CC SR 20160301 01 - Outdoor Lighting Regulations Code AmendmentCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: March 1, 2016
Subject: Consideration and possible action to approve a Code Amendment for the
regulations for nonresidential exterior lighting (Case No. ZON2014-00320)
Subject Property: Citywide
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
2. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Dyda
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance No. , thereby
amending Chapter 17.56.040 (Outdoor Lighting for Nonresidential Uses) of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (Title 17) to modify the City's regulations
for nonresidential exterior lighting.
4. Public Testimony:
Appellant: N/A
Applicant: City
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Council Deliberation:
8. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Dyda
9. Council Action:
1
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
MEETING DATE: 03/01/2016
AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
Consideration and possible action to approve a Code Amendment for the regulations for
nonresidential exterior lighting (Case No. ZON2014-00320)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Introduce Ordinance No. , thereby amending Chapter 17.56.040 (Outdoor
Lighting for Nonresidential Uses) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
(Title 17) to modify the City's regulations for nonresidential exterior lighting.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Leza Mikhail, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Terry Rodrigue, Interim Community Development Director
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Ordinance No. & Exhibit A (page A-1)
B. P.C. Resolution No. 2016-03 (page B-1)
C. P.C. Minutes (January 12, 2016 & January 26, 2016) (page C-1)
D. P.C. Staff Report (January 12, 2016, including correspondence) page D-1)
E. City Council Minutes (September 2, 2014) (page E-1)
F. City Council Code Amendment Initiation Request (CAIR) (page F-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On September 2, 2014, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City
Council initiated a Code Amendment and directed Staff and the Planning Commission
to draft an Ordinance to improve the City's Development Code Standards for exterior
lighting on nonresidential properties. A detailed discussion of Staff's research efforts
following this meeting can be found in the Background section of the January 12, 2016
P.C. Staff Report (Attachment D), and the minutes of previous City Council and
Planning Commission meetings (Attachments C, E and F).
On January 12, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed Staff's proposed
amendments to the City's exterior lighting standards for both residential and
2
nonresidential properties. The Planning Commission directed Staff to only move
forward with modifications to the regulations for nonresidential properties, noting that
additional research into the residential lighting requirements needed to be further vetted,
particularly as it relates to security lighting. On January 26, 2016, the Planning
Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2016-03, recommending that the City Council
adopt modifications to the nonresidential exterior lighting requirements (Attachment D).
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a text amendment
to the City's exterior lighting requirements for nonresidential properties to include
specifications to help identify and reduce lighting impacts before exterior lights are
installed. In summary, the Planning Commission recommends:
• Specifying that light fixtures are to be fully shielded so that the light source is not
visible;
• Establishing color temperature criteria for exterior lights;
• Imposing restrictions on exterior light emissions based on lumens instead of
wattage;
• Addressing the glare of exterior lights upon neighboring properties and vehicles
in the public right-of-way; and,
• Ensuring that the exterior, nonresidential lighting regulations are applicable to
City parks and facilities.
As noted in the attached Ordinance, language deletions are shown in strikethro gh text
and proposed changes are shown in underlined text. If this Ordinance is adopted, the
new rules will only apply to the installation of new exterior light fixtures, and existing
lighting that does not comply with the new Code language would be considered legal
nonconforming.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
=81MMOR
Notice was published in the Daily Breeze on February 13, 2016. Additionally, the public
notice was emailed to all "Interested Parties" who previously submitted comments to the
City regarding the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. A copy of all correspondence related to
the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance are attached to this report.
Environmental Assessment
Staff has reviewed the proposed Code Amendment for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It has been determined that the proposed
amendments are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule).
3
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons stated above the Staff Report and in the administrative record, Staff
recommends that the City Council Introduce Ordinance No. , thereby amending
Chapter 17.56.040 (Outdoor Lighting for Nonresidential Uses) of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code (Title 17) to modify the City's regulations for nonresidential
exterior lighting.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council's consideration:
1. Deny the Outdoor Lighting Code Amendment for nonresidential uses,
with no further action required. If this alternative is chosen, the existing
Development Code requirements and/or conditions of approval imposed
through development applications (e.g, conditional use permits) would
continue to govern exterior lighting.
2. Provide Staff with specific direction for modifications to the Code
language, and return to a future meeting on a date certain to memorialize
said modifications.
El
Draft Ordinance No. & Exhibit `A'
A-1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.56.040 OF
CHAPTER 17.56 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO PALOS
VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE CITY'S
EXISTING REGULATIONS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING FOR
NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, SPECIFYING THAT
LIGHT FIXTURES ARE TO BE FULLY SHIELDED SO THAT
THE LIGHT SOURCE IS NOT VISIBLE FROM ANY
ADJACENT PROPERTY, ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE
COLOR TEMPERATURES FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTS,
IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON EXTERIOR EMISSIONS
BASED ON LUMENS INSTEAD OF WATTAGE, AND
ADDRESSING GLARE OF EXTERIOR LIGHTS TO
VEHICLES ONTO PUBLIC/PRIVATE STREETS.
WHEREAS, Section 17.56.040 (outdoor lighting for nonresidential uses) of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code") set forth various procedures
and regulations regarding outdoor lighting; and,
WHEREAS, between January 24, 2012 and February 25, 2015, the Planning
Commission reviewed research on lighting standards used by other similar cities for the
purpose of determining whether amendments to the City's outdoor lighting Development
Code should be considered. The Planning Commission reviewed a compilation of outdoor
lighting requirements for other Southern Californian cities that are similar to Rancho Palos
Verdes' semi -rural and/or coastal character, and other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Additionally, the Planning Commission reviewed information from the Dark -Sky Association
and Portland, Maine that have recently established guidelines for regulating exterior lighting;
and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, the Planning Commission directed Staff to bring
a code amendment initiation request to the City Council to improve the City's current
exterior outdoor lighting requirements for non-residential private projects throughout the
City; and,
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014, the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to
move forward with drafting an Ordinance to improve the City's existing Development Code
Standards for exterior lighting on nonresidential properties including, but not limited to,
specifying that light fixtures are to be fully shielded so the light source is not visible from any
adjacent property, establishing acceptable color temperatures for exterior lights, imposing
restrictions on exterior light emissions based on lumens instead of wattage, and addressing
the glare of vehicles on public/private streets; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds, in the exercise of its independent
judgment and analysis that the proposed Municipal Code amendments are categorically
exempt from CEQA pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities)
which applies to the "operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor
A-2
alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or
topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at
the time of the lead agency's determination". The exception applies to the proposed code
amendment as the amendment would only permit minor alteration of existing, developed
nonresidential land for exterior lighting improvements which would result in a negligible
expansion of the existing nonresidential use. Additionally, the proposed Municipal Code
amendments are exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the
General Rule (Section 15061(b)(3)) as the proposal does not have the potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment, as the amendment is proposed to alter the existing
outdoor lighting code language to further reduce lighting impacts related to glare.; and,
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2015, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula
News and mailed to all interested parties who had previously commented on outdoor
lighting impacts throughout the City, providing notice of a public hearing before the Planning
Commission on March 10, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, the public hearing on the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance was continued a
number of times to April 14, 2015, April 28, 2015, June 23, 2015, July 28, 2015, and finally
to a date uncertain in order to allow the Outdoor Lighting Subcommittee additional time to
review the draft language for the ordinance and consider additional modifications before
presenting to the Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2015, a new Public Notice was published in the
Peninsula News. Additionally, a courtesy copy of the public notice was emailed to all
interested parties who had previously commented on outdoor lighting impacts throughout
the City, providing notice of a public hearing before the Planning Commission on January
12, 2016; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 12, 2016, at which time all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding
said amendments to Sections 17.56.030 (outdoor lighting in residential uses) and 17.56.040
(outdoor lighting in nonresidential uses) of the Municipal Code as set forth in the Planning
Commission Staff Report of that date. At the meeting, the Planning Commission directed
Staff to only move forward with the nonresidential text amendments, noting that additional
consideration and research for residential lighting needed to be further vetted to be
considered at a future publically noticed meeting. As a result, the Planning Commission
continued the public hearing to January 26, 2016; and,
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2016, after considering public testimony, the Planning
Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2016-03, recommending that the City Council
amend Municipal Code Section 17.56.040, as it pertains to exterior lighting requirements for
nonresidential properties, including City Parks and Facilities; and,
A-3
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2016, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Municipal Code
amendments contained herein as required by law, and received testimony from City staff
and all interested parties regarding the proposed amendments; and,
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The facts set forth in the Recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. Section 17.56.040 (Outdoor lighting for nonresidential uses) of Chapter 17.56
(Environmental Protection) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows (proposed deletions s+r,�Ft; proposed additions
underlined) :
(17.56.040 - Outdoor lighting for nonresidential uses.)
A. In order to protect the semi -rural character of the City and reduce excessive glare,
light trespass, or over -lighting, Nno outdoor lighting shall heFeafter be installed in any
nonresidential district, including City Parks and City facilities, except in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
A -.B. Prior to the 'ssaenceef the ffiFGt EeFt♦fiGatec f GGG61paT'cY installation of any new
lighting, a lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director. Said lighting
plan shall include a photometric plan identifying the areas designed and intended for
lighting, and indicating the maximum illumination levels of 0.0 zero foot candles at
all property lines. Additionally, the lighting plan shall provide lighting descriptions,
including manufacturers catalog specifications, for all proposed light fixtures, lamps
and poles. The a lighting plan shall be prepared by a lighting contractor, and WhiGh
shall include the location, height, number of lights on the entire property, wattage
lumens of each light bulb, �e
at nr^r,eFty lives and shall be in conformance with the following standards and
criteria:, shall submitted fer appFe al by the dorenfnr
1 No ORe fiXtWe shall evneed 1,200 watts ovrl Fixture Orientation. No
outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source shall net
is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property
or properties, other than that upon which such light source is physically
located. Wattage fnr�vnrvm, TGan��� �n shell he IGWIat�
age--ro ems„--'�fa 9-�„�„--A�EaT
eaiR0 t -he
c#apteF. Accent lighting of buildings, trees or other landscape features
may be permitted, provided the lighting only accentuates those
M"
individual features, and not an entire structure or landscaped area.
Said accent lighting shall be directed onto the building facade or tree,
with no spillover beyond the facade of the building or tree, and all
lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded and mounted as close as
possible to the architectural feature of the building or tree being
illuminated_
2. Illumination Limits. No one fixture or luminaire shall exceed 1,600
lumens. Accent Lighting described in 13(1) above shall not exceed 800
lumens_
3. Correlated Color Temperature (CCT). All outdoor liahtina shall be of a
low color temperature, commonly referred to as neutral or warm color
temperature. The maximum CCT for each luminaire shall not exceed
4,000 Kelvin (K). Outdoor lights that exceed 4,000 K., commonly
referred to as cool color temperatures, are strictly prohibited.
4. Fixture Height. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light
source or fixture, if located on a building, is above the line of the
eaves. If the light source or fixture is located on a building with no
eaves, or if located on a standard or pole, the light source or fixture
shall not be more than ten feet above existing grade, adjacent to the
building or pole.
3-5. Light Trespass. The maximum illumination level at any property line
shall be less than a 0.01 foot candle. as measured at arade. Liaht
trespass that results in glare to neighboring properties or
public/private streets is prohibited unless the Director determines that
there is no other alternative to provide security lighting required by the
California Building Code, or approves the use of alarm or motion -
activated security lighting. For the purposes of this section, "glare"
means stray, unshielded light striking the eve that results in
discomfort glare, such as bright light causing squinting of the eves;
and/or disabling glare, such as bright light that reduces the ability to
drive or see into shadows in certain instances where the glare from a
light fixture will create an impact to neighboring properties or
public/private streets, the applicant shall be required to comply with
these standards to the fullest extent possible. All estimates or testing
shall be done with the entire facility illuminated.
6. Fixture Types. All light fixtures, including pole -mounted and wall -
A -5
mounted light fixtures, shall be fully shielded so that the light bulb is
not visible from the adjacent neighbors or streets. Said light fixtures
shall be "cut-off' where lenses, refractors or lamp sources do not
extend below the surface of the fixture housing, and no light shall be
directed at or above the lowest horizontal plane of the light fixture, as
depicted in the examples established by this section, or as approved
by the Director. Louvered light fixtures shall not qualify as fully
shielded fixtures.
[PLACEHOLDER: LIGHT FIXTURE EXAMPLES GO HERE — SEE EXHIBIT
`A']
7. Extinguishment of Lights. With the exception of approved security
lighting, or operational lighting conditions approved through a
Conditional Use Permit, all exterior lighting and parking lot lighting
shall be extinguished by 10:00 pm.
C. Exemptions. The following outdoor lights shall be exempted from the requirements of
this Section:
1. Temporary construction or emergency lighting_
2. Holiday lighting_
3. Exterior lighting for a temporary activity that is permitted through a
Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 17.62.
4. Low voltage, landscape lighting that does not require a permit from
Building and Safety.
9-.D. The Plannina Commission may approve deviations which exceed the standards set
forth in Section 17.56.040(A)(1) through (A)(4) of this chapter when the Planning
Commission finds that such deviations are required for public safety, pursuant to the
California Building Code. Said lighting shall be depicted on a "security lighting plan"
that is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission through a Site Plan
Review application, prior to installation of said security lighting_
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance, is for
any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining
sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this
ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council declares
that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,
clause, phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or
unenforceable.
