Loading...
PC MINS 20160112 Approved January 26, 20 • A, , CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 12, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nelson at 7:00 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Leon, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Nelson. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Mihranian, Senior Planner Mikhail, Assistant Planner Caraveo, and Assistant City Attorney Burroughs. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas noted that at the upcoming January 19, 2016 meeting a proposed Ordinance will be presented to the City Council that establishes a review process for all cell antenna applications in the public right-of-way whereby Planning Commission review and approval will be necessary. Director Rojas stated there was no late correspondence to be distributed. He noted that he distributed Statements of Economic Interest to the Commissioners to submit to the City Clerk, and he noted the appointment of new Commissioners is scheduled for the February 2, 2016 City Council meeting. Chairman Nelson distributed the Chairman's report on 2015 Planning Commission activity. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2013-00174): 2935 Vista del Mar Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, seconded by Commissioner Leon. The Consent Calendar was approved, thereby approved PC Resolution 2016-01, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2015-00239): 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard Assistant Planner Caraveo presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the request, and giving a brief background associated with the Conditional Use Permit and the Sign Permit. He explained the applicant was also proposing to paint the existing station in colors associated with Shell Oil, however staff is not supporting this request since a previous approval by the Planning Commission required the exterior of the building be resurfaced with stucco or similar material to give the appearance the building is more residential in nature. He stated that staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the presented resolution, thereby conditionally approving the requested Conditional Use Permit revision and Sign Permit revision. Commissioner James noted the applicant was requesting to paint the building "Shell White", and asked staff if they had a sample of"Shell White". Assistant Planner Caraveo stated it was staff's understanding that "Shell White" is a very bright white color. Commissioner Gerstner noted on the plans and application that there are quite a few inconsistencies in the representation of the size of the sign, and asked staff to clarify. Director Rojas responded that the applicant is available to answer these types of questions. Commissioner Cruikshank stated that he has observed the sign that is before the Commission for approval is already installed and lit, and asked for clarification from staff. Director Rojas noted in the staff report there is a discussion explaining that the applicant approached staff in late 2015 regarding certain sign face change outs. This request was approved by staff, as the signs were consistent with the approved sign program. He explained that what is before the Commission are signs that exceed what is allowed by the current sign program. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked staff if all of the banners and banner signs will be removed. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2016 Page 2 Assistant Planner Caraveo answered that it is part of the applicant's request to remove the existing banners and signage and replace them with the service center sign over the service garage. Director Rojas referred to condition G, but felt it could be clarified as it only stated the applicant shall remove three banners from the service bay areas and does not address the other signs. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked if there was a condition regarding the hours the signs could be illuminated. Director Rojas answered there is currently not such a condition. Vice Chairman Tomblin felt such a condition would be consistent with the Chevron Station, and felt a condition regarding hours should be included. He also supported Commissioner Gerstner's comments that the plans and documentation that the signs should properly reflect the dimensions and relationships to the buildings. Commissioner Leon suggested a condition that the LED signs will be used for numerical prices only, as conceivably they could have full LED screens showing pictures of whatever they want. Commissioner Gerstner agreed. He also asked staff if there was anything in the conditions addressing amplified audio at the station. Director Rojas responded that condition can be added. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Nina Brentham (representing the applicant) stated she may have a sample of "Shell White" with her and would check. She also noted the concern that the canopy sign and service center sign does not seem to scale out properly on the drawings, and she would take care of that. Commissioner Leon commented that he prefers the signs to be as drawn rather than the way the dimensions are currently called out. Commissioner Gerstner stated it was very important that the signs shown on the plans, whatever size they may be, are shown to scale. Ms. Brentham stated that to her knowledge the signs on the plans are to scale, however she will check with the sign company. Commissioner Gerstner referred to the plans, and noted there are several call outs shown for the fascia, and asked Ms. Brentham to have that clarified. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2016 Page 3 Ms. Brentham stated that she would have that clarified. Commissioner James noted that several Commissioners have expressed concern that "Shell White" is a very bright white color. He asked Ms. Brentham if the applicant would still want to paint the portions of the building "Shell Grey" if the "Shell White" portion were rejected. He asked if she has a sample of"Shell Grey" with her as well. Ms. Brentham stated she may have a sample of both "Shell White" and "Shell Grey" in her car if the Commission would like to see them. Commissioner James felt the Commission should look at the colors if Ms. Brentham has them available. Ms. Brentham presented to the Commission a small color sample board which showed the exterior colors used by Shell. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Brentham if Shell Oil requires these colors be on their buildings. Ms. Brentham was not sure but would find out. She also clarified that they were not proposing video screens on any of the gas pumps. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant to resubmit their drawings to scale and to allow staff to modify the Resolution and conditions of approval to incorporate the items discussed, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Director Rojas asked that the public hearing be continued to a date certain and noted staff was prepared to bring this back at the January 26th meeting if the applicant is able to submit the information in time. Ms. Brentham felt they could meet the submittal deadline for the January 26th meeting. Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to amend his motion to continue the public hearing to January 26, 2016, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Leon asked staff to clarify that their recommendation for the building was to maintain the status quo in terms of the color and not to paint it the corporate colors. Director Rojas answered that was correct. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he was in agreement with the motion, and was pleased that part of the proposal was to clean up the site and remove the banners and other Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2016 Page 4 signage throughout the property. He recommended the conditions of approval be very specific that all banners and portable signs are to be removed. Chairman Nelson reopened the public hearing. Ms. Brentham noted a concern that she has to talk to corporate regarding the "Shell White" issue, and questioned if the public hearing should be continued to the February meeting. Chairman Nelson asked that she check with corporate regarding the colors and get back to staff as soon as possible regarding whether or not they will have an answer in time for the January 26th meeting. The motion to continue the public hearing to January 26, 2016 was approved, (7-0). 3. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (Case No. ZON2014-00320) Senior Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining this has been a topic of great interest to the Planning Commission for the past several years. She explained that past staff reports to the Commission and City Council have provided a large amount of information related to the City's current code language, typical conditions of approval that are applied to large projects throughout the City, a comparison of lighting codes in other cities, and informational brochures from the International Dark Skies Association. After analyzing many of the city's non-residential projects, as well as some issues that have come up surrounding residential lighting, staff was able to identify where the City's Development Code may fall short in reducing lighting impacts related to glare and degradation of the dark sky rule character of the City as outlined in the City's General Plan. She explained that the City Council has approved staff to initiate a code amendment that includes specifications that light fixtures are fully shielded so that the light source is not visible, establish acceptable color temperatures for exterior lights, impose restrictions on exterior light emissions based on lumens instead of wattage, and addresses the glare of exterior lights to vehicles on public/private streets. She noted that several questions have come up in regards to security lighting, and the Commission may want to address security lighting in residential neighborhoods as part of their discussion. Director Rojas added that the genesis of this Ordinance was to deal with exterior lighting on non-residential projects, and in doing the research that staff also looked at the existing non-residential lighting regulations. He noted, however, that staff does not receive many complaints regarding non-residential lighting. What staff did find is that the limitations on residential lighting are in wattage and staff has learned that lumens is the better way to measure the brightness of the light. With that, staff is suggesting to change the bulb limits from wattage to lumens. In doing this staff also took some of the restrictions suggested for non-residential properties and applied them to residential properties. He felt that these suggestions may cause some concern with security lighting, and the Commission can review the recommendations and scale them back as they feel is necessary and/or appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2016 Page 5 Commissioner Leon noticed that under the proposed language, carriage lights would not be acceptable. He suggested some sort of an exemption be added for those types of lights if there is a very low threshold limit for the brightness of the light. Commissioner Emenhiser noted there is a lot of public comment in the staff report in regards to the lighting at Marymount, and asked staff to explain. Senior Planner Mikhail explained that the comments included in the staff report are comments that have been received by staff over the past several years. Director Rojas explained that Marymount added a parking lot into an area that had always been dark. When the parking lot was added staff put limitations on the lighting, but because of the topography no matter what limitations and restrictions were put in place there were going to be houses that could look up to the parking lot and see the light sources. He stated that the lighting was eventually approved by the City Council. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he was in support of this proposed ordinance, however he noted there is currently quite a bit of public discussion in regards to the crime issues on the hill right now, and he was concerned about possible unintended consequences. He asked staff if they had any guidance for the Commission on how to balance these issues, noting that the Sheriff's Department and other groups say that lighting is a deterrent to crime and it appears we are trying to dim down the city. Director Rojas explained there is currently no language restricting residential lighting shining onto the street or the bulb not being visible. This proposed language can be modified or eliminated by the Commission if they so choose. Senior Planner Mikhail also noted that in the staff report there are certain exceptions listed. Commissioner Gerstner stated it is often the case that if there are two lights in front of a house they are not shining on anything other than people's eyes. If that light is directed and illuminates a surface you end up with a better, more even light. If one illuminates a sidewalk it is easier to see and walk on as opposed to having lights along a sidewalk that don't actually shine on anything. He did not think this ordinance was trying to dim the city down, but rather it is trying to control the balance of the hot spots, the dark spots, and the light spots. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Murat Mese stated he submitted comments to staff, but hasn't had a chance to read the staff report. He commented on the directionality of the lights, and hoped that topic would be spelled out in the ordinance. In regards to the temperature, he stated he has not read any study that would support one temperature over another. He questioned if it would just be a matter of preference, and questioned what the end goal is in regulating Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2016 Page 6 temperature. He asked how glare would be quantified in order to enforce the issue, and further, how the city would take action. He asked if there would be grandfather rights for pre-existing lighting. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Mese to explain what area of the City he lives in, and if he was experiencing some lighting problems. Mr. Mese answered he is in the Miraleste area. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner James explained that he is also the president of his HOA, and that close to a year ago there were some complaints regarding overly bright lights in the neighborhood. These issues have since been rectified. Now, however, there have been some very serious crimes committed in the neighborhood and the residents have agreed that the HOA will contact the City and ask for more street lights and ask the City to allow the residents to put in more lighting. He noted that the authorities have told the residents that more lighting would be helpful. In addition, the HOA brought a security export to the neighborhood who suggested motion detectors that, when set off, would emit a very bright light. He stated the consensus in his neighborhood is very strongly in favor of more lights of any kind, not less. He stated that the suggested language would make nearly all of the lights in his neighborhood in violation. He stated that his first reaction would be to suggest the residential portion of this proposed ordinance be eliminated, unless there are a series of public hearings on the issue and a chance for neighborhoods to be heard on the subject. He did not think the average resident in the City had any clue that the Planning Commission was considering this type of ordinance in residential neighborhoods. He stated that crime and security is far and away the most important issue in his neighborhood. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that there have been seventeen robberies in a three block area of his neighborhood. As a result, many residents have installed motion sensor lights that are extremely bright. He also discussed City street lights and did not feel there was any current guidelines on street lights. He asked if this proposed ordinance would also address city street lighting. He also questioned if City properties would be included in this proposed ordinance. Senior Planner Mikhail stated city parks would be included. Director Rojas added that can be expanded to include all city facilities, however it is not intended to apply to street lights in the public right-of-way, as the public right-of-way is regulated by the Public Works Department and Edison. Vice Chairman Tomblin felt that it should encompass all City facilities and warrants a discussion. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2016 Page 7 Commissioner Leon stated that he recently googled studies in regards to lights and crime, and found a number of studies showed there was no difference in crime in neighborhoods with lights or without lights. However, the studies did find people's fear of crime was reduced if the area was well lit. He felt that setting up lighting standards that tend to diminish the amount of glare one may find that you don't need the intensity of light, and people will feel safe with a lower intensity of light. Commissioner James discussed how lighting helped with security cameras and reading license plates in the neighborhoods. He stated that even if the lighting helps people feel more comfortable, that in itself is worth something. If having lights or having a patrol service, or having more cameras will make the residents feel a little safer he's willing to consider more lighting, even for that reason. He felt the residential section needs more review and needs input from the residents. Chairman Nelson noted that the speaker, Mr. Mese, seems to be having a problem with a neighboring light, and asked staff what Mr. Mese can currently do to help alleviate the problem. Director Rojas explained that there are lighting standards currently in the Municipal Code that prohibit lights shining onto a neighboring property. If there is an issue with a neighbor's light he should contact staff to investigate the problem and enforce the current code. Chairman Nelson commented on the proposed Ordinance and the language stating that no outdoor lighting shall be installed in nonresidential districts, including city parks, except in accordance with the provisions in this section. He suggested changing the term "city parks" to "city facilities". He also raised the issue of the sidewalks at Hesse Park and PVIC which can have very sudden drop-offs which are not illuminated. He felt these areas constitute not only a security problem, but a personal safety problem as well. Hearing the Commission's comments, Director Rojas suggested moving forward with a recommendation to the City Council for non-residential lighting standards and holding off on the residential lighting standards at this time to allow for further research and discussion. He also suggested that, as an option, the Commission might want to only change the wattage restriction to lumens in the residential portion at this time. Senior Planner Mikhail also suggested that if the Commission wants to look at residential lighting, they may want to consider items 1 through 4 only, which are pages 6 and 7 of the staff report. She noted this would change the wattage to lumens, add a color temperature, but keeps fixture height and orientation the same. Commissioner Gerstner felt that most of the complaints and problems seem to stem from non-residential sites and that staff and the Commission might be able to learn from the restrictions put on non-residential sites. In that way, staff and the Commission will be more knowledgeable and know the problems when it is time to apply standards to Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2016 Page 8 residential lighting. He also felt that there should be a better opportunity for residents to participate in the public hearings for residential lighting. Commissioner James agreed with Commissioner Gerstner in moving forward with non- residential lighting only and see how that works. He asked staff if there have been any complaints to staff about residential lighting. Director Rojas stated there are typically less than five complaints per year in regards to residential lighting, and those complaints are that neighbor's lights are shining onto neighboring properties. Commissioner James asked staff if those complaints can be addressed with the current code language. Director Rojas answered that light shining on neighboring properties can be dealt with using the current code, however staff currently cannot address glare. Commissioner James stated he has no problem changing wattage to lumens and those types of technical issues. However, he was not sure there was any reason to move quickly with residential lighting when he feels there may be an issue of public safety involved. In addition, the City Council's original direction only applied to non-residential lighting. Vice Chairman Tomblin agreed that residential lighting should be taken out of the discussion at this time. He stated the feeling in his neighborhood at this time is that they want lights for safety purposes. He suggested taking the residential lighting out of the discussion completely at this time for discussions at a later date. Chairman Nelson suggested staff take the Commission's comments for non-residential lighting and come back to the Commission with some adjusted verbiage. Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to continue the public hearing to January 26, 2016 to allow staff to bring a Resolution back to the Commission for discussion with proposed new regulations for non-residential properties only, and that residential lighting be split off for future discussion and public comments, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he would like to continue the public hearing for the non- residential lighting to give residents and owners of commercial buildings the opportunity to give staff and the Commission feedback on the proposed conditions. Additionally, he noted that one of the conditions of approval was that no fixture shall exceed 1400 lumens, which is less than a 100 watt light bulb. He felt that this was a bit low for a commercial property, especially if it is shielded. He stated he would prefer the limit be at least 1600 lumens. He liked the idea of the incorporation of temperature. He also noted language that the lights should only illuminate the building façade, and questioned why trees couldn't be lit as well. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2016 Page 9 The motion to continue the public hearing to January 26, 2016 was approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on January 26, 2016 Director Rojas reviewed the pre-agenda, noting both of the items from this agenda have been continued to the January 26th meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2016 Page 10