed 500 cu. yds. (the dirt be removed by June of this year, as it was not intended to be a permanent deposit) or (2) File a grading permit, which is the option they chose. Chairman Katherman noted that the last City -approved grading permit No. 1691 allowing 500 cu. yds. of material to be stockpiled on the site had a requirement for submittal of a development application within one year. Planning Administrator Petru added that removal of the dirt was also an option. Chairman Katherman asked if the grading permit constitutes a development application and Planning Administrator Petru replied that it did not; however, it does constitute a permanent increase in the pad elevation of that two -acre lot. Planning Administrator Petru commented that it was not known if the Burrell's were prepared to submit development plans for a home. Mrs. Burrell responded that they were not. Ken Burrell, 1 Park Place, Rancho Palos Verdes. (applicant) Mr. Burrell stated that there had been a misunderstanding with the Staff that the Burrell's were continuing to accumulate dirt after the City had told them to stop. Mr. Burrell added that the property had become an attractive nuisance, and anyone in the neighborhood who saw it assumed they could leave dirt there too. He advised the Commission that a "no dumping" sign had been posted, which was not effective and eventually the driveway was chained to prevent entry. Gene Cavecche, 3037 Palos Verdes Drive, West, Palos Verdes Estates. Mr. Cavecche submitted letter to the Commission and noted another point not included in his letter. He stated that he has been in the construction business for 20 years and has learned that honesty is the way to achieve results and that, if deception is allowed to seep in, control is lost. He stressed that this is a law-abiding community and everyone must comply, with no exceptions. Mr. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 28 Cavecche added that an enforcer is needed and this role has been filled by the City Staff. Dr. W. W. Sullivan, 2976 Via Alvarado, Palos Verdes Estates. Dr. Sullivan reported that, for over two years, the residents in the area had looked at two big blue dumpsters on the subject property which have now been replaced by raw dirt. He emphasized that this is a dump site and has been for about four to five years. Included in the material left on the property is broken up asphalt and rock, neither of which is appropriate for fill, the purpose for which Mrs. Burrell says the dirt will be used. He expressed his opinion that the Burrell's have consistently ignored the laws regarding this project and found it hard to believe that this dirt was placed on the property without their permission. At this point Dr. Sullivan read a letter from another resident in the area, Marge Hastings: "Dear Commissioners, I would like to thank the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Staff for delivering material pertaining to 11 Marguerite, Rancho Palos Verdes, to be discussed tonight at your meeting. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the meeting because I had two other board meetings on the schedule for tonight. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I hope you will follow Staff's recommendation to deny dumping on said property and require the Burrell's to remove what has already been dumped. The Burrell Group seems intent on doing exactly what it wants and seems to have no respect for the environment or the impact the dumping has on the general area. During the holidays, I had a fairly large party with people from all over the Peninsula. I don't know how many times I had to try to explain what was going on in the field next to me and how many times people wondered about how it was looking like the old landfill on Crenshaw Boulevard, not a nice comparison. A positive reaction to your Staff's recommendation would be appreciated. Yours very truly, Marge Hastings" Marlene 'Doley, 3041 Palos Verdes Drive, West., Palos Verdes Estates. Ms. Doley reiterated that this material has been dumped illegally and requested denial of the grading permit and removal of the dirt. Commissioner Hayes stated that it is inconceivable that anyone would use asphalt and rock for fill and all the material should be removed. Mr. Burrell commented that he agreed. Commissioner Mowlds noted that it is Staff's opinion that the applicant's request does not satisfy the criteria set forth in Section 17.50.070 of the City's Development Code. The grading is excessive beyond that necessary for the primary use of the lot PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 29 since the lot is designated for development with a single family residence. Chairman Katherman asked Assistant Planner de Freitas if the change in the height allowed for the Lunada Pointe Lot #1 necessitates the need to have a higher pad on this particular lot in question, as Mrs. Burrell stated. Planning Administrator Petru responded, on Mr. de Freitas' behalf, stating that she and Assistant Planner de Freitas had visited the site when Lot #1 was before the City Council to raise the maximum allowable ridge height. One of Staff's concerns was the view impairment from the subject property by increasing the building height of the lot in front. They determined, by standing at a midpoint of that two -acre parcel, that the 121 ridge height would not significantly impair the ocean view from the subject property. Commissioner Hayes asked if there was something the Commission needed to decide tonight, other than just removing the stockpiled material from the property. Planning Administrator Petru pointed out that discussion of the proposed plan might be relevant from the Burrell's point of view because they claim they need to raise the grade in order to make that two -acre parcel a view lot again, or at least improve its view over the two lots that are in front of it. Chairman Katherman expressed his concern that, even though the asphalt and the rock must be removed, if the dirt itself is removed, they will probably need to bring it back in a couple of years to increase the elevation to create a pad for a building on the site. Mr. Burrell approached the podium and asked to make a comment. He said that he believed when they made their application for the accumulating of dirt, they were providing a service. Residents down the street on Marguerite were digging a pool and were going to haul off dirt over city streets to Chandler Dump. Instead, they arranged to place the dirt on the subject property and incorporate it into the grading of the lot. Another family was building a new home and this dirt was accepted also. Mr. Burrell explained that, at that time, they applied to increase the grading permit and thought it was a win-win situation - no trucks would go across the city streets and the residents did not have to pay to dump the dirt. In addition, the Burrell Group would accumulate the dirt needed for their own property. Chairman Katherman speculated that the situation got out of control and what started out as a good plan, began to cause problems for the neighbors living near the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 30 Commissioner Alberio made a motion that the Commission approve the Staff recommendation to deny this request, and it was seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Chairman Katherman questioned whether the lot should be restored to original grade, as surveyed, before the stockpiling began. He noted that the Burrell's do have a permit for 500 cu. yds, and he wondered if it serves any purpose to haul out this dirt only to bring it back again. Commissioner Alberio responded that the fill material must be compacted 90% in 12" layers and the asphalt and rocks cannot be used. He expressed concerns that there may be contamination of the soil. If this was select fill, it would be different, but this may not be the case. Chairman Katherman replied that he was not suggesting that the entire amount of dirt remain, but only the 500 cu. yds. originally approved by Staff. Mrs. Burrell approached the podium and said that the rocks and asphalt could never be compacted and the material would be removed. However, the large number of trucks necessary to remove the soil would be a burden on the neighborhood. She explained that they had planned to smooth out the dirt so it did not look like a dump, but were told by Staff that it had to remain in piles until the grading plan was approved. Chairman Katherman called for a vote on the motion and it was unanimously agreed accept Staff's recommend to deny the grading permit. He note that the minute order would be effective that evening and there would be an appeal period of 15 days. Director Bernard asked for direction from the Commission as to time allowed for removal of the material and, after a brief discussion, the Commission agreed upon 60 days. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the January 25, 1994, meeting. 2. Director Bernard expressed Staff's gratitude and appreciation of a difficult job well done by the Planning Commission the past two years; noting they had set a standard of achievement for future Commissions. B. COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 31 n Chairman Katherman, on behalf of the Commission, thanked Staff for their excellent performance during his tenure; and, expressed his appreciation of his fellow Commissioners. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) Ms. Lois Larue spoke about her Naturalization to become an American citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn at 12:32 AM to January 25, 1994, at 7:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1994 PAGE 32