Wo
Section 6. Certification and Posting. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be
posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk
shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this
Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of
Ordinances of the Council of this City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 1St day of March 2016.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Carla Morreale, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify
that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Ordinance No. passed first reading on March 1, 2016, was duly and regularly adopted
by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on and that
the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY CLERK
A-7
Exhibit 'A' - Outdoor Lighting Examples
UNACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE
E
I ixt.urta that i'raclsacc Glmrc Fixtures that Shetld the Lest Source to
and hat ProTtrduce
Minimize Glare and Light"Dupan
Facilitating Reiter Night Vision
Und-icided or F''oody-shielded floo4lighta Fiat cutoff Faxtum
ED
Llnshicldrd'L Allpaths & Poorly- Fully-shit4&d )XWlp k & Wall Mount Frlxtum
shieldt,d Wall Mount f3xtutas
iN
Dso +ens & Su -lau Fixtums
with Eqio6od fiulblRefra"or Letts Fully-6h4,ddt4 Mures
titasFtFedFd d FVII Cutoff
Street Light `s fr Steed Light
�y r
Llnshk4dcd
7tulght
'prrlod' Styir Fixtures I"ully ghiddcd FuDy Shitldd
Sowrhy s=ecurity 11 01 Ttriod' style Fixt—
Un"Atitd Drop -Iona Shieliltdli'roperly Aimed FiUA M*unted
PAR Floodlights Canopy Fixrums PAR Floodlights Canopy Rxturtm
W •
UNACCEPTABL'
Fixtures that Produce Glare
and Light Trespass
tltrslteldcd
Street I*t
Sm'"ity Light
Street and Parking Lot hilt LIShu
ACCEPTABLE
Fixtumi that Shield the Light Source to
Minimim Glare and Lot Imspaw -
Neil Itating Better Night Vision
Full cucoff
gmvx Light
Fully swvldvd
Stcurity Light
Street and Puking Lot Pole Lights
Mocke,V
Properly Aimed
Light
No Ught
Should M on
this Side of the
Property Line
Your Property Ncighbor`sYour Prop" Neighbor's
Property Property
rm
Stmt ant! Lot Light Cutoff at Proptrry Line
I :S. i and Lot Light Cut-off at Property Line
OR
P.C. Resolution No. 2016-03
(Recommendation to City Council)
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
17.56.040 OF CHAPTER 17.56 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE CITY'S
EXISTING REGULATIONS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING FOR
NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, SPECIFYING THAT LIGHT
FIXTURES ARE TO BE FULLY SHIELDED SO THAT THE LIGHT
SOURCE IS NOT VISIBLE FROM ANY ADJACENT PROERTY,
ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE COLOR TEMPERATURES FOR
EXTERIOR LIGHTS, IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON EXTERIOR
EMISSIONS BASED ON LUMENS INSTEAD OF WATTAGE, AND
ADDRESSING GLARE OF EXTERIOR LIGHTS TO VEHICLES ON
PUBLIC/PRIVATE STREETS.
WHEREAS, Section 17.56.040 (outdoor lighting for nonresidential uses) of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code") set forth various procedures and
regulations regarding outdoor lighting; and,
WHEREAS, between January 24, 2012 and February 25, 2015, the Planning
Commission reviewed research on lighting standards used by other similar cities for the purpose
of determining whether amendments to the City's outdoor lighting Development Code should be
considered. The Planning Commission reviewed a compilation of outdoor lighting requirements
for other Southern Californian cities that are similar to Rancho Palos Verdes' semi -rural and/or
coastal character, and other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Additionally, the Planning
Commission reviewed information from the Dark -Sky Association and Portland, Maine that have
recently established guidelines for regulating exterior lighting; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, the Planning Commission directed Staff to bring a
code amendment initiation request to the City Council to improve the City's current exterior
outdoor lighting requirements for non-residential private projects throughout the City; and,
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014, the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to
move forward with drafting an Ordinance to improve the City's existing Development Code
Standards for exterior lighting on nonresidential properties including, but not limited to,
specifying that light fixtures are to be fully shielded so the light source is not visible from any
adjacent property, establishing acceptable color temperatures for exterior lights, imposing
restrictions on exterior light emissions based on lumens instead of wattage, and addressing the
glare of vehicles on public/private streets; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby finds, in the exercise of its independent
judgment and analysis that the proposed Municipal Code amendments are categorically exempt
from CEQA pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) which applies
to the "operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of
existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features,
involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's
determination".. The exception applies to the proposed code amendment as the amendment
01203.0005/282770.1 -1-
would only permit minor alteration of existing, developed nonresidential land for exterior lighting
improvements which would result in a negligible expansion of the existing nonresidential use.
Additionally, the proposed Municipal Code amendments are exempt from environmental review
per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule (Section 15061(b)(3)) as the proposal does not
have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment, as the amendment is
proposed to alter the existing outdoor lighting code language to further reduce lighting impacts
related to glare.,
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2015, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News
and mailed to all interested parties who had previously commented on outdoor lighting impacts
throughout the City; and,
WHEREAS, the public hearing on the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance was continued a
number of times to April 14, 2015, April 28, 2015, June 23, 2015, July 28, 2015, and finally to a
date uncertain in order to allow the Outdoor Lighting Subcommittee additional time to review the
draft language for the ordinance and consider additional modifications before presenting to the
Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2015, a new Public Notice was published in the Peninsula
News. Additionally, a courtesy copy of the public notice was emailed to all interested parties
who had previously commented on outdoor lighting impacts throughout the City; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on January 12, 2015, at which time all interested
parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding said
amendments to Sections 17.56.030 (outdoor lighting in residential uses) and 17.56.040 (outdoor
lighting in nonresidential uses) of the Municipal Code as set forth in the Planning Commission
Staff Report of that date. At the meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff to only move
forward with the nonresidential text amendments, noting that additional consideration and
research for residential lighting needed to be further vetted to be considered at a future
publically noticed meeting. As a result, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to
January 26, 2016; and,
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered
the proposed code amendments to Sections 17.56.040 of the Municipal Code as it pertains to
nonresidential properties including City Parks and Facilities; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the amendments to
Section 17.56.040 (outdoor lighting for nonresidential uses) of Chapter 17.56 (Environmental
Protection) of Title 17 (Zoning Code), as presented and contained in the draft Ordinance,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
Section 2: The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Section 17.56.040 of
the Municipal Code are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning
amendment procedures.
01203.0005/282770.1 -2-
Section 3: The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Section 17.56.040 of
the Municipal Code are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan in that they
uphold, and do not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans.
Section 5: The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Section 17.56.040 of
the Municipal Code are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Municipal Code or
any other ordinance repealed, amended or superseded upon the enactment of this ordinance
and that the amendments to Section 17.56.040 of the Municipal Code shall be construed as a
restatement and continuation of the previous provisions and as new enactment.
Section 6: The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Section 17.56.040 of
the Municipal Code are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare in
the area.
Section 7: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council
adopt an Ordinance, entitled, AN ORDINANCE amending SECTION 17.56.040 OF CHAPTER
17.56 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE
CITY'S EXISTING REGULATIONS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING FOR NONRESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES, SPECIFYING THAT LIGHT FIXTURES ARE TO BE FULLY SHIELDED SO
THAT THE LIGHT SOURCE IS NOT VISIBLE FROM ANY ADJACENT PROERTY,
ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE COLOR TEMPERATURES FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTS,
IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON EXTERIOR EMISSIONS BASED ON LUMENS INSTEAD OF
WATTAGE, AND ADDRESSING GLARE OF EXTERIOR LIGHTS TO VEHICLES ON PUBLIC
STREETS" in the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Leon,
Vice Chairman Tomblin and Chairman Nelson
NOES: None
ABSTENTION: None
RECUSSAL: None
ABSENT: None
Robert Nelson,
Chairman
Joel RojasOtPlanning
Communitopment ' ctor; and,
Secretary Commission
01203.0005/282770.1 -.5-
MA
01203.0005/282770.1
EXHIBIT "A"
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. _
Please see attached.
-4-
ORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.56.040 OF
CHAPTER 17.56 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO PALOS
VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE CITY'S
EXISTING REGULATIONS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING FOR
NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, SPECIFYING THAT
LIGHT FIXTURES ARE TO BE FULLY SHIELDED SO THAT
THE LIGHT SOURCE IS NOT VISIBLE FROM ANY
ADJACENT PROERTY, ESTABLISHING ACCEPTABLE
COLOR TEMPERATURES FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTS,
IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON EXTERIOR EMISSIONS
BASED ON LUMENS INSTEAD OF WATTAGE, AND
ADDRESSING GLARE OF EXTERIOR LIGHTS TO
VEHICLES ONTO PUBLIC/PRIVATE STREETS.
WHEREAS, Section 17.56.040 (outdoor lighting for nonresidential uses) of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code") set forth various procedures
and regulations regarding outdoor lighting; and,
WHEREAS, between January 24, 2012 and February 25, 2015, the Planning
Commission reviewed research on lighting standards used by other similar cities for the
purpose of determining whether amendments to the City's outdoor lighting Development
Code should be considered. The Planning Commission reviewed a compilation of outdoor
lighting requirements for other Southern Californian cities that are similar to Rancho Palos
Verdes' semi -rural and/or coastal character, and other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Additionally, the Planning Commission reviewed information from the Dark -Sky Association
and Portland, Maine that have recently established guidelines for regulating exterior lighting;
and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, the Planning Commission directed Staff to bring
a code amendment initiation request to the City Council to improve the City's current
exterior outdoor lighting requirements for non-residential private projects throughout the
City; and,
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014, the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to
move forward with drafting an Ordinance to improve the City's existing Development Code
Standards for exterior lighting on nonresidential properties including, but not limited to,
specifying that light fixtures are to be fully shielded so the light source is not visible from any
adjacent property, establishing acceptable color temperatures for exterior lights, imposing
restrictions on exterior light emissions based on lumens instead of wattage, and addressing
the glare of vehicles on public/private streets; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds, in the exercise of its independent
judgment and analysis that the proposed Municipal Code amendments are categorically
exempt from CEQA pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities)
which applies to the "operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor
01203.0005/282771.1 1
alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or
topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at
the time of the lead agency's determination". The exception applies to the proposed code
amendment as the amendment would only permit minor alteration of existing, developed
nonresidential land for exterior lighting improvements which would result in a negligible
expansion of the existing nonresidential use. Additionally, the proposed Municipal Code
amendments are exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the
General Rule (Section 15061(b)(3)) as the proposal does not have the potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment, as the amendment is proposed to alter the existing
outdoor lighting code language to further reduce lighting impacts related to glare.; and,
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2015, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula
News and mailed to all interested parties who had previously commented on outdoor
lighting impacts throughout the City, providing notice of a public hearing before the Planning
Commission on March 10, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, the public hearing on the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance was continued a
number of times to April 14, 2015, April 28, 2015, June 23, 2015, July 28, 2015, and finally
to a date uncertain in order to allow the Outdoor Lighting Subcommittee additional time to
review the draft language for the ordinance and consider additional modifications before
presenting to the Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2015, a new Public Notice was published in the
Peninsula News. Additionally, a courtesy copy of the public notice was emailed to all
interested parties who had previously commented on outdoor lighting impacts throughout
the City, providing notice of a public hearing before the Planning Commission on January
12, 2016; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 12, 2015, at which time all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding
said amendments to Sections 17.56.030 (outdoor lighting in residential uses) and 17.56.040
(outdoor lighting in nonresidential uses) of the Municipal Code as set forth in the Planning
Commission Staff Report of that date. At the meeting, the Planning Commission directed
Staff to only move forward with the nonresidential text amendments, noting that additional
consideration and research for residential lighting needed to be further vetted to be
considered at a future publically noticed meeting. As a result, the Planning Commission
continued the public hearing to January 26, 2016; and,
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed and
considered the proposed code amendments to Municipal Code Section 17.56.040, as it
pertains to nonresidential properties, including City Parks and Facilities, and adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2016-_, recommending that the City Council adopt this Ordinance; and,
01203.0005/282771.1 2
AM
WHEREAS, on , after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Municipal Code
amendments contained herein as required by law, and received testimony from City staff
and all interested parties regarding the proposed amendments; and,
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The facts set forth in the Recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. Section 17.56.040 (Outdoor lighting for nonresidential uses) of Chapter 17.56
(Environmental Protection) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows (proposed deletions stFUGk out; proposed additions
underlined) :
(17.56.040 - Outdoor lighting for nonresidential uses.)
A. In order to protect the semi -rural character of the City and reduce excessive glare,
light trespass, or over -lighting, Nno outdoor lighting shall heFeane be installed in any
nonresidential district, including City Parks and City facilities, except in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
A-6. Prior to the issuanre 9f the fiFSt GeFtifiGate Of 9GGUpanG installation of any new
lighting, a lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director. Said lighting
plan shall include a photometric plan identifying the areas designed and intended for
lighting, and indicating the maximum illumination levels of 0.0 zero foot candies at
all property lines. Additionally, the lighting plan shall provide lighting descriptions,
including manufacturers catalog specifications, for all proposed light fixtures, lamps
and poles. The a lighting plan shall be prepared by a lighting contractor, and whish
shall include the location, height, number of lights on the entire property, wattage,
lumens of each light bulb, spill/glafe
at propeFty lines, and shall be in conformance with the following standards and
criteria_, shall be submitted for approval by the d*reGt
01203.0005/282771.1
No one fixture shall exceed 1,200 watts and Fixture Orientation. No
outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source shall -not -be
is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property
or properties, other than that upon which such light source is physically
located. Wattage fGF neniAGandesoent lighting shall be GaIrulated
using the multiplieF values deGGribed in SeGtiOn 17.56.030(A) of this
shapteF. Accent lighting of buildings, trees or other landscape features
may be permitted, provided the lighting only accentuates those
3
individual features, and not an entire structure or landscaped area.
