Loading...
PC MINS 199909280 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 CALL TO ORDER Apg oved 10/ 2 9 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7:02 p m at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Assistant Planner Schonborn led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Paris, Slayden, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Lyon, Chairman Cartwright. Absent None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Director of Public Works Allison, Senior Planner Pfost, Assistant Planner Schonborn, Dr Perry Ehlig, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Clark moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Paris There being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Cartwright. COMMUNICATIONS Council Polk Items Director/Secretary Rous reported that there were no issues decided at the City Council meeting September 21, 1999 that were related to Planning Commission decisions Director/Secretary Rojas distributed several items of late correspondence which included four letters regarding the proposed Abalone Cove improvements (Agenda Item No. 2) and four letters regarding the proposed development at the Porto Verde Apartments (Agenda Item No. 5). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of September 14, 1999 Commissioner Paris noted on page 4 of the minutes the word "to" needed to be Inserted In the fourth paragraph. Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Clark. The minutes were approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Slayden abstaining since he was not at that meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Coastal Permit No. 156 and Variance No. 448: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Abalone Cove Beach Park. Senior Planner Pfost presented the staff report. He began discussing the proposed alternative suggested in a memo by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The alternative incorporated a new connector road which would connect the upper parking lot to the proposed new lower parking lot, thereby eliminating the improved access way that is proposed While staff felt Commissioner Vannorsdall's proposal had merit, staff recommended approving with the project as currently proposed Mr Pfost explained that the project as proposed has been, in concept, approved by the City Council and secondly there is a limitation on the funds available The project is funded by Measure A funds, and after a brief review by the Public Works Department, it was determined that the proposed alternative would cost an additional $100,000. Thirdly, the proposed connector road may cause some additional impact that has not been analyzed under the current environmental review of the project Addressing the concerns of the Commission regarding the geology, Mr. Pfost explained that Dr Ehlig had submitted a geology report on the project to the City Council, which was accepted as the geology for the project. The City Geologist, James Lancaster of Zeiser Kling, Inc , has reviewed Dr. Ehlig's report The Coastal Permit and Variance do not require any additional geologic studies Mr Pfost explained the project would be in compliance with ADA requirements. He explained to the Commission that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project did not identify any potential significant adverse impacts that could not be mitigated, therefore an EIR would not be necessary. In response to comments presented at the August 24 meeting, two additional conditions were included in the draft resolution One requiring that the city geologist review all landscape and Irrigation plans proposed for the project to ensure that irrigation will not cause any impacts to the geologic stability of the site, and the second addressing the hours of operation at the site In conclusion, Mr Pfost stated that staff felt the project meets all necessary findings, and recommends approval of the project. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 2 Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Director Allison about the grading with respect to his proposed alternative. He stated that his impression had been that a slight change in the location of the grading would be a low or no cost item. Director Allison responded that the storm dram in the area would have to be looked at, as well as a water line that would be impacted by the redesign However the biggest cost of the redesign would be the paving of the road. Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed that paving may be an expensive item, however he suggested that the grading be done at this time and the road be paved at a later time when funds become available He asked Dr Ehlig if he had any comments regarding his proposed alternative in terms of geology Dr. Ehlig displayed a chart of the Abalone Cove area and showed the Commission the location of the base of the landslide and areas where dirt would be re -located. He explained that the drainage at the site is currently not very good and the proposed pian will improve the drainage Commissioner Vannorsdall clarified that the plan called for taking dirt from above near Palos Verdes Drive South and moving it down lower to the shore He wondered if it made any difference where you took the dirt from as long as it was from the same general area above Dr. Ehlig answered that from his view point it would be preferable to take the dirt from the area currently proposed, as it would remove dirt from the driving force of the landslide. Commissioner Slayden asked Director Allison about the operation of the park. He stated that at this time there is one attendant at the one entrance Under the current proposal there will be two entrances plus a guard at the parking lot below He wondered how this would be staffed. Director Allison answered that the proposal would allow for one person to be at the guard booth at the parking lot below There will be no entrance guards at the upper parking lot and the person down below will collect the money There is though of having automated, coin operated parking in the area above Commissioner Slayden stated that his concern with the project was that, at present the City has a very nice park for the Peninsula, and opening the area up with additional entrances and parking will cause over -crowding He did not feel staff would have control over the number of cars using the lots Commissioner Clark understood Commissioner Slayden's concerns and further commented that the City will need to work out a system to make the automated parking area user-friendly to the citizens. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 3 Commissioner Vannorsdall also voiced concern that there were only 40 parking spaces proposed for the lot below. He felt that people would drive down to the lower parking lot, find there was no parking available, unload the car, and drive back up to the upper parking lot He felt this would create a traffic hazard on Palos Verdes Drive South in attempting to get out of the lower lot Commissioner Albeno asked Dr. Ehlig if the intention was to balance the cut and fill at the project. He answered yes, that the proposal was for 7,000 cubic yards of cut and 7,000 cubic yards of fill. Commissioner Alberio asked if, by putting the fill at the bottom of the cliff, there would be problems if this area were to have another rainy EI Nino situation. Dr Ehlig answered that there is erosion, however there has been no tendency of sliding. The improved drainage would also be beneficial Commissioner Clark pointed out that in the correspondence received from Wayfarer's Chapel, they had expressed concern that the increase in activity at Abalone Cove would also increase the number of people who would try to park at the Wayfarer's Chapel parking lot He also pointed out that many people, given the choice of paying to park in the City parking lot or parking across the street for free, may opt to park across the street. He asked if there was any kind of condition of approval that could be added that would address the parking issues. Senior Planner Pfost answered that there was not much that could be done other than requiring that signage be added at the entrance of the Abalone Cove parking lot indicating that there is no parking at the Wayfarer's Chapel He stated that the City cannot do much to regulate the parking at the Wayfarer's Chapel site. He suggested Wayfarer's Chapel might put some type of signage in their parking area also. Vice Chairman Lyon suggested the upper City lot be free to park in That would help solve the problem of people parking at Wayfarer's Chapel. The lot below would have a fee to park in it. Director Allison stated that this project is a very important one for the City The City does not have many places that offer beach recreation and this project will offer that. He stated that the Coastal Commission focuses on opening opportunities for people to use beaches, and this project fulfills that requirement The drainage in the area will improve because of the project, which is a benefit to the landslide There will be no irrigation associated with the project. Commissioner Clark stated that he had heard from members of the greater community that they did not want to see the beach improved, and considered the area a natural beach setting and did not want to see more people using the area Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 4 Director Allison stated that there are many people in the community that do not have the opportunity to use the beach in it's current condition The beach is not accessible to the handicapped or to many of the senior citizens This project will open the beach to many more of the people in this community. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road felt Dr Ehlig had made numerous mistakes in the landslide area and questioned his comments regarding Abalone Cove. She believed that the staff report had numerous mistakes in it, and she disagreed with the recommendation of contoured grading, as it had not worked at the Portuguese Bend Club She strongly urged the Commission to deny this project and stated she would appeal the project if approved. Earl Casler 3324 Narino Drive stated his concerns over the environmental impact of the project He stated the NCCP is currently in its formative stages and wondered if this project should be considered before the NCCP was in place. He stated his profession had been a petroleum engineer and was fully aware of the unpredictability of geology He felt what was missing in the study was an understanding of the leach plane Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Casler what he would suggest the Commission do with this project Mr. Casler felt the investigation of the project should be extended, not only to potential impacts on the landslide, but also impacts on the plants, birds, and animals in the area Commissioner Alberio asked Director/Secretary Rojas to respond to Mr Casler's comments regarding the NCCP and this project. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the City is in the midst of the NCCP effort He stated the project is consistent with the City's latest habitat reserve design and that he has met with resource agency representatives to address the issues missed in their comment letter. Further, projects with minor impacts to habitat can proceed before adoption of the NCCP since there is an interim take provision in the rules of the NCCP which allows the City to take five percent of the total habitat while the NCCP is being prepared Currently there is approximately 1,250 acres of habitat in the city and this project would take .39 acres. Commissioner Vannorsdall thanked Dr. Ehlig for attending the meeting as he felt it was important the Commissioners to understand the geology of the area. Planning commission Minutes September 28, 1998 Page 5 C7 • Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Cartwright summarized that this was a project that had been approved by the Parks and Recreation Department, the City Council, and paid for through Measure A funds There had been suggestions on how to modify the project, which staff analyzed and recommended the Commission consider the project as originally proposed He suggested the Commission focus on the proposal submitted Commissioner Paris commented that Commissioner Vannorsdall had made suggestions regarding the project that could possibly improve the project and he was undecided as to whether the Commission should consider the project as submitted or take a more detailed look at Commissioner Vannorsdall's suggestions Commissioner Slayden felt the project fit in with NCCP policies He was concerned with the slide area, however since the project is relatively small he felt comfortable with the project. He disagreed with the proposed operational set-up as far as the two parking areas were concerned He felt it was unorganized and would cause confusion He agreed with the suggestion made earlier of allowing free parking in the upper parking lot and charging a fee for the lower parking lot. He felt the project was a plus to the City Commissioner Clark stated he was also concerned with the operation of the parking area He asked staff if there would be a way that, if the Commission approved the project, it could do so with conditions that deal with the ability of the City to test out it's operational approach and in the future modify that approach if necessary He felt there was going to be some real challenges to operating the facility He felt there was some merit to Commissioner Vannorsdall's suggestions, but understood the funding problems associated with it. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that this is an unusual situation in that the Planning Commission hears the project near the end of the process rather than at the beginning In this case, the City Council has reviewed the proposal several times before the Planning Commission's review of the project. After hearing the comments of the Commissioners this evening, he suggested the Commission might consider approving the project as proposed but with comments and suggestions to the City Council to consider modifications to the project. The Commission also has the opportunity to place conditions on the operation of the project in the Conditions of Approval of the project. Commissioner Clark commented that he appreciated the public comments expressed on wanting to leave the park as it is However, he felt that this proposal would allow many residents who presently cannot enjoy the park and the opportunity to do so He did not feel the extent of the project would destroy the ambiance of the setting He was not concerned with the geology, as two geologists had looked at the project and felt it was feasible He appreciated Mr Casler's comments but staff had adequately Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 6 responded to the concerns He would like to see a condition added requiring signage that encourages people not to park at Wayfarer's Chapel Commissioner Alberio stated he had concerns over the amount of grading proposed for the project However, he realized that this was a public park and should be accessible to everyone He felt the operation of the park was outside the purview of the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Lyon stated he had been concerned with the geology, however having been reassured by two geologists that this project will not degrade the stability in the area, he is now satisfied that the amount of grading necessary for the project will be acceptable He commented that the City had to be careful not to over -develop Abalone Cove There should be some type of limitation on the use of the park, which he felt could be done by limiting the parking space that is directly adjacent to the beachside property He advocated charging a fee for beachside parking, charging a higher fee for non -Rancho Palos Verdes residents, and allowing free or minimal cost parking at the upper parking lot. He supported staff recommendations on building the park and felt the operational issues could be addressed separately. Commissioner Vannorsdall supported Vice Chairman Lyon's suggestions regarding the parking. He did not have any issues with the grading, but would like the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that they grade the internal road now while the cost will be minimal and pave it at a later date when additional funds became available He felt this was a good project and would like to see the Commission approve it with a series of conditions Chairman Cartwright understood the concerns regarding the project but felt it was a good project and beneficial to the City. He felt the parking issue could be managed through signage and it was the City's responsibility to make certain the correct fee structure was implemented for the parking He agreed the operational aspect of the parking was staff's responsibility. He supported the staff recommendations. Commissioner Clark asked staff if there was a potential, in the future, to construct a connector road between the two parking lots Director/Secretary Rojas answered that, from a Planning perspective, there may be some environmental issues that would have to be assessed but thought it could happen with some work Director Allison answered that from an engineering stand paint it was possible. The only drawback at this time was funding to build the road It may be possible when discussing a new budget, to research funding methods Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he was asking that the Commission recommend grading the road now. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 7 Commissioner Paris discussed the idea of approving the project as suggested, with a one year operational review. After one year a review will show what does and does not work and revisions can be made. Commissioner Clark felt that signage in the parking areas should be a condition of approval, rather than a suggestion to the City Council. He also wondered if it would be possible to charge a higher parking fee for non- Rancho Palos Verdes residents Director/Secretary Rojas responded that there is no policy in the City regarding that type of fee structure, but felt that the issue does fall in a gray area in terms of legality, and the City Attorney should give an opinion. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to approve the project as requested by the staff, adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-32 thereby adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-33 thereby approving Coastal Permit No. 156 and Variance No. 448 with no additional conditions, but with a list of recommendations for the project to be forwarded to the City Council for it's consideration. The recommendations would include Commissioner Vannorsdall's suggestion of doing the grading now for a potential future connector road, adding parking signage, implementing some type of fee schedule for parking which includes differential rates for the upper lot, the lower lot, and Rancho Palos Verdes residents, and an operational review in one year. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The motion was approved, (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:40 p.m. the Commission took a recess until 9 50 p m at which time the Commission reconvened 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 206, Variance No. 446, Grading No. 2135 and Environmental Assessment No. 771: Hannibal Petrossi, Petrossi & Associates (applicant), Golden Cove Center. Director/Secretary Rous explained that when this project was before the Planning Commission on August 27 and September 14, 1999 various direction was given in terms of modifications to the project The architect has since submitted the plans to the Planning staff with modifications made The plans were not complete until late in the week, preventing staff from adequately assessing the new plans in time to prepare a staff report to be presented at this meeting Therefore, staff was requesting a continuance to the October 12, 1999 meeting Commissioner Slayden moved to continue the public hearing of this item to the Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 1999, seconded by Vice Chair Lyon. Approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 8 • PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Variance No. 459 and Site Plan Review No. 8699: Frank Politeo (applicant), Mr. and Mrs. Larry Cohn (owner) 6608 Via La Paloma. Assistant Planner Schonborn described the existing property and residence and explained the requested proposal was for the construction of a 206 square foot first - story addition along the rear of the existing split-level, two-story residence, with a 335 square foot second -story balcony, including a 112 square foot portion considered as a roof deck. The Variance application is to permit the 112 square foot roof deck, which is prohibited under Section 17 02 030 D of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code He stated all necessary findings could be made and recommended approving the request. Commissioner Clark moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paris There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Frank Rodriquez (applicant) 1300 S Beacon St. San Pedro stated he was the architect representing the owners and stated that he and the owners had reviewed the conditions of approval for the project and agreed with them Slobodan Androsevic 6417 Corsini Place stated he is a neighbor of the project and fully supported it, as it would be an improvement to the neighborhood Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Clark. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Clark moved to approve the staff recommendation as presented, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-34 approving Variance No. 459 and Site Plan Review No. 8699, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Approved, (7-0). 5. Coastal Permit No. 157, Variance No. 460, Grading Permit No. 2073 and 2047 and Site Plan Review No. 8697 - Alliance Property Management (applicant), Connecticut General Life (landowner), 6568 & 6600 Beachview Drive and 32636 Nantasket Drive (aka Porto Verde Apartments) Assistant Planner Schonborn distributed a photo board as well as a modified version of Condition of Approval No 21 He then presented the staff report. He reviewed the location and current layout of the apartments He explained the proposal was to enclose the existing carports to create garages, construct several retaining and garden walls around the perimeter of the site, and construct a new tennis court and seating/lounge area on the upper level of the existing parking structure The proposal requests approval for the roof deck areas that will be created by enclosing the carports into garages He explained that there is a 35 foot portion of the proposed retaining wall that falls within the visibility triangle at the corner of Nantasket Drive and Seacove Drive The plans were forwarded to the Department of Public Works, and Public Works staff determined that this was not an intersection and therefore did not need to review the Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 9 plans Regarding modified Condition of Approval No. 21, Mr. Schonborn explained that the Public Works Department did have concerns with the proposed garages. They had a concern that cars may stop in the alley to enter the garages. They also felt that any of the flat work in the alley would be acceptable only if vacation of the alley is approved first Therefore staff modified the condition of approval to require the vacation of the alleyway prior to any improvements in the alleyways and any enclosure of the existing carports. If for any reason the City Council did not approve the vacation of the alleyway, any and all approvals associated with the enclosure of the carports would be invalid Nonetheless, staff felt that all of the appropriate findings for the applications could be made and recommended approval of the project Vice Chairman Lyon asked staff if they had received any objections from the neighbors regarding the proposed project. Assistant Planner Schonborn explained that the notice for the project had been mailed and he had received several telephone calls regarding the project. However the only letters received regarding the project were submitted after the staff report was written and therefore distributed to the Planning Commission this evening. The issue in question was who owned the alleyways. He stated the alleyways were public right-of- way currently owned and maintained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Regarding the drainage facility that runs along the parking structure, that 30 foot wide portion is technically a public right-of-way but was currently being maintained by the neighboring condominium association Vice Chairman Lyon asked if any of the proposed improvements would alter the use of that unpaved strip of land. Assistant Planner Schonborn replied that they would not. Commissioner Alberio asked staff if the Fire Department had been informed regarding the reduction of the right-of-way. Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that the Fire Department had been notified and had requested the owners provide the necessary notations on the plans However, if the vacation is approved these issues would be addressed by the property owner and L A County Fire Department. Commissioner Paris wondered if, since the vacation of the public right-of-way would enhance the value of the property, the City would be paid for their vacation of the alleyway. Director Allison answered that the City would not be paid for the vacation However he felt vacation would provide a net benefit to the City in that there would no longer be the maintenance and liability issues concerned with the property. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 10 0 Commissioner Paris questioned if, given the type and amount of work being done, this may be leading up to a condominium conversion Assistant Planner Schonborn stated the issue had never come up in his discussions with the applicant Any condo conversion would have to go through all of the necessary City approvals and would have to be heard by the Planning Commission. Chairman Cartwright asked if it was the city who was imposing the vacation issue rather than the landowner. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that there was mutual agreement between the City and the landowners that a vacation of the right-of-way was worth pursuing However in reviewing the specific project the Director of Public Works felt that converting the carports to garages would create an undesirable situation of vehicles stopping in what is technically the public right-of-way. Therefore, the Public Works Department is recommending that the garage conversions not happen until the vacation is approved by the City. Commissioner Clark asked staff if they had been contacted by the Vista Pacifica HOA expressing concerns over ownership of the 30 foot greenbelt Assistant Planner Schonborn acknowledged he had been contacted by the HOA and he and the Director of Public Works met with two representatives of the HOA to discuss the issues He explained to the HOA that the section in question is owned by the City at this time, which the HOA was not aware of Commissioner Albeno was also concerned with the possibility of a condo conversion and asked staff if, given the amount of improvements that have taken place recently, proper approvals and permits had been issued Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that the landowner had received approvals and permits for the previous improvements at the property. Vice Chairman Lyon asked staff if both the paved alley and the unpaved alleyway with trees on it were being considered for the vacation Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that both areas were in the vacation request. Vice Chairman Lyon questioned the need to vacate the unpaved, landscaped alleyway Director Allison stated that when the parcels were originally laid out easements were granted to the public for both alleys He explained that it is very desirable for the City to vacate the property in terms of maintenance and liability. The issue of who owns the property will be determined during the vacation process. When the City vacates the property the underlying owner becomes the owner of the property. He realized the HOA Planning commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 11 • • was concerned as to who owned the property and explained that there were several options available once the ownership was determined. Chairman Cartwright asked staff why the owners wanted to provide garages for their residents rather than continue with the carports Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that he was not aware of any safety or security problems in the area, however he felt the owners wanted to enclose the carports to provide additional amenities to the residents This would allow the residents an enclosed area to park their vehicles as well as additional storage space. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Charles Bentley 3 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach stated he was the Director of Redevelopment for the property and was here representing the owners. He displayed a drawing showing the areas of the alleyway and greenbelt area in question He commented that a year earlier the Public Works Department had requested they open up a wall so there could be public access along what was considered a public walkway The homeowners association objected to that as they felt it would cause a security problem in their area He felt if the vacation were to be done and the areas were to become private, there will no longer be a need to open the area. He stated they had no plans to do anything with the greenbelt area, only the alleyway by the carports. He stated there were no plans to convert to condos The individual units are not individually metered, nor is there enough parking to meet the requirements if they were to convert to condos He stated that in the Towers area the electrical and gas lines are tied to one meter and in the Gardens area everything is tied to a master system He commented that one of the biggest reasons to convert the carports to garages was aesthetics. He felt this proposal would make a much more pleasant surrounding for the neighbors. Commissioner Clark asked Mr Bentley if, in any of his meetings with the HOA, he had given them the impression that the greenbelt area belonged to the HOA. Mr. Bentley stated that if he had it was a misunderstanding. He stated that his understanding of the greenbelt area was that the approximate center line of the greenbelt was the dividing line and everything to one side belonged to the apartment complex, and everything on the other belonged to the HOA Commissioner Paris asked if Mr Bentley felt the vacation of the property would significantly enhance the value of the property Mr. Bentley stated he did not have the background information to answer the question, however from an aesthetic standpoint it would make the area look more attractive. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 12 Commissioner Clark asked the attorney representing the owners what her opinion was regarding the ownership of the greenbelt area. Laura Riley (attorney representing the owners) stated they had looked at a survey and a title report that was approximately 3 years old. The title report did indicate that the right- of-way was city owned but once the vacation is complete, Porto Verde would own up to the center line and the HOA would own up to the other side of the center line She did not feel that because the HOA had maintained the property there would be any grounds for the HOA to possess the entire property due to adverse possession She stated that the Porto Verde Apartments are currently in negotiations with the HOA to accommodate their concerns with appearance, noise, and safety issues. Geraldine Butler 5450 Via Baron stated that she was the president of the Vista Pacifica Homeowners Associate She stated the HOA was not opposed to the development of the apartments, but wanted to make sure the HOA had input on the use of the easement Zoltan Katinsky (property manager for Vista Pacifica) stated the main concern of the HOA was to make sure they had input on what the greenbelt would look like. He stated that there were noise concerns from residents that lived close to the apartments Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Katinsky if he was aware that their property would extend to the center line of the greenbelt. Mr Katinsky responded that if that were indeed true, he wanted time to research exactly what their position would be. He wondered if the City could delay the vacation issue for approximately 90 days so they could research the issue. Chairman Cartwright clarified that the Planning Commission would not be making a decision this evening on the vacation issue He explained that the vacation process would be lengthy with several meetings before the City Council where they would have opportunity to express their views Mr. Katinsky brought up the issue of noise. He was concerned that the garage doors would be noisy, but added that Porto Verde apartments had offered to use plastic wheels, no chains, and insulated garage doors Jean Koiima 6518 Via Baron stated her concern over the garages and storage areas. She wondered if people would be working in the garages late at night, would there be more usage. She stated that currently at the underground parking area there is a lot of echoing that can be heard from her property She wondered if the tennis courts would be lit and used at night. She was very concerned about the added usage and therefore the added noise. Chairman Cartwright asked Ms. Kojima where she lived in relationship to the apartments Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 13 LI • Ms Kojima answered that she was in a single family residence close to the parking structure Jade Cheung 5522 Via Baron stated she currently hears quite a bit of noise from the parking garage and tennis court. She felt building these garages would affect her directly She wondered if her property value would go down because of the additional noise and usage at the apartment complex. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr Bentley to respond to some of the concerns that were brought up by the neighbors Mr Bentley stated that one of the conditions of approval did not allow for lighting of the tennis courts As part of the apartment rules and regulations, residents are not allowed to work on their cars at the site so he did not feel that would create a problem within the new garages Regarding the echoing in the underground garages, he felt that the installation of the garage doors would create a buffer to stop the echoing effect. Currently on top of the garage there is a paddle tennis court and basketball court. Neither will remain once the tennis court area is in place He commented that they are currently discussing wrapping the tennis court to help the sound barrier issue Commissioner Slayden moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Clark. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Slayden commented that the apartment complex had done nothing but improve over the last year and commended them for their work. He had no objections to any of the recommendations for the current project. Commissioner Paris again recommended the City be compensated for vacating the property but had no objections to the project as proposed Commissioner Vannorsdall was concerned about the vacation process and wanted to make sure the two parties had made the proper agreements between themselves before the vacation process proceeded Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the city would not approve a vacation unless there was agreement between the properties Commissioners Clark, Alberio, and Vice Chairman Lyon all supported the project. Chairman Cartwright also supported the project. He stated the vacation was still a puzzle to him, but since it was agreeable to both the applicant and the HOA he felt the City would proceed in the proper procedures Vice Chairman Lyon moved to approve the staff recommendations as presented thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 99-35, approving Coastal Permit No. 157, Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 14 Variance No 460, Grading Permit No. 2073 and 2074, and Site Plan Review No. 8697, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (7-0). 6. Variance No. 456 and Site Plan Review No. 8671 Mike and Heidi Keough, 24716 Fawnskin Drive Director/Secretary Rojas explained that staff requested a continuance on this item to help clear the agenda as both Golden Cove and Abalone Cove were scheduled to be heard Commissioner Slayden moved to continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 1999, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. Approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 7. Sign Permit No. 1020- Newmark Merrill Co. (applicant), 28901 Western Ave. Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He explained that this application was requesting a modification to the existing sign program for installation of new and modified signs He explained that the request was to modify the two existing freestanding tenant identification signs, modify the previously approved freestanding movie theatre sign (which is currently not there), change and replace the existing freestanding directional traffic signs throughout the site, place new directional pedestrian signs over the walkways, new freestanding pedestrian directional signs, two new combination freestanding traffic directional signs with a stop sign above, and a new center identification sign at the location of the former fountain area on Western Avenue and Caddington Drive In their review, staff felt that the two freestanding combination signs were excessive and had an issue with safety for the motorists The modifications proposed to the tenant identification sign and the freestanding sign include ribbons that project from the base and loop around the columns Staff felt these ribbons were not consistent with the sign program or the policies of the sign ordinance The center identification sign at the location of the former fountain is proposed for a height of 6 feet 3 inches The previously approved sign for that area measured 2 feet 6 inches Therefore, staff felt this sign was too large for the area and suggested a smaller monument style sign Commissioner Alberio asked if Cal Trans had been contacted in regards to the signage Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that the signs were not in the public right-of-way and there was no requirement to contact Cal Trans Commissioner Paris understood that staff had issues with the architectural design of the signs, but wondered if staff believed the lettering on the signs was an adequate size Assistant Planner Schonborn felt the size of lettering was adequate and consistent with the signs approved under the existing sign program Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 15 Vice Chairman Lyon disagreed with the definition of a sign as stated in the sign ordinance. In part, the ordinance states that signs should not subject the citizens to excessive competition for their visual attention. He stated that the purpose of a sign was to attract the attention of someone passing by and if ribbons help in that regard, he could fully understand why the applicant was requesting ribbons. Commissioner Paris commented that there was a difference between a sign being an attraction or a distraction, and that was what the ordinance was trying to differentiate. An overdone sign may distract the eye. Commissioner Clark moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Gene Long 1336 Allec Street Anaheim stated that his company was responsible for the designs of the signs. He agreed with most of the staff report, however requested the ribbons, directional signs below the stop signs, and the requested center identification sign be approved as requested by the applicant Directional signs placed below stop signs have proven to be very effective in many other shopping center locations He agreed the sign at the fountain area is tall, however in looking at the configuration of the shopping center and the way it slopes uphill, therefore the top of the sign was really not much higher than the bottom of the floor of the lowest tier. The ribbons were added to the sign to be festive and eye-catching Commissioner Paris stated he understood the theory behind the combination directional signs, but wondered if they inhibited vision in any way Mr Long responded that they do not block vision and had not heard of any problems with this type of sign Sandy Segal 18801 Ventura Blvd Tarzana stated he was the president of New Mark Merrill Company, the owner of the shopping center He explained the company bought the shopping center in June and felt this was one of the most challenging centers they own. One of their goals was to integrate the three levels of the center so that customers can easily take advantage of the services provided at all three levels He stated that he is in agreement with the staff report except for the three items mentioned by Mr. Long. He felt that a special effort had to be made along Western Avenue to tell customers what was happening at the center He reiterated the comments of Mr. Long and requested the Commission approve the signs as originally requested. Commissioner Clark understood the reasoning for the new signs, however felt the bigger problem at the Terraces was the traffic circulation He encouraged Mr. Seagal to look at the traffic circulation. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 16 Commissioner Paris felt the signs were overdone and could be modified and scaled down Commissioner Alberio felt if the signs could help attract more people to the Terraces and help bring more business to Rancho Palos Verdes rather than to the city of Los Angeles across the street, he would support it. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Alberio stated that he would be in favor of approving the application as proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Clark empathized with the owner regarding the issues associated with this shopping center He would like to see the center improved but was not quite sure how he felt about the proposed signs Commissioner Vannorsdall stated he would like to approve the proposal as suggested by the applicant. Commissioner Slayden felt that the owners had spent a considerable amount of money to study the signage on the property and recommended the Commission approve the signs as proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Paris still felt the two big signs could be toned down and made more attractive Vice Chairman Lyon felt the Commission had an obligation to help the applicant make the shopping center a success and if the applicant felt the signage would help, he suggested approving the application as submitted by the applicant by deleting conditions 5, 6, and 10 of the conditions of approval Chairman Cartwright agreed with Vice Chairman Lyon He stated that the signs were a little overdone, but he felt the Commission should help the applicant succeed at the shopping center Vice Chairman Lyon moved to approve Sign Permit No. 1020 as requested by the applicant subject to the conditions listed except conditions 5, 6, and 10, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre -Agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 1999 The Commission had no comments regarding the pre -agenda for October 12, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 17 COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road stated that she had distributed to the Commissioners material written by Doug Stern. She also commented that she and several others will appeal the Abalone Cove decision to the City Council. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Slayden moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Alberio The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. to the next regular meeting on October 12, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1999 Page 18