Said accent lighting shall be directed onto the building facade or tree,
with no spillover beyond the facade of the building or tree, and all
lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded and mounted as close as
possible to the architectural feature of the building or tree being
illuminated.
2. Illumination Limits. No one fixture or luminaire shall exceed 1,600
lumens. Accent Lighting described in B(1) above shall not exceed 800
lumens.
3. Correlated Color Temperature (CCT). All outdoor liahtina shall be of a
low color temperature, commonly referred to as neutral or warm color
temperature. The maximum CCT for each luminaire shall not exceed
4,000 Kelvin W. Outdoor lights that exceed 4,000 K., commonly
referred to as cool color temperatures, are strictly prohibited.
�- 4. Fixture Height. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light
source or fixture, if located on a building, is above the line of the
eaves. If the light source or fixture is located on a building with no
eaves, or if located on a standard or pole, the light source or fixture
shall not be more than ten feet above existing grade, adjacent to the
building or pole.
3:5. Light Trespass. The maximum illumination level at any property line
shall be less than a 0.01 foot candle, as measured at grade. Light
trespass that results in glare to neighboring properties or
public/private streets is prohibited unless the Director determines that
there is no other alternative to provide security lighting required by the
California Building Code, or approves the use of alarm or motion -
activated security lighting. For the purposes of this section, "glare"
means stray, unshielded light striking the eve that results in
discomfort glare, such as bright light causing squinting of the eyes;
and/or disabling glare, such as bright light that reduces the ability to
drive or see into shadows in certain instances where the glare from a
light fixture will create an impact to neighboring properties or
public/private streets, the applicant shall be required to comply with
these standards to the fullest extent possible. All estimates or testing
shall be done with the entire facility illuminated.
4. equal
approved by the diFeGtOF.
6. Fixture Types. All light fixtures, including pole -mounted and wall -
01203.0005/282771.1
4
Me
mounted light fixtures, shall be fully shielded so that the light bulb is
not visible from the adjacent neighbors or streets. Said light fixtures
shall be "cut-off" where lenses, refractors or lamp sources do not
extend below the surface of the fixture housing, and no light shall be
directed at or above the lowest horizontal plane of the light fixture, as
depicted in the examples established by this section, or as approved
by the Director. Louvered light fixtures shall not qualify as fully
shielded fixtures.
[PLACEHOLDER: LIGHT FIXTURE EXAMPLES GO HERE — SEE EXHIBIT
'A']
7. Extinguishment of Lights. With the exception of approved security
lighting, or operational lighting conditions approved through a
Conditional Use Permit, all exterior lighting and parking lot lighting
shall be extinguished by 10:00 pm.
C. Exemptions. The following outdoor lights shall be exempted from the requirements of
this Section:
1. Temporary construction or emergency lighting.
2. Holiday lighting.
3. Exterior lighting for a temporary activity that is permitted through a
Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 17.62.
4. Low voltage, landscape lighting that does not require a permit from
Building and Safety.
8:D. The Planning Commission may approve deviations which exceed the standards set
forth in Section 17.56.040(A)(1) through (A)(4) of this chapter when the Planning
Commission finds that such deviations are required for public safety, pursuant to the
California Building Code. Said lighting shall be depicted on a "security lighting plan"
that is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission through a Site Plan
Review application, prior to installation of said security lighting.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance, is for
any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining
sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this
ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council declares
that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,
clause, phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or
unenforceable.
01203.0005/282771.1
AM
Section 6. Certification and Posting. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be
posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk
shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this
Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of
Ordinances of the Council of this City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _T" day of
Mayor
ATTEST:
Carla Morreale, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
2016.
I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify
that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Ordinance No. _ passed first reading on 'was duly and regularly adopted
by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on , and that
the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
01203.0005/282771.1
0
CITY CLERK
B-11
Exhibit 'A' - Outdoor Lighting Examples
UNACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE
Fixtures that Produce Glare Fixtures that Shkid the Light Source to
and Light Trespass Minitnire Glare and Light Trespass -
Facilitating Better Night Vision
v �
�----- � �+>� •..•ate► ■-.,,:..�-��.,.�
Unshielded or Poorly-slhlelded Floodlight:
Frill Cutoff Fistrtres
L = [g
Unslhidded Wallpo & Poorly- Fullynhidded Walipack & Will Mount Fiztuns
shielded
Wali Mount Fixtures
Unshielded
street Light
Unshie;Llght
security
UneWdded
PAR Roo -ft hts
Unshittdcd
'Ptrw, We Finures
Dlc+u
Canopy Fbwrra
�Cutoff
Suva Light
Fully Sh,did
Security i tact
4)1�>
ShieldedlPropedy Aimed
PAR Floodllghts
!lush Mounted
Canopy Finum
B-12
UNACCEPTABLE
Fixtures chat Produce Glare
ACCEPTABLE
Fixtum that Shield tht Light Source m
and Light TrapaLs
Minimize Glare and Light Trespass -
Facilitating Better Night Vision
UrAWded$6w
Ulj� Street light
I
Light Fall Cutoff
T,7
Urabitidod
Stmdty Light
9"ded
Semrity Light
Stmt and Parking Lot Pok Lights
Stmt and PwkWg Lot Pole Lights
Properly Aimed
Light
No 1.1pht
Should & on
this Side of the
Propecty I.Ane
Your Pmperty_� Property
+
Vow Property Neighbor's
Property
Stmt and Lot Light Cut-offst Property Line
Street and Lot Light Cut-offst Property Lint
B-13
P.C. Minutes
(January 12, 2016 &January 26, 2016)
C-1
throughout the property. He recommended the conditions of approval be very
!ILall banners and portable signs are to be removed.
Chairman Nelson re ed the public hearing.
Ms. Brentham noted a concern she has to talk to corporate regarding the "Shell
White" issue, and questioned if the pu Baring should be continued to the February
meeting.
Chairman Nelson asked that she check with corporate req-3rdiQathe colors and get back
to staff as soon as possible regarding whether or not they will have nswer 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
C-2
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
C-3
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
ME
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
C-5
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 fagade, and questioned why trees
couldn't be lit as well.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2016
Page 9
we
The motion to continue the public hearing to January 26, 2016 was approved, (7-0).
4. Pre-Aqenda for the meeting on January 26 2016
Director Rojas rev ed the pre -agenda, noting both of the items from this agenda have
been continued to the ary 26th meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2016
Page 10
C-7
4. "-,,CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2016-00239): 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard
Assistant anner Caraveo presented the staff report, comparing the previous plan
submitted to current revised plan which more accurately depicts the proposed signs.
He discussed th roposed color scheme, noting the applicant is proposing to keep the
color of the buildin the same, but proposes to change the color scheme of the canopy
columns to Shell whit ith a grey band along the bottom. He noted that the Commission
had asked that all existi signs and banners on the building be removed, and that has
been captured in the condit s of approval. He stated the applicant has indicated there
will be no audio or video on th uel dispensers, which is also reflected in the conditions
of approval. He stated staff is commending the Commission adopt the resolution
presented in the staff report, appro the revisions to the Conditional Use Permit and
Sign Permit,
Chairman Nelson opened the public hea
Nina Brentham (applicant) stated she was avail le for questions.
Commissioner Cruikshank noted a condition ofa roval in regards to reducing the
lumens, and asked if that reduction will work for the c pany.
Ms. Brentham stated she was fine with that condition.
Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Leon moved staff's recommendation to ap rove the proposed
project as conditioned, seconded by Commissioner Emenhise .
Commissioner Cruikshank referred to Condition G, regarding the remoVXI of the existing
signs and banners, and felt it would be less confusing to just require all ba ers and non -
Shell signs be removed.
Assistant Planner Caraveo pointed out that Condition V requires all existing sig age be
removed from the site, including banners, temporary signs, and permanent signs a ched
to the main building.
Commissioner Cruikshank felt that addressed his concerns.
The motion to approve the proposed project as conditioned, thereby approving PC
Resolution 2016-02 was approved, (7-0).
5. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (Case No. ZON2014-00320)
Senior Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining that the Resolution with the
draft Ordinance are before the Commission for review. She noted there is a revision to
the language that was included in the late correspondence. She explained that
Planning Commission Minutes
January 26, 2016
Page 3
W
Commissioner James felt security lighting should be addressed in non-residential areas,
and this revised language has been added to the Resolution. She stated that the revision
is under No. 5, Light Trespass, and read the change as follows: "or approve the use of
alarm or motion activated security lighting." She stated staff was recommending the
Planning Commission approve the Resolution as modified and provide a recommendation
to the City Council to adopt the Ordinance.
Commissioner Leon stated he is always uncomfortable with requirements that say "zero",
as in zero foot candles, as zero is a hard number to achieve. He therefore suggested
there be a limit that is something on the order of either half-moon or quarter moon, which
is approximately 1/100 of a foot candle, and say less than 1/100.
Senior Planner Mikhail suggested changing the proposed language to say "shall be less
than 1/100."
Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner James moved to adopt staffs recommendation with the two
modifications, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. The motion was approved,
and PC Resolution 2016-003 was adopted, (7-0).
N FUTURE AGENDAS
6. Pre-I-Awenda for the meeting on February 9
Director Rojas noted addition to the item noted, an Urgency Ordinance may be
added to the agenda prohibi i e cultivation of marijuana throughout the City.
IT7�I�1� : ► ►1�`I'i1���7
The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 26, 2016
Page 4
W
P.C. Staff Report
(includes public correspondence)
(January 12, 2016)
D-1
CITYOFL RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOEL ROJAS, AICP, COMMUNI VELOPMENT DIRECTOR
LMS
SUBJECT:
Project Manager:
JANUARY 12, 2016
CODE AMENDMENT TO IMPROVE CITYWIDE OUTDOOR
LIGHTING REGULATIONS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING (CASE NO.
ZON2014-00320)
Leza Mikhail, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
1) Review Staff's proposed text amendments to the City's existing residential and
nonresidential exterior lighting standards that require light fixtures to be fully shielded so
the light source is not visible from any adjacent property, establish acceptable color
temperatures for exterior lights, impose restrictions on exterior lighting emissions based
on lumens instead of wattage, and address the glare of exterior lights; and,
2) If the proposed amendments are acceptable, direct Staff to return to the next meeting with
a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the City's
outdoor lighting requirements.
r ���:cN���aJ►LI
At the October 25, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission requested
that a Staff Report be prepared explaining how exterior lighting for proposed non-residential
development projects are reviewed by Staff and how conditions of approval are applied in
order to avoid and/or minimize exterior lighting impacts.
On January 24, 2012, the Planning Commission was presented with a Staff Report that
explained the typical exterior lighting conditions that are applied to non-residential projects
throughout the City. The report described how non-residential lighting is reviewed before and
after non-residential projects are constructed. During the meeting, the Planning Commission
created a sub -committee, composed of Commissioners Gerstner, Leon and Tomblin, to work
with Staff in reviewing the City's current outdoor lighting requirements as well as lighting
01203.0005/281399.1
D-2
standards used by other similar cities for the purpose of determining whether amendments to
the City's Development Code should be considered.
On August 14, 2012, the Planning Commission was presented with a compilation of outdoor
lighting requirements for other Southern California cities that were considered to be similar to
Rancho Palos Verdes' semi -rural and/or coastal character. As a result of the discussion that
ensued, the Planning Commission directed Staff to gather information from the International
Dark -Sky Association, review Portland, Maine and other municipalities that have recently
established guidelines for regulating exterior lighting, and report back to the Planning
Commission with the additional information, In addition, the Planning Commission directed
Staff to provide the Planning Commission with the code language used by the other Cities on
the Palos Verdes Peninsula to address lighting. Unfortunately, due to an influx in development
applications with State mandated deadlines and Staffing constraints, the continued research
and compilation of additional information was put on hold.
On February 25, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the additional information
compiled by Staff and directed Staff to bring a code amendment initiation request to the City
Council to improve the City's current exterior outdoor lighting requirements for non-residential
private projects throughout the City. The Planning Commission requested that the City
Council direct the Planning Commission to take a broad look at lighting within the City in all
aspects and how it affects both public and private property (see attached February 25, 2014
Minutes).
On September 2, 2014, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council
initiated a Code Amendment and directed Staff and the Planning Commission to move
forward with drafting an Ordinance to improve the City's existing Development Code
Standards for exterior lighting on non-residential properties including, but not limited to,
specifying that light fixtures are to be fully shielded so the light source is not visible from any
adjacent property, establishing acceptable color temperatures for exterior lights, imposing
restrictions on exterior light emissions based on lumens instead of wattage, and addressing
the glare of exterior lights.
On February 19, 2015, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News and mailed to
all interested parties who had previously commented on outdoor lighting impacts throughout
the City. Although a Public Notice for the code amendment was published, the Planning
Commission requested that the Outdoor Lighting Subcommittee, comprised of
Commissioners Gerstner and Leon, review the draft language of the code amendment before
being presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. As a result, the meeting that
was scheduled for March 10, 2015 was continued to April 14, 2015.
On March 23, 2015, Staff completed the draft code language and forwarded it to the
Subcommittee for review and comments. Given that the code language was only provided to
the Subcommittee two weeks before the continued public hearing, the Subcommittee
requested additional time to review and comment on the draft code language. Based on the
Subcommittee's request, the public hearing on the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance was continued
a number of times to April 14, 2015, April 28, 2015, June 23, 2015, July 28, 2015, and finally
to a date uncertain. It should be noted that Staff forwarded a copy of the draft code
amendment to the Subcommittee on March 23, 2015. After conducting phone conferences,
the Subcommittee felt that they would like the code language to be more technical. Staff noted
that a Consultant, with City Council approval, would likely need to be retained for the type of
01203.0005/281399.1
D-3
technical language that was being requested. The Subcommittee did not wish to request a
formal contract with a Lighting Consultant, and noted that they would try to call on some
lighting industry professionals that they know to help formulate more technical language. Due
to the amount of time that has lapsed since the January 27, 2015 meeting, Staff is now
bringing its draft recommendations to the Planning Commission for its review and input. If the
Planning Commission wishes to seek a more technical lighting code, Staff will likely
recommend that the City formally retain a Consultant.
On December 10, 2015, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News. Additionally,
a courtesy copy of the public notice was emailed to all interested parties who had previously
commented on outdoor lighting impacts throughout the City.
DISCUSSION
Nonresidential Outdoor Lighting
While the current code minimizes lighting impacts, the existing Code should be updated to
include lighting specifications to help reduce lighting impacts before exterior lights are
installed. Doing so will eliminate or minimize applicants having to make costly adjustments
after the lighting is installed. As such, Staff has drafted the proposed amendments to the
Chapter 17.56.040 of the Development Code to address changes to the code language for
outdoor lighting for nonresidential uses for the Planning Commission's review and input.
Language deletions are shown in str+lethreyg4, and proposed changes are shown in
underline. It should be noted that a more detailed discussion of Staff's previous research
efforts related to outdoor lighting can be found on the City's website under previous Planning
Commission Agendas for the dates listed in the Background section of this report.
Additionally, the Minutes of City Council and previous Planning Commission meetings are
attached to this report.
(17.56.040 - Outdoor lighting for nonresidential uses.)
A. In order to protect the semi -rural character of the City and reduce excessive tare
htht trespass, or over -lighting Nno outdoor lighting shall hereafter be installed in any
nonresidential district, including City Parks, except in accordance with the provisions of this
section.
A-. B. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, or prior to installation of any
new li htingL a li hting_Plan that includes a photometric Ian shall be.provided to the Git
for review and approval b the Director. Said lighting Ian shall show the extent of the
areas designed and intended for Ii htina, indicating the maximum illumination levels of
0.0 14erol foot candles at all property lines. Additional) the lighting Ian shall provide
lighting descriptions, tions including manufacturers catalocl specifications, for all proposed light
fixtures, lam s and poles. The a lighting plan shall be prepared by a lighting contractor,
and whish shall include the location, height, number of lights on the entire property,
wattage; lumens of each light btalb esti► ate f r axi rrr a—iil trna titin ga it -and
apill/glar"t-property--lines; and shall be in conformance with the following standards and
criteria; shall be-subtm- itted forwnapprov-ai-by-the--dir tef!7
fro --one- fixture---shall---exceed l- 20G, -watts and Fixture Orientation. No outdoor
lighting shall be permitted where the light source shall not is directed toward
01203.0005/281399.1
MA
or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties ins eluding
public or private streets, other than that upon which such light source is
physically located. -Wattage-for---noRinrandesGent-ligtltiqg-gh-at[-be-cal4Du# ted
using -tm
The lighting of a building for architectural effect may be permitted, provided the
lighting only accentuates individual architectural or aesthetic elements, and not
the entire structure. Said architectural effect lighting shall be directed onto the
building facade, with no spillover beyond the faade of the building, and all
lbbtin
A fixtures shall be fully shielded and mounted as close as possible to the
architectural feature bin
Illumination Limits. No one fixture or luminaire shall exceed 1,400 lumens.
3. Correlated Color Temperature (CCT). All outdoor liahtina shall be of a low color
temperature, commonly referred to as neutral or warm color temperature. The
maximum CCT for each luminaire shall not exceed 4,000 Kelvin K. Outdoor
liqhts that exceed 4,000 K. common) v referred to as cool color temperatures,
are strict) v orohibited.
1 4. Fixture 1jgi �ht. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source or
fixture, if located on a building, is above the line of the eaves. If the light source
or fixture is located on a building with no eaves, or if located on a standard or
pole, the light source or fixture shall not be more than ten feet above existing
grade, adjacent to the building or pole.
3-5, Light Trespass. The maximum illumination level at any property line shall not
exceed a as measured at grade. In certain instances
where a luminaire on a proposed development will create a foot candle above
0.0 (zero) at a Property lineadditional shieldinc
q shall beprovided to comply
with this standard. Li ht trespass that results. in glare to neighboring propertie
or the public/private streets is prohibited unless the Director determines that
there is no other alternative to provide security lighting required by the
California Building Code. For the purposes of this section, "glare" means stray,
unshielded _right strikin the eye that results in discomfort glare, such as bright
light causing squinting of the eyes: and/or disablinght
glare, such as brig light
that reduces the abilitv to drive or see into shadows.in certain instances where
the glare from a light fixture will create an impact to neighborin orooerties or
public/private streetsthe applicant shall be reguired to comply with this
standards to the fullest extent possible. All estimates or testing shall be done
with the entire facility illuminated.
eq" approved ,by -the -director-.
6. Fixture Types. All light fixtures, including pole -mounted and wall -mounted light
Fixtures, shall be fully shielded so that the light bulb is not visible from the
adjacent neighbors or public/private streets. Said light fixtures shall be "cut-off'
where lenses refractors or fam sources do not extend below the surface of
the fixture housing, and no light shall be directed at or above the lowest
horizontal lane of the light fixture, as depicted in the examples established by
01203.0005/281399.1
MR
this sectionor as approved b! the Director. Louvered light fixtures shall not
qualify as fully shielded fixtures.
7. Extinguishment of Lights. With the exception of approved security lighting, or
operational !jghtina conditions noroved throw h a Conditional Use Permit all
exterior lighting and parking lot lighting shall be extinguished by 10:00 pm.
C. Exemotipns. The followirar outdoor lights shall be exempted from the requirements
of this Section:
1. Temporary construction or emerggEgy ligh .
2. Hol_day lighting.
3. Exterior liahtina for a temoorary activity that is permitted through a Special Use
Permit ursuant to Chapter 17.62.
4. Low voltage,, lan(sca)e Ii Inting that does not re wire a err -nit from Bu !din and
Safety.
B:D, The Planning Commission maapprove deviations which exceed the standards set
forth in Section 17.56.040(A)(1) throur l� of this chapter when the E!gDninq Commission
finds that such deviations are reguired far oriblic safety pursuant to the California Building
Code. Said lighting shall be depicted on a "securit li htinlan" reviewed and approved b
the Planning Commission through a Site Plan Rev igA_gpplication rior to i►7stallation of said
security lighting..
Residential Outdoor Lighting
Throughout the course of researching outdoor lighting code requirements of other cities
similar to Rancho Palos Verdes for nonresidential uses, Staff became aware that existing
code language for residential properties throughout the City also fell short of reducing lighting
impacts related to glare and the degradation of the dark -sky, rural character of the City. Thus,
Staff is of the opinion that the City's current residential outdoor lighting code requirements are
outdated and unenforceable. In fact, Staff found on a number of occasions that residents were
installing or updating the exterior lighting on their residential properties with new, energy-
efficient LED lights, thereby installing new, bright white lights that are creating impacts to
neighboring properties, similar to larger nonresidential projects. Furthermore, the current
development code references outdated lighting technologies and wattage as a measurement
of light, instead of lumens, which does not does not represent the current industry standard
or provide for an effective way of enforcing lighting impacts from residential properties to other
neighboring properties or public or private streets. As such, Staff is also recommending that
the residential outdoor lighting code language be modified to accommodate the following:
• Specify that light fixtures are to be fully shielded so the light source is not visible from
any adjacent property, and provide light fixture examples;
• Establish acceptable color temperatures for exterior lights;
• Impose restrictions on exterior light emissions based on lumens instead of wattage;
and,
• Add specific regulations to prevent the glare of exterior lights to public or private
streets.
01203.0005/281399.1
w •
Similar to nonresidential exterior code language, while the current Code does help eliminate
some lighting impacts related to height and impacts of glare at a property line, the existing
Code should be updated to include lighting specifications to help reduce lighting impacts
before exterior lights are installed. Doing so will eliminate or minimize impacts to neighboring
properties, especially before new lighting is purchased and installed on a residential property.
As such, Staff has drafted the proposed amendments to the Chapter 17.56.030 of the
Development Code to address changes to the code language for outdoor lighting for
residential uses.
Language deletions are shown in str-+kettarough, and proposed changes are shown in
underline.
(17.56.030 - Outdoor lighting for residential uses.)
A. In order to protect the semi -rural character of the Citv and reduce excessive glare,
Iight trespass, or over-li htin ,„Nilo outdoor residential lighting shall "ereafte be
installed or used in the single-family residential (RS) or multiple -family residential (RM)
zones, except in accordance with the provisions of this section.
A:1. E-xcept�-as-hereinafter-provided; Fixture Orientation. No outdoor lighting shall be
permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct
illumination of a parcel of property or properties including ublic or private
streets, other than that upon which such light source is physically located. The
lighting of a building for architectural effect may be permitted, Provided the
li hg ting oniv accentuates individual architectural or aesthetic elements,,and not
the entire structure. Said architectural effect lighting shall be directed onto the
building fa ade with no spillover beyond the facade of the building, and all
lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded and mounted as close as poasible to the
architectural feature being lit. lndividr:jai;-nonreflector,--ineandescen"ght butlas;
not exceeding 150-wattsaeaoh; or -each -lot --or
parcel-shall--be--permitted.--Qnn-lots exceeding- -5 Q0t7- gt+ase-feet, an-additierval
=190 -watts -4n the--aggregate--shall-be perm itted-for;-each--4,500 uare-feet-of
major---fr-action-thereofrby-which the -lot or-paroel--xceeds 1-5,QG0-square
feet; provided,-that-in-ne.-event:-shati-the agg"ate- xceed-2-,000-wwa As -u -sed
berein; the --terror watts!°' -is-irrespeotive-of the-voltage:-lfL-nonirrcarrdes Rt
lighting--is-used; tile -wattage --o# eac,b nonincandesoent •light--shall-be-multiplied
by--the-followincg_-ec over-sioti-factors-to ascertaio--a-standar=d--wattage--that--is
com pai--able-,to-the-,wattage-,associated-with inoandeseent-lighting
Type-ref-L-arnp Multiplier
quartz�tungster�-halt�gerr =1-�3
Mercury 27.4
fl i i n r,�.o� a GePA
sodiunI-vapGr--HP-SV 5�
sodium ,vapor,LPSV 9 0
m-. 4 0
incandescent -reflector
01203.00051281399.1
D-7
2. Illumination Limits. Individual light bulbs, not exceeding 2,600 lumens each., or
an a.q re ate of light bulbs not exceeding 17,340 lumens for each lot or parcel
-q
shall be per nitted. On lots exceeding 15,000 SQUare feet in area, an additional
1,600 lumens in the aggregate shall be,permitted,for each 1,500 square feet of
area or major fraction thereof, by which the lot or parcel exceeds 15,000 square
feet; provided that in no event shall thea gregate exceed 34,700 lumens.
3. Correlated Color Temperature rr(CCT).r All residential outdoor lighting shall be of
a low color temnerature, common) v referred to as neutral or warm color
temperature. The maximum CCT shall not exceed 4,000 Kelvin (K). Outdoor
lights that exceed 4,000 K. commonly referred to as coot color temperatures,
are strictly prohibited.
874. Fixture Height. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source
or fixture, if located on a building, is above the line of the eaves, or if located
on a standard or pole, is more than ten feet in total height above grade to the
top of the Iight source or fixture.
5. Light Trespass, Liaht trespass that results in glare to neighboring pror)erties or
the public or private right-of-way is prohibited. For the purpose of this section,
19 qlare" means stray, unshielded liqht strikinq the eve that results in discomfort
glare, such as bright light causin squintinq of the eves: and/or disabling )are.
such as briciht liciht that reduces the ability to drive or see into shadows. In
certain instances where the glare from a light fixture will create an impact to
neighboring pLoperties or the public right-of-way, thea licant shall be re uired
to comply with this standard to the fullest extent possible,
6. Fixture Tykes. All light fixtures, including pole -mounted and wall -mounted light
fixturesshall be full V shielded so that the light bulb is not visible from the
adjacent neighbors or public or private rights-of-way. Said light fixtures shall be
"cut -Off" where lenses, refractors or lamp Sources do not extend below the
surface of the fixture housing, and no fight shall be directed at or above the
lowest horizontal plane of the light fixture, similar to those depicted in the
examples established by this section, or as approved by the Director. Louvered
light fixtures shall not gcalif y as fully shielded fixtures.
[PLACEHOLDER: LIGHT FIXTURE EXAMPLES GO HERE - SEE ATTACHED]
B. Exceotions. The following outdoor liahts shall be exemWed from the reguirements of
this Section:
1 All light fixtures or luminaires producing light directly by the combustion of fossil
fuels,.. such. as kerosene lanterns or as lamps.
2. Tem ora . enc y lightinc
y construction or emerg
3. Holiday lighting.
4. Exterior lighting for a temporary activ!tV that is permitted through a Use SpggLqi ecial use
Permit , pursuant to Chapter 17,62.
5. Low voltage, landscape liclhtrncj that does not require a permit by Building andr
Safety.
01203,0005/281399.1
W-0
C. +notwithstanding-the-regttir-ement"f this-seot+on, cru#door-Itghting4naoe nstalled-arad
rased -in -a -r aan4ier-notwperr,T,iitted-by-this--sectiOra--Upe;a-t-he-issuaooe-Gf- - onditionat-Lyse
permit-pt:ir-suat4t-t-o--Chapter 7-6O4Goi,iditioiial-Use�efmi s .-
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Nonconforming Lights
Given the movement toward a "dark -sky" City, if this Ordinance goes into effect, similar to
other code amendments, the new rules will govern. This means that all exterior lighting that
does not comply with the current code language would be considered nonconforming to the
new code. Staff is not proposing code language that requires full code compliance by a certain
date. Instead, residents would need to comply with the new code language only if they chose
to update their exterior lighting and/or lighting fixtures. For example, if a resident had an
existing light fixture that was not fully shielded, but they wanted to install new luminaires in
the existing fixtures, they could keep the same light fixture, but would need to comply with the
new code required color temperatures and lumens. If a resident wanted to install entirely new
lighting fixtures, they would need to comply with the new code in its entirety.
Public Notice
A Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on December 10, 2015. Additionally,
the Public Notice was also emailed to all "Interested Parties" who previously submitted
comments to the City regarding the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. A copy of all correspondence
related to the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance are attached to this report. Additionally, for the
reasons stated in the body of this report, Staff is of the opinion that that the proposed code
amendment will create a straightforward code that is both user-friendly for residents and Staff,
and more easily enforceable when complaints are received.
Environmental Assessment
Staff has reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). It has been determined that the proposed Code Amendment is exempt
from CEQA, pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) which applies to the "operation,
repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or
private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving
negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's
determination". The exception applies to the proposed code amendment as the amendment
would only permit minor alteration (minor alteration of existing, developed residential and
nonresidential land for exterior lighting improvements) of existing developed lots which would
result in a negligible expansion of the existing residential use. Furthermore, Staff believes
that the proposed code amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3),
as the proposal does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment,
as the amendment is proposed to alter the existing outdoor lighting code language to further
reduce lighting impacts related to glare.
01203.0005/281399.1
Me
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated throughout the Staff Report, Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission review the proposed code language and if the proposed language is acceptable,
direct Staff to return to the next meeting with a Resolution recommending that the City Council
adopt an ordinance amending the City's exterior lighting requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration:
1) Recommend denial of the Outdoor Lighting Code Amendment to the City Council, and
direct Staff to return to the next meeting with a Resolution memorializing said denial.
If this alternative is chosen, property owners will be limited to the standards of the
existing development code and/or stricter conditions of approval imposed through
development applications (i.e. Conditional Use Permits, Site Plan Reviews, Height
Variations, Variances)
2) Provide Staff with specific direction to expand the code amendment language with
specific modifications to the code language, and return to a future meeting
memorializing said modifications.
ATTACHMENTS
• Light Fixture Examples
• Public Correspondence
• C.C. Minutes
• P.C. Minutes
01203.0005/281399.1
D-10
Lighting Fixture Examples
D-11
UNACCENABLE ACCEPTABLE
Fixtures that Produce Clare Fixtures that Shield the Ugbt SouKv to
and t4fix '11tospam Minint4c Glarr and Ught I'mpats -
I PAcIlitating Better Night Voloo
Uxi"4dtxi or FVorly."Ieldod Fltwdiigists Full Cutoff fixtums
Un%hi c1drd WtdlfwdcN & lloufly
thieldedWAI Mount Fixtures
Folly-shi*lded Walljwk & Wali Mount "van"
[?to icrts &
with Exposed Rulb/RefT";or Lena Fully -shielded timm
Security Light
UI Cutoff
Suvvt Lt t
iKrliy vad
I d 7"d
pully Shielded
T"Iod* Style mimms
ShiOded/Propr4j, Aimed Flwh Mounted
PAR FloiJlfjhtn Canavy fixturm
D-12
PAR nwdlightt
Cw1upy Rxwrel
UI Cutoff
Suvvt Lt t
iKrliy vad
I d 7"d
pully Shielded
T"Iod* Style mimms
ShiOded/Propr4j, Aimed Flwh Mounted
PAR FloiJlfjhtn Canavy fixturm
D-12
UNACCEPTABLE
Fixtures that Product Glare
and light 'I'rcsp2m
:tr
Street tight
Unshicided
svcaviry Light
Street And KuWng Lot Pole L*hu
ACCEPTABLE
Fixtum-i tha(Shicid the light source to
Miuimi?c Glare vind Ught Trespass -
Facilitaring Better Night Vision
r -d 00toff
9mwx Uot
Fully ShloWd
Security Light
Simi and Pu ma# Lot Pole Dow
ProptAy Aime4
Light
NoLight
Should 1on
this Side of the
�Yaur Property`" NcISKWt 0 -o-- Your PropertyNciobuei
I Property property
Street and Lot I*t Gtr -off ax Property line Street and Lot Llot Cuvoffm Property Lint
D-13
Public Correspondence
D-14
Leza Mikhail
From: momofyago <momofyago@gmaii.com>
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 12:33 PM
To: Leza Mikhail
Subject: RE: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Leza,
Aa I read this, the ordinance Mould apply to all properties, including residences, and prohibit light fixtures
through which the bulbs are visible, correct? If so, this would require that most of the outdoor lights on homes
would have to be replaced when no one is complaining about them. The commercial lights, and those at Point
Vicente Interpretive center are the ones at issue. Shouldn't there be something that ties to the strength of the
bulbs?
Sent from my Verizon wireless 46 LCL; sxnartphune
-------- Original message --------
From: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@)rpvca.gov>
Date: 01/04/2016 10:23 AM (GMT -08:00)
To: Leza Mikhail <I.,ezaM@rpvca.gov>
Sutlject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Dear Interested Party,
Please see the attached notice that was published in the Peninsula News on Thursday, December 10, 2015. A
review of previous emails notes that you have been following the progress of the City's Outdoor Lighting
Ordinance changes. This particular Agenda item was continued a number of times over the last 2 years,
however Staff will now be taking draft code language to the Plarming Commission on January 12, 2015. Please
review the attached notice for a brief description of the changes. A copy of the draft Ordinance will be available
on the City's website under Planning Commission Agendas on Thursday, January 7, 2015, if you would still
like to follow these changes.
You are receiving a copy of this public notice as a courtesy. Should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
D-15
Leza Mikhail
From:
Murat Mese <mmmese@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, January 04, 2016 12:28 PM
To:
Leza Mikhail
Cc:
Noilya Mese
Subject:
Re: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Attachments:
CommentsExteriorLighting.docx
Dear Leza,
We were not aware of this notice. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention. In your email you
mentioned that draft ordinance will be available on Jan7th. Hence the only document to make comments as of
now seems to be the public notice.
Also, previously we have provided our comments on the issue on 3/3/15. Please see the attached document for
your convenience. Have these comments been taken into account already for the draft ordinance on the issue? I
have not been provided any feedback on my comments.
I am providing my comments again to be taken into consideration.
Please let me know if you have any questions on my comments.
Thank you very much
Murat Mese
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Leza Mikhail <I,c;uilt%rpvc r.gt3Ei wrote:
Dear Interested Party,
Please see the attached notice that was published in the Peninsula News on Thursday, December 10, 2015. A
review of previous entails notes that you have been following the progress of the City's Outdoor Lighting
Ordinance changes. This particular Agenda item was continued a number of times over the last 2 years,
however Staff will now be taking draft code language to the Planning Commission on January 12, 2015. Please
review the attached notice for a brief description of the changes. A copy of the draft Ordinance will be
available on the City's website under Planning Commission Agendas on Thursday, January 7, 2015, if you
would still like to follow these changes.
You are receiving a copy of this public notice as a courtesy. Should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
D-16
Thank you,
Leza Mikhail
Senior Planner
'City of Woncho Paros 'Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
A"y.rpyea.go
(310)_544-5228 — (31 O1 544-5293 f
lezam.Orpvca.gov
*111ea,w Note. Efl' ctive 02/20/15, the City's new email addres is "( Myq�agQy")'leas'e update your Contact
ifif'orniation for me to reflect IC Ltliltifl t'j7 eLlIgtly as my new ernes 1.
This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character
and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
D-17
Comments:
1. Code should not be amended because only one or couple of people do not like
the current code. The code served for so many years for so many real life cases,
it does not make sense to change it because one person/couple people are not
happy with it.
2. If made more restricted, code amendment will put homeowner who gets affected
from this amendment at server disadvantage.
3. If at all the code is amended, only luminance to neighbor properties outside of
setback of neighbor properties should be considered in the allowable lumens.
4.Also, if at all the code is amended; the beam width of the lights installed should
also be taken into account. Lower beam widths should be discounted
proportionally compared to a homogenous light source.
5. Making sure that an amendment on this issue right will take a lot of effort from the
city and people involved in terms of money and time, hence another reason why
the amendment should not be made.
6.Amendment should address that allowed wattage/lumens is allowed
wattage/lumens emitted at the same time and not what is installed. For example,
there can be 10 lights installed but not more than 2 lights at the same time might
be switched on at the same time. In that case, only 2 lights should be taken into
account.
7. Enforcement will be very hard and costly for the city to take, and will be a waste of
city's money.
a. Do you need experts to come and tell whether there is any violation?
b. How do you verify the lumens? On the label? Measured?
c. Who will go and check every single light bulb?
d. If someone is complains that a neighbor is not complying with code, party
who complains needs to find an expert and should clearly demonstrate
without a doubt to the city that there is violation.
8. To make any amendment, either a panel of experts has to be formed and this
amendment has to be studied and preferably some ICC recommendation would
be also a good resource to be looked at.
9. If amendment is to be made, how to enforce it with experts should be also
discussed in the amendment.
10. Color temperature should not be regulated at all. Color temperature is a personal
choice. Even now; there is not even a most dominant color temperature in the
installed lightings throughout the city.
11. Light source is not visible or shielded item: This is not clear at all? Does it mean
they have to be recessed lights? What shielding material is proposed?
12. Glare of exterior lights in the public right of way: This definition is vague and very
subjective. Either more objective amendment should be proposed or this should
be dropped all together from the amendment. Also, one can even claim that
street lights cause glare to vehicles; hence this item should be dropped all
together from consideration.
13. If at all any amendment is made, it should be noted that this amendment cannot
be applied for the already existing structures, permitted applications and
applications already been in review process by the city. This should be
mentioned in the amendment like any other amendments city has made over the
years.
D-19
Leza Mikhail
From:
Leza Mikhail
Sent:
Monday, January 04, 2016 11:46 AM
To:
'Diane Smith'
Cc:
Doug Willmore; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian
Subject:
RE: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Mello Diane,
Nappy New Year to you as well. Thank you for your comments below.
For a bit of clarification, the item that I sent to you in my previous email was a copy of the Public Notice. It was not the
actual Ordinance language. The Ordinance and the specific language that will set standards will be available on the City's
website this Thursday—it will be part of the Staff Report that is being presented to the Planning Commission on January
12, 2016. 1 urge you to take a look at that language and provide additional input to the Planning Commission. Hopefully,
the language will help set up a better process for reviewing lighting in our City. I will be taking some of your suggestions
into consideration for the preparation of the Ordinance and I am always open to your opinions.
Thank you,
Lena Mikhail
Senior Planner
City of Wancho r'aros Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
(390) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f
lezam@Tvca.gov
*Please; Note. F.11" .c;tive 2/20/15, the City's new email address is "t�,�rPvca.gov" Please u[xiate your contact
lnl:i rination for me to reflect l zam@.Kpvca.goy as my now e sr:aal,
From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 201611:06 AM
To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Happy New Year Leza,
I have taken a quick look at this - Item 3 doesn't get the job done.
From my experience, during the EIR process, residents downslope of Marymount's east parking lot opposed the parking
lot based on the exterior lighting (as well as other issues) and their concerns were completely, ignored. Part of the
D-20
frustration was that the City represented that the output of light (wattage, lumens, whatever) would not exceed the
minimum standard, There was no precise definition of minimum standard — I suppose it was left up to the esteemed
code enforcer? The Marymount east parking lot, however, did exceed minimum standard that I researched. I used the
minimum output standard established by the City's own Hesse Park parking lot light where the City Council and Planning
Commission hold their public meetings. 1 also used the Peninsula High School parking lot light standard because if it was
good enough for high school students at the junction of two busy roads, it should be good enough for College students
out in the boon docks.
Thr: city_q d, nat c1here to their own rules Arid all wnd.ltit�?tymount„to,exceed„the, minimum.
Failure to respond to residents' concerns cost Marymount a bundle.
The City's Planning Department asked for clarification of the City's outdoor lighting procedures many years ago because
it was not clear to them.
Measurement of the light should be in footcandles as I have stated to you — based on my research obtained by
professional outdoor lighting specialists. The ordinance is still unclear and leaves too much room for "perfect storms of
errors.”
This isn't rocket science.
We live on a hill and therefore many bedroom windows are exposed to looking up at light.
There should be a fixed minimum. Developers should not have to guess and be rejected and then exposed to undue
expenses.
The language is too loose — still too loose.
Have you checked with other hillside cities? I don't want to have to research this anymore. I want to be able to trust you
to have a very clear procedure for our Planning Commission to follow — no guessing. Our Planning Commission asked for
a clear procedure years ago and you must provide them with this -- that includes a definition of minimum output and the
industry standard for measuring output of light.
This is off the top my head — I really want to have a peaceful year and not have to double-check everything.
I'm sending a copy of my response to the City Manager with the hopes that our City attorneys can take a look into this to
make sure this is tightened up.
Thanks for the hard work you have done Leza. I am sorry this sounds harsh but I spent so long protecting my property
when I thought the city's rules and codes would protect me. Nothing personal.
Sincerely,
Diane
From: Leza Mikhail [rrt ilto;LelajM,.0 r.t uc _,gpv]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 10:24 AM
To: Leza Mikhail <t.e .a l rp gcsv>
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Dear Interested Party,
Please see the attached notice that was published in the Peninsula News on Thursday, December 10, 2015. A review of
previous emails notes that you have been following the progress of the City's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance changes. This
particular Agenda item was continued a number of times over the last 2 years, however Staff will now be taking draft
code language to the Planning Commission on January 12, 2015. Please review the attached notice for a brief description
of the changes. A copy of the draft Ordinance will be available on the City's website under Planning Commission
Agendas on Thursday, January 7, 2015, if you would still like to follow these changes.
You are receiving a copy of this public notice as a courtesy. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
D-21
Thank you,
Lezn Mikhail
Senior Planner
City of �Rgncho (Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
309401 Hawthorne Blvd,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 9O275
wwv�l.!��?uca.�cav
(310) 644-6228 — (310) 344-5293 f
l�z�artt„a r ; v�a,�c�v
*111oase rote: Efft.'oc ive 02/20/15, ehe City s sae:.w email. <a(ItIress is ”@rpvcta., ;ov" Please upil to your confact
if.,or°moflon for the tri I- fig°ct tgI/julai'Ll-11 , g<yv os nly now enflaii
D-22
Leza Mikhail
From: Joel Rojas
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:28 PM
To: Leza Mikhail
Subject: FW: RPV OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS
Attachments: IMG_2080.JPG; Untitled attachment 00005.txt; IMG_2088.JPG; Untitled attachment
00008.txt
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Diane Smith
Sent: 5/20/2015 7:04 PM
To: PC; CC
Cc:'Randee Hinchliffe'; roni onir rractsphcatc�.rpM
Subject: RPV OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS
Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council,
Staff previously represented to the City Council that the lights from
Marymount's new East Parking lot were insignificant as seen from my home at
2704 San Ramon Drive. Based on Staffs recommendation (and photos which
were later admitted by staff to be hazy due to computer issues), the City
Council voted to approve Marymount's East Parking lot, including lights.
I am forwarding to you the lights as seen now from the Cornelius home, just
down from the parking lot. Mr. Cornelius passed away not long after the
Marymount Gala jackhammering incident and his heir has now moved into the
home. I am bringing this to your attention now because our City's new
Outdoor Lighting haws should take into consideration that many residents are
getting older and therefore must rely on the rules/laws that have been set
by the City - the very City that they lived and voted in. We residents
cannot have "catch -us -if -you -can" situations where residents have to hover
over staff - - our city staff must abide by clear rules and must defend
tax -paying resident voters, no matter what their age and situation, against
intrusions by light, noise, and other nuisances upon their properties that
diminish their quality of life and the quality of life expected by their
heirs.
The City's EIR for Marymount's parking lot required;
"152) Parking and Security lighting shall be kept to minunurn safety
standards and shall conform to City requirements" (emphasis added)
The problem with the outdoor lighting arose when Staff did not have a
MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARD to guide them. Hesse Park and our .High School has
parking lot lights that emit less light than Marymount. If Marymount is the
"minimum" then Hesse Park and our High School must be below standard and
therefore unsafe - - or - - Marymount's lights are too bright.
Accordingly, please set minimum limits to outdoor lighting according to
typical industry lighting measuring standards and consider these prior
events in the process of your future decisions on outdoor lighting.
Thank you for your service to our community.
D-23
Sincerely,
Diane Smith
-----Original Message -----
From: R Hinchliffe {u�tti(tzt X13 �Ilrl'to� ?at1 ,c rtl7]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 6:40 PM
To: Diane Smith
Subject: Re: Marymount parking lot
Hi Diane
Please pass this on as a formal complaint from 2736 San Ramon Drive.
The lights are right across the view of the sunset (sorry about the horrible
photo).
Which is a real shame.
Although the lights are hooded they are obtrusive and the pools of light on
the pavement are visible from our balcony which increases the light effect
(scroll down to see 2nd image).
I am asking for a reduction to lowest levels as per Hesse Park (location
where the City Council has its meetings) and Peninsula High School parking
lot lights at a bare minimum. I don't see why our residents and my family
should have any less mitigation to this problem.
Sincerely
Randee Ramos Hinchliffe
PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION:
From: Ara Mihranian [gr,silto Ar_ M yc<i,ge?yl
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 3:09 PM
To: PC
Cc: CCGrpvca.com; radlsmith@cox.net
Subject: RE: OUTDOOR LIGHTING
Dear Commissioners and Diane Smith,
The East Parking Lot lights at Marymount were approved by the City Council
based on modifications to the 2010 -council adopted conditions of approval to
address concerns raised during the 6 -month review. The modifications were
reviewed and accepted as being compliant with the Conditions of Approval by
the City Council at its December 2, 2014 meeting and allows the light bulbs
installed in the light fixtures to be 1700 lumens per bulb consisting of a
neutral to warm hue (3500 kelvins).
The light bulbs used at Hesse Park or at School District properties have not
been established by the City Council as the accepted lumen standard for the
City. This message has been conveyed to Mrs. Smith on numerous occasions.
To that end, the Commission will be reviewing proposed text amendments to
the City's Light Ordinance in the coming weeks. If it is the Commission's
desire, during this process, a recommendation can be made to the City
Council that. the City standard for light lumens should not exceed 1560
lumens as used at Hesse Park.
Ara
D-24
Leza Mikhail
From:
Diane Smith <radlsmith@cox.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 3:25 PM
To:
Ara Mihranian; Leza Mikhail
Cc:
'R Hinchliffe'; PC; CC
Subject:
Marymount parking lot
Attachments:
IMG_2080.JPG; Untitled attachment 00055.txt; IMG_2088.JPG
Hi Ara and Leza,
It was nice speaking with both of you this morning. I just got home and checked my messages and addressed Yvonne
Hamilton's complaint first. I am now forwarding a complaint from Yvonne's neighbors. As you know, since Bill Cornelius'
passing, the heirs have gradually moved into the residence and are feeling the negative effects of Marymount's new East
Parking Lot noise and lights.
previously forwarded photographs taken from this residence of students lurking around the set back areas and
assumed that nuisance had been resolved.
As you requested, I will ask Randee Hinchliffe and Roni Ramos to communicate with you by email or phone directly so
that you can establish a one-on-one working relationship with them. I hope you can restore their sunsets and diminish
the effects of the parking lot lights on their quality of life.
The Planning Commission is dealing with outdoor lighting standards now so I will send a copy of this email to them and
let the City Council know as well. Although you felt the light I was experiencing from my home was negligible and did
not show up clearly on the screen to City Council, it is
clear that the Hinchliffe/Ramos home (Cornelius) suffers greatly.
Diane
-----Original Message----••
From: R Hinchliffe [mailto:afj_ramos@me.comj
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 3:03 PM
To: Diane Smith
Subject: Re: Marymount parking lot
Hi Diane
Please pass this on as a formal complaint from 2736 San Ramon Drive.
The lights are right across the view of the sunset (sorry about the horrible
photo).
Which is a real shame since my family have lived and enjoyed that
spectacular view since the property was built over 50 years ago. We have
inherited my family home and are very disappointed and surprised that the
city would allow such bright lights to mar the enjoyment of our property.
The photographs were taken from the upstairs master bedroom balcony in front
of the large scenic windows.
Although the lights are hooded they are obtrusive and the pools of light on
the pavement are visible from our balcony which increases the light effect
(scroll down to see 2nd image).
D-27
I am asking for a reduction to lowest levels as per Hesse Park (location
where the City Council has its meetings) and Peninsula High School parking
lot lights at a bare minimum. I don't see why our residents and my family
should have any less mitigation to this problem.
Sincerely
Randee Ramos Hinchliffe
Leza Mikhail
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 3:11 PM
Cc: CC; Joel Rojas; Leza Mikhail
Subject: FW: OUTDOOR LIGHTING
Dear Commissioners and Diane Smith,
The East Parking Lot lights at Marymount were approved by the City Council based on modifications
to the 2010 -council adopted conditions of approval to address concerns raised during the 6 -month
review. The modifications were reviewed and accepted as being compliant with the Conditions of
Approval by the City Council at its December 2, 2014 meeting and allows the light bulbs installed in
the light fixtures to be 1700 lumens per bulb consisting of a neutral to warm hue (3500 kelvins).
The light bulbs used at Hesse Park or at School District properties have not been established by the
City Council as the accepted lumen standard for the City. - This message has been conveyed to Mrs.
Smith on numerous occasions. To that end, the Commission will be reviewing proposed text
amendments to the City's Light Ordinance in the coming weeks. If it is the Commission's desire,
during this process, a recommendation can be made to the City Council that the City standard for
light lumens should not exceed 1560 lumens as used at Hesse Park.
ME
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
aw
CITVCSF Lil;i 10 P�
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rovca.gov
WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR CONTACTS,
PLEASE SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM ARAM-@RPV.COM TO ARAM@KYd A. OV.
ADo you really need to print this e-rnail?
D-31
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Diane Smith [rnlil'to: rad 'Isirtitl' ace�x.r�et]
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 10:35 AM
To: PC
Cc: CC c, rpvca.corn
Subject: OUTDOOR LIGHTING
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Regarding outdoor lighting, I never received the promised answers to my questions below. Maybe you will have better
luck. I am hopeful that you can get answers before you agree to a standard. Leza Mikhail was on the right track but I
feel she has been restrained.
Staff allowed Marymount to exceed minimum light output compared to our own City Council parking lot at Hesse Park
and our Peninsula High School parking lot.
This was unfair to residents near Marymount, including residents in EI Prado — at the end of Tarapaca.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Diane Smith
From: Diane Smith [Lila iito:radismifi lec!�ox.nefl
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 10:29 AM
To:'Ara Mihranian';'Jim Reeves'
Subject: Marymount-Neighborhood Meeting regarding East Parking Lot overhead Lights and vehicle headlights overspill
and glare
Dear Ara and Jim,
Thank you for taking the time to come to my home and to Laura & Ron McSherry's home to experience the overhead
lights from our perspectives.
Jim, you agreed to reach out to your parking light vendor for fixtures/bulbs that would diminish the light still emanating
from the overhead lights.
You also agreed, Jim, to find out from Marymount's insurance company what their minimum safety requirements are for
parking lot lights.
We already know that the City and the School District are insured for safety of their parking lots and that their parking
lot lights are 1560 lumens—well below Marymount's 1700 lumens.
I also appreciate your willingness to conduct a light demonstration. You arranged last night for your assistant to turn the
lights on in both his car and yours to demonstrate the effect, if any, of headlights into our properties both from a parked
car situation and the situation of driving a car from the lower to upper levels. We all agreed that we could see no light
whatsoever from the cars. However, as I told you last night, both Laura McSherry and I, on two occasions, Monday and
Tuesday this week, observed an SUV and a truck parked on the upper level of the parking lot. We could see the hood of
D-32
the vehicles to the top of the headlights indicating if the headlights were turned on then they would cast light above the
fence into the direction of our properties. I therefore ask if you would be willing to allow residents to participate in a
second light demonstration to test the effect of an SUV, van and truck headlights shining in the direction of our
properties from the parking lot. If we downslope San Ramon residents do not experience headlights spilling over onto
our properties under the second vehicle light demonstration then we will be satisfied that Marymount has fulfilled the
City Council's expectations and consultant representations as to vehicle headlights, if any, during the EIR process.
Our only remaining objection would then be to the existing spillover of light from the overhead parking lot lights to
downslope residents.
Please let me hear from you.
Sincerely,
Diane Smith
D-33
Leza Mikhail
From: Leza Mikhail
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:11 PM
To: 'betendroeg@cox.net'
Subject: RE: outdoor lighting of residences
Hello Mr. Saxen,
The proposed code amendment would only apply new lighting on buildings. At this time, the City is not looking to
require all buildings in the City that have had lighting in place for some time now to upgrade to the new code language.
Your lights would likely be "grandfathered" unless you went to change the light fixtures on your building. If you changed
all the light fixtures, then you would need to comply with the new code, once it passes.
*Please Note: Effective 02/20/15, the City's new email address is "@rpvca.gov" Please update your contact information
for me to reflect lezam@rpvca.gov as my new email.
Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www,rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5228 — (310) 5445293 f
lezam@rpvca.gov
-----Original Message -----
From: betendroeg@cox.net [mailto:betendroeg@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:20 PM
To: Leza Mikhail
Subject: outdoor lighting of residences
http://www. palosverdes.com/rpv/news/Notices/2015/2_16-15—Public_Notice_15.pdf
Hello,
will the ordinance, if approved, also apply at condo complexes. Ours fails badly regarding the proposals,
regards,
Peter Saxen
betendroeg@cox.net
D-34
Leza Mikhail
From:
Diane Smith <radlsmith@cox.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 04, 2015 10:24 AM
To:
Leza Mikhail
Subject:
RE: Outdoor Lighting public hearing
WOW Leza!
Thanks so much for your email Leza1 1 so appreciate your "heads up" and follow-up.
Thanks too for asking if all is well.
We've had some excitement around here — with an idiot driving up a dirt road above the San Ramon Canyon slide well
after dark and rolling over half -way down -- the guy survived but taxpayers were certainly put to an expense what with
all the helicopters and police! And then the lookie-loos swarmed the area.
Also, yesterday our dear neighbor was "hit" with tragic news drawing family members to town this weekend, his
plumbing went out, and city sub -contractors, 6 of them, were rolling wheel barrels across his rain -soaked lawn and right
along his kitchen and dining room, backyard and living room windows without permission. He was "shell-shocked" and I
went nuts.
So yesterday was not well — today is much better -- especially since you showed enough caring to send me this heads up,
Thanks for helping to build my trust in the City Leza.
Have a good day Leza.
Sincerely,
Diane
From: Leza Mikhail [mailto:LezaM@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 10:15 AM
To: Diane Smith
Subject: Outdoor Lighting public hearing
Hello Diane,
Hope all is well! I just wanted to take a quick moment and let you know that the public hearing for the Outdoor Lighting
Ordinance has been continued to April 15, 2015. A staff report will be available online for your review explaining why by
tomorrow. In summary, the Planning Commission wished to have their Outdoor Lighting Subcommittee review the
proposed changes before bringing the item back to entire PC body. With the Subcommittee, and similar to your wishes,
we hope to reach out to some lighting consultants to voluntarily review our changes to the code. Without formally going
to bid to have a lighting consultant review the changes, the Subcommittee believes that reaching out to its constituents
is the best step to start this process.
Staff's first step is to create the base (the proposed code language), then have the Subcommittee review the proposed
changes with their constituents, proposed additional changes and then present the final product to the Planning
Commission and public for open discussion.
If you have any questions, as always, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
I.,eza Mikhail
Associate Planner
D-35
'City of Sancho (Palos Verdes
Planning Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5228 — (310) 5445293 f
lezarnQrpvca.qov
D-36
Leza Mikhail
From: Diane Smith <radlsmith@cox,net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:25 AM
To: Leza Mikhail
Cc: Ara Mihranian
Subject: RE: RPV Code Amendment -Outdoor Lighting
Hi Leza,
Yes, please include all of my correspondence in -the record,
The photometric plan on Marymount's East Parking Lot was wrong.
The photometric plan did not consider downslope residents' concerns to the point that it was ABUSIVE to residents. The
so-called "light test" was a joke — on the downslope residents.
Marymount's East Parking Lot lights were shining down onto residents properties - downslope residents were "looking
up the skirt" to the lights and two rows of vehicle headlights were aimed at resident properties creating a "disco ball"
effect when they left. At the VERY LEAST Marymount's vehicle headlights should have been aimed at Marymount's
classrooms — not our properties! We residents pay the taxes and vote.
Can you tell I am still so angry at the time the city took from my life fighting this?
It is worth the money to have an expert set a standard for everyone to follow rather than infuriate tax -paying voter
residents like me. Fair and proper tests must be conducted and be consistent,
Thank you for all your hard work Leza.
You did not suffer the day-to-day, night -to -night loss of peace and quiet and enjoyment of my property since you were
not assigned to this.
So please put all my correspondence in the record.
Thanks,
Diane
From: Leza Mikhail (mailto:LezaM@rpv.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 9:07 AM
To: Diane Smith
Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian
Subject: RE: RPV Code Amendment -Outdoor Lighting
Hello Diane,
To clarify, there are different ways to measure light. As your consultant notes correctly, and as I state in my email below,
footcandles are used to measure the light on a surface (i.e. the ground). We currently do this through requiring the
preparation of what is called a photometric plan, which measures the levels of footcandles at every property line (which
is typically required to be zero). This sole method has proven to not be effective and we are looking to other (additional)
ways to regulate lighting throughout the City, The City is looking to use lumens instead of wattage (our current code
uses wattage) because wattage is not a good way to measure light emissions. By regulating lumens, the City can regulate
total amount of visible light emitted from a source (the light fixture). We are also looking at the types of light fixtures
that can be approved to minimize the horizontal plane of light emitted from its source.
D-37
I encourage you and your consultant to attend the meeting and be involved in the discussion of lighting throughout the
City.
While I have done a good amount of research on the matter, by no means would I call myself a lighting expert. I could
see the benefit in utilizing a lighting engineer to provide a more detailed compilation of lighting impacts and potential
code requirements to mitigate lights emissions if the Planning Commission and/or City Council wishes to use public
funds to provide a detailed analysis. City Staff is not opposed to that, but it would require public money, and ultimately
approval by the City Council to use public funds,
If you like, I can include this message in the public correspondence which notes your concern and your consultant's
recommendation,
I always appreciate the input and do encourage you to participate in the public hearing process.
Thank you,
Leta Mikhail
Associate Planner
L�= City of 1Roncho tabs Verdes
Planning Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
ww_w,r.pyca. nv
(310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f
lezam@rpv.com
From: Diane Smith [rrailtcs ra�lritf,t,c«h,,,rex]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:44 AM
To: Leza Mikhail
Subject: RE: RPV Code Amendment -Outdoor Lighting
Hi Leza,
I forwarded your email to my "lighting consultant" and this was their response:
"Once again - i disagree with #3.
Lumens are the measure of light emitted from a lamp. That is different from how many footcandles are
received on a surface. Whether that surface is directly below the lamp or away from it, lumens are
irrelevant to that measure. It is done in footcandles.
I still think you need a lighting designer involved in this. Anyone can tell them this but they think they
are smarter than the residents and you need someone who is credentialed in this field to change their
minds. All they need to do is measure the light in footcandles that is falling on your property.. ..it
Does our City have an exterior lighting designer expert?
From: Leza Mikhail [i�aiito:lezaililcrtav,ct�rr�]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 2:58 PM
To: Diane Smith
Subject: RE: RPV Code Amendment -Outdoor Lighting
Hello Diane,
There are a number of various procedures used in the lighting industry to increase and lessen light. There are also a
number of different ways that local governments regulate lighting. There is no one, set procedure for testing exterior
light overspill. Generally speaking, one can use a photometric plan (which we currently require for lighting plans), but
this would only measure the footcandle measurement across the ground surface that results from a light source. We are
looking into other ways to try to mitigate and minimize exposure of light in a horizontal fashion.
In my Staff Report from February 25, 2015 has a number of other Cities' lighting regulations that we looked at in
researching ways to better our code. You may be interested in looking through the Ordinances that other Cities use. I
included a comparison matrix, a summary of what other cities look at, and their actual ordinances. Here is the link for
the staff report.
i�tip �/w+nr f�alr��vi�rtics ccs,rn/rl�v�l>(�nr��n€;/t�f;c,��ci�s_._�
n,_ erre;rit agendas/planningcommission[2014j2014 02__25 Plann ng_Commission Agenda/Agenda Itom_
4 itf'V„ 51t 2O t4 2 7 a Outcl,0,9 Lirtg cli
Hope that helps a little bit.
Thank you,
Leta Mikhail
Associate Planner
City of & ncho ('alas Verdes
Manning Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f
leKam@_rpy.com
From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsn�ith@_ :ox r:et]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 2:02 PM
To: Leza Mikhail
Subject: FW: RPV Code Amendment -Outdoor Lighting
Hi Leza,
Would you please find out and let me know the present procedures used in the industry for testing exterior light
overspill?
Thanks.
Diane
D-39
From: Lisa Garrett
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 1:51 PM
/o; �
Cc: LezoMikhail
Subject: RPV Code Amend ment-Outdoor Lighting
Interested Parties,
Please see attached notice. Please send all correspondence to the Project Planner, Leza Mikhail at Irnikh i
Lisa Garrett
Administrative Assistant
Community Development Dept,
L4111,111011
City ofRancho Palos Verdes
3O94oHawthorne Blvd,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CAyOz75
310'544'5228(p) 310-544-5293(8
WWW=v1Q0--M
MW
Planning Commission Minutes
D-41
Commission hear a brief staff report, hear any public testimony, and consider continuing
the item until there is a full Commission present to discuss the item,
Associate Planner Kim presented a brief staff report, noting at the last hearing thid:
Planning Commission had requested the item be renoticed and agendizedfo
discussion at this meeting. / 7
Karl Price expressed his concerns with the idea of raising the heig"(1hedges above
42 inches in the front yard setback. He felt it could create a potential safety hazard in
terms of people hiding in these hedges. He also questioned if W6 cities in the area
allow hedges over 42 inches in the front yard setbacks. He,thought it would be a good
idea to look at what other cities are doing, look at the reco/Mmendations or ideas that
law enforcement and other safety personnel might hav6ion this issue before
proceeding. I/
Maria Price also expressed her concerns witt. allowing the hedges over 42 inches in the
front yard areas of homes.
Commissioner Knight asked staff if Oy had any information in terms of crime statistics
with respect to higher hedges in t. front yard,
Director Rojas stated that s was not aware of any crime statistics related to hedge
heights, but could check Wil h the Sheriff s Department.
Commissioner Le is"moved to continue the public hearing to the November 22"d
meeting, secono7d by Vice Chairman Tetreault. Unanimously approved.
3. /Minutes of September 27, 2011
2 mlsloner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded vdcorismissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0).
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS
Chairman Tomblin requested that an update on the lighting at Point Vicente Animal
Hospital and the lighting at the Mirendela project.
Commissioner Gerstner added to that request, noting that a discussion on some
specific conditions in regards to lighting for future projects might be helpful.
The pre -agenda was
Planning Commission Minutes
October 25, 2011
Page 3
D-42
done, She stated that staff was recommending the Commission approve, via minute
order, the erroneous correction to the amendment.
Commissioner Leon moved to correct the amendment as recomme-dod- by�staffi
seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was app�rPd via minute
order.
Commissioner Gerstner discussed the section regar9i
roof decks, noting that roof
decks are rather unique and there are a lot of specia conditions that are applied to roof
decks. He also felt that roof decks in Ranch Palos Verdes are more like a large
r u �*,h
balcony on a top floor rather than a tru of deck. In this proposed language he felt
that other lesser balconies are befit kj included in this higher range of privacy concern
and it was a bit too restrictive. K6 felt that including the language regarding balconies
will be codifying some of t ;tiv9s he felt were negatives in the Planning Commission not
accepting that reside the in close proximity to one another and that there is an
expectation of priyzCy from a neighbor's balcony that shouldn't be as great as what it is
becoming,
Ther ion to correct the erroneous amendment as recommended by staff was
') Zion t
aWoved, (4-1) with Commissioner Gerstner dissenting.
3. Discussion of exterior lialitina conditions
Commissioner Leon distributed the text of an email he received from Cassie Jones
discussing the process she went through in regards to the lighting at the new animal
hospital, noting that if there are issues with the lighting they are not discovered early
enough in the process,
Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief overview of situations
where exterior lighting conditions may apply and the process staff follows in regards to
exterior lighting,
Commissioner Gerstner felt the City has to have a set of rules to give property owners
in regards to lighting that will allow them to purchase and install the correct lighting on
their property, He suggested the City be more specific with what we will allow and
narrow the field of what is acceptable, such that we feel confident that what we do allow
works. He also suggested that lighting requirements not be described so much in a
performance terminology, such as where the lights can and cannot shine, but rather
more prescriptively. As an example, your lighting must do certain things and here are
four light fixture types the City has found to be successful and acceptable. He also felt
the City should not discuss lighting in terms of wattage, as that is a description of the
amount of electricity and the City is concerned about the amount of light. He stated he
would very much like to see what other cities do in terms of lighting restrictions and
conditions, and also stated he would talk to some of the consultants he uses to see if
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24. 2012
Page 7
D-43
they would donate some of their time to discuss with staff their findings in terms of
lighting. Lastly, he felt the most effective lighting is from light that bounces off of
something else, explaining that when you look at diminished light you really don't want
to look through the glass and see the light from the light bulb, but rather you want to see
the light after it has bounced off of the pavement, a tree, or a building as this will
moderate the light and take the glare out of the light,
Commissioner Leon asked staff if they review the selection of the specific lighting
fixtures.
Director Rojas explained that staff reviews the lighting plan, looking at the fixtures to
make sure they will achieve whatever conditions have been put on the lighting plan.
Once the lighting has been installed staff will then review the lighting to verify that all
conditions of approval in terms of the lighting have been met.
Commissioner Leon felt that the problem applicants have with this process is that they
submit something to the City, and if approved it should then be approved, and there
shouldn't be any recourse by the City to come back and ask for modifications. He felt
the City should have one chance and not have an infinite number of chances to ask for
modifications to the lighting,
Chairman Tomblin briefly reviewed past projects where lighting has been an issue. He
also discussed the upcoming lighting at the St, John Fisher project.
Commissioner Gerstner noted that exterior lighting design at facilities in every City is an
issue, as it is one of the most difficult things to get right. He felt that there are so many
criteria to consider when looking at lighting that it makes it extremely difficult to make
everyone happy. He pointed out that Terranea is a particularly good example of an
exterior lighting solution on a rather large scale, with more than one type of light fixture,
and more than one type of exterior use. He stated he was very adamant about wanting
to work with staff to help find ways to address the lighting issues.
Chairman Tomblin appreciated and understood the information and process presented
in the staff report. He felt that what the next step is to took at how to take the current
process to a different, higher level in terms of the review process. He suggested
forming a subcommittee to look into lighting alternatives.
Commissioner Gerstner volunteered to work on the subcommittee, as did
Commissioner Leon and Chairman Tomblin,
Commissioner Gerstner moved to direct staff to look at other cities in regards to
how they address the issue of lighting, and bring that information as well as the
exterior lighting code back to the Commission at a future public hearing for
review. Further, this information should be reviewed with a subcommittee made
up of Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, and Chairman Tomblin, seconded by
Commissioner Leon, Approved without objection.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24, 2012
Page 8
Am" i
With that, Vice Chairman Emenhiser withdrew his second of the motion.
Commissioner Lewis withdrew his motion and stated a new motion to cont)r(e
the public hearing to allow staff to work up an illustration of the benefitshat
would be obtained by lowering the height of the residence by two feet�i possible,
provide more information in terms of grading quantities to lower the lot and
house by ten feet; for staff to provide more information to the Play ging
Commission on why staff was recommending denial of the extr � railing in the
rear yard; and for staff to provide the Oceanfront Estates lan6caping restrictions
for the Commission's review, seconded by Commissioner
��on.
Director Rojas noted that if the applicant agrees to an exte bion, the item would be
added to the September 11th agenda.
Chairman Tetreault re -opened the public hearing an asked Mr. Tomaro to the podium.
He asked Mr. Tomaro if the applicant will grant a one-time extension per the Permit
Streamling Act. He also questioned how easy it./will be to calculate the amount of
grading required to reduce the house by ten ft, and how expensive it will be to do
that. {
Mr, Tomaro agreed to grant the one-tie extension. He stated he will work with staff to
calculate the benefit of lowering the igeline by two feet. In regards to the ten foot
reduction, he did not think it wasWi sically possible to do and was not sure it would
even make sense to study suct
ureduction. He estimated it would take somewhere in
the neighborhood of 20,000 bic yards of grading to accomplish this.
Commissioner Lewis cl ,o led that in terms of the ten foot issue he was only looking for
some discussion by sstf with the applicant as to what is involved with this issue and it
was not his intent fo this to cost the applicant money.
Commissioner elson stated he would not support the motion, as he did not think ten
feet was wort Cooking at. He felt that the application as submitted was sufficient.
Chairma etreault agreed with Commissioner Nelson that the ten feet was probably
;-Ipmul
t ra tical, However, he felt that the other information contained in the motion is
nef` ial and will vote in favor of the motion.
tion to continue the public hearing to September 11, 2012 was approved,
)h Commissioner Nelson dissenting.
NEW BUSINESS
2. Outdoor lighting
Associate Planner Mikhail presented a brief staff report, explaining staff's research on
outdoor lighting and requirements in similar cities as discussed in the staff report. She
Planning Commission Minutes
August14,2012
Page 9
D-45
stated staff was asking to open up a discussion with the Planning Commission to see if
the Commission would like to consider creating any particular code regulations and
potentially a code amendment, She noted that that when the Planning Commission was
considering the General Plan update there was a section of the General Plan that was
added called Visual Resources. In that section there was a policy that was proposed to
recommended to the City Council related to night skies and outdoor lighting.
Commissioner Gerstner stated he had sent to staff information from the Dark Sky
Association and the research they have done. He stated there are also cities that have
recently established guidelines, Portland being one of those cities. He asked staff if
they could look at some of the municipalities associated with the Dark Sky concepts and
if that can expand on what he has given to staff. He noted that this is something that
does not have a 15 or 20 year history, but rather is more recently developed and a more
evolving concept. He stated that he personally bought his property in the city because
he likes the semi -rural darkness, and in general likes the fact that the lighting in this city
is more subdued, He felt that existing rules and regulations have led to more lighting in
the City. He felt there is a lot of misinformation out there, there is a lot of fear that an
area will be too dark, and there are a lot of prescriptive solutions. He wants to make
sure the Commission has reached as far as they can with this issue. He also felt that
the Commission might be able to compile something from what others have done that
might help solve the problems without having to do a lot of individual thinking on the
issue.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Commissioner Gerstner for a brief description of the
difference between lumens and foot candles.
Commissioner Gerstner stated that historically there has been a lot of conversation
about watts, however now with the broad range of lighting elements, watts is no longer
a valuable measure of light, He explained that foot candles are a measure the amount
of light that hits a specific surface, while lumens are a unit of light that is emitted from an
element. He also discussed glare and explained that one of the reasons the lighting at
Terranea works so well is their use of secondary or reflective lighting. Another thing to
consider is color temperature from lighting, as lights have different colors to them. To
summarize, in terms of outdoor lighting he would like to see more indirect lighting, an
attempt to control the color temperature of the lighting, and try to find some way of
measuring the amount of light in a measurement that works. He also felt that lighting
standards should be looked at for residential and commercial land uses.
Chairman Tetreault was not aware of codes addressing lighting in residential
neighborhoods.
Director Rojas explained there is a section in the code that addresses exterior lighting in
residential zones and non-residential zones, Staff does not typically put conditions on
the residential projects since the regulations are in the code as to what can and cannot
be done, and any complaints are dealt with through code enforcement,
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2012
Page 10
•
Commissioner Tomblin suggested the City establish some type of statement or policy in
terms of lighting that says the city wants to be a darker skies community. He asked if
staff could develop some type of statement.
Director Rojas noted that the General Plan update has a section called Night Sky to be
Preserved, which discusses exactly this topic, There is also a new General Plan policy
recommended by the Planning Commission that requires residents and developers to
mitigate light pollution associated with developments. He stated the General Plan
update will be before the Commission again before it goes to the Council and if the
Commission wants to augment those policies the Commission can do so.
Commissioner Nelson asked staff if the neighboring cities of Palos Verdes Estates,
Rolling Hills Estates, and Rolling Hills have any specific requirements for their outdoor
lighting.
Associate Planner Mikhail stated she would check into that information and give that
information to the Commission.
Director Rojas stated that staff will take this discussion into account and continue with
the research on the subject and bring the information back to the Planning Commission
at a future meeting,
The Commission agreed,
3.
Commissioner LIO_Moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by
Commissioner Nells eit,,Approved without objection.
4.
117
The pre -agenda was reviewed and approved,
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m,
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2012
Page 11
D-47
the public hearing to the March -m`e6ting so that the Planning Commission can
discuss the Resolution � If&11Ithe public to comment on it as well.
The m isr6-was approved, (7.0).
NEW BUSINESS
4. Outdoor liohtin
Associate Planner Mikhail presented a brief staff report, stating that for the reasons
outlined in the staff report staff is requesting the Planning Commission request staff to
petition the City Council to initiate a code amendment to improve the City's existing
lighting regulations to address issues as noted in the staff report.
Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing,
Diane Smith felt that with the new types of lighting available today the City needs to
update its outdoor lighting code, and explained her issues with the lighting at
Marymount College. She felt if the City's code could be amended to clearly regulate
exterior lighting to avoid light pollution and nuisance to residents, It may help the
predicament caused by Marymount's parking lot lights that she currently experiences.
Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gerstner moved staffs recommendation, adding that staff seek
direction from the City Council not In a narrow way but rather have the City
Council direct the Commission in a broader manner to take a broad look at
lighting within the City in all aspects and how It affects both public and private
property. Seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (7-0).
General Man Consistent Finding Case No. ZON2014.00046 : 32639
Otasket Drive
Chairman Emen4i er_ nd Commissioner Nelson recused themselves from this item and
left the dais.
Commissioner Lewis disclosed that'sevrai years ago during his campaign for City
Council the applicant hosted one of his i u`6ntp. Notwithstanding that, he felt he can be
fair and impartial in hearing this item. ..
Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, summarizing the need for the
consistency finding as explained in the staff report. He explaindd that in looking at
vacating this particular easement, staff has contacted the various utiityc,ompanies who
have all indicated they have no infrastructure facilities nor do they plan in'the future to
provide for any Infrastructure within the easement. He stated staff feels the e�sgrnent
Planning Commission Minutes
February 25, 2014
Page 20
MEN
Commissioner Gerstner felt that Ms, Scotto was right to be concerned about wwAhc,
Los Angeles is allowing to be done at Ponte Vista and the surrounding primp flies. He
noted that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes recognizes this and aetuglly has its own and
some of the same problems with these developments, and is-aatdvely working to
mitigate these concerns. He gave a brief history of wt -yetis zone change took place
five years ago and how it recognizes the unique"ss of the Eastview area and the
existing conditions of the homes. He stresse"drthat this General Plan update is merely a
housekeeping issue and will not affect-ttie properties in a positive or a negative way.
Chairman Nelson clostK public hearing,
Commissi `mmenhiser moved staff's recommendation to approve the
prop land use change to the General Plan, seconded by Commissioner
es. The motion was approved, (7-0).
3. Outdoor lighting Case No. ZON2014-00320
Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the public hearing to April 28, 2015
as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner James. Approved without
objection.
Variance,.Height Variation and Site Plan Review Case No. ZON2014-
003310: 28191 Palos Verdes Drive East
Associat fanner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the
proposed prct, and the need for the Variance. She stated staff was able to make all
of the necessarydings and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned
in the staff report. ,,
Chairman Nelson opened ft public hearing.
.ferry Rodin (architect) stated he s available for questions.
There being no questions from the Comr�ission, Chairman Nelson closed the public
hearing. `
Commissioner James stated he was able to approW, all aspects of the project except
one, the Variance request for the front gate. He questioned the exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances to approve this gate. '`1.,,
Chairman Nelson reopened the public hearing.
Jerry Rodin explained this is a flag lot, the access is very deep, and thd`�roperty is
elevated from the street at least 15 feet. He explained that there are yours children on
this property and there is a life safety issue involved. In addition, the gate is ed ed for
the security and the protection of the property,
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2015
Page 11
m m •
CONTINUED BUSINESS
1. Outdoor lighting Case No. ZON2014-00320
Commissioner Gerstner noted that staff was recommending continuing this item to the
May 12th meeting to give Commissioners Gerstner and Leon an opportunity to review
proposed amendments to the ordinance.
Commissioner Gerstner explained that he and Commissioner Leon had not had the
chance to discuss a date they would like the item to be continued to, but he suggested
that it be a later date. He suggested continuing the item to the June 231d meeting.
Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue this item to the June 23, 2015
meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved without objection.
IPA
5287 Rolling Ridge Road
Commissions erstner recused himself from this item, as he's an immediate neighbor,
and he left the da
Assistant Planner Carav o presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the
project and the need for the hr 1 h variation. He stated there was a comment letter
submitted to the city from a nei hb�or in regards to bulk and mass, and explained that
staff feels the proposed design offers relief from the potential impacts that could be
caused by a two-story residence of thIs�size. He noted the second story addition is set
back from the front of the house and the°oposed remodeled house will be located on
the existing building pad. He also noted tl t4the residence is not easily visible from
neighboring properties, and staff did not feel the bulk and mass of the structure height
and overall size of the residence would negatively`� pact the neighbor's visual
character and would be compatible with the surrvuniit�g neighborhood. He also
explained that the homes in the neighborhood range in's.ze from 3,173 square feet to
8,297 square feet, and the resulting structure size of this p`rgposed project would be
4,411 square feet. He stated staff was recommending appro`vl of the project as
conditioned in the staff report.,
Commissioner Emenhiser asked if the trail mentioned in the corresp6h ence was a
proposed trail or an existing trail. \
Assistant Planner Caraveo answered that it is a proposed trail and there curr4t� ly is no
pian for where the trail will be placed. 7
Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 2
D-50
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval,of May 26, 2015 Minutes
Commissioner Cruiksha_ak-rnb ed to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by
Commissioner ornlin. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Leon abstaining
since h absent from the May 261h meeting.
CONTINUED BUSINESS
2. Outdoor Lighting Case No. ZON2014-00320: City
Chairman Nelson noted staff's recommendation was to continue this item to the July 28,
2015 meeting.
Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the item to the July 28, 2015 meeting,
seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved without objection.
29073 Palos Verdes Drive
Chairme,Nelson noted that staffs recommendation on this item was also to continue the
item to the JM 28th meeting.
Commissioner E�rhenhiser moved to continue the item to the July 28, 2015 meeting,
seconded by Comnilsssioner Gerstner. Approved without objection.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.
26231 Silver Spur Road
Commissioner Emenhiser recused him§elf from this item and left the dais.
Commissioner Gerstner noted he lives within q,0 feet of this application and therefore he
also recused himself and left the dais.
Assistant Planner Caraveo presented the staff report, -'giving a brief description of the
property and the proposed project. He noted that has r eived one public comment
regarding the proposed project, which was from a member of te:,church, who noted that
the plans have been reviewed and the church has no concerns withlftlp project. He stated
that staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit
as conditioned in the staff report.
Commissioner Cruikshank noted the equipment area and the width of the cable tray and
the below -grade equipment. He noted the plans say there is 36 inches of clearance"and
wanted to confirm the required clearance, as this appears to be an ADA path of travel. �
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 2015
Page 2
D-51
Chairman Nelson reported on his attendance at the July 27, 201 _ Traffic Safety
Committee meeting and clarified the status of the Western Avenue -Corridor Guidelines
Plan.
None
Its
Diner Gerstner moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented,
by Commissioner Cruikshank. Approved, (7-0).
CONTINUED BUSINESS
2. Outdoor Lightinct Ordinance (Case No. ZON2014-00320)
Deputy Director Mihranian presented a brief staff report, explaining that staff was
recommending the item be continued to a date uncertain since this item has been
continued so many times in the past, He added that once a new date has been selected
a new public notice will be issued.
Commissioner Cruikshank questioned if the subcommittee still wants to deal with this
issue, and asked if this was a critical issue that should be heard sooner rather than later.
Commissioner Gerstner noted that this is an important topic, however the Planning
Commission has been addressing it over the past several years. He felt that this is a very
difficult Ordinance to write, and it will take some time.
Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to a date uncertain,
seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (7-0).
Appeal of Gradin -q Permit Case No. ZON2013-00526: 29073 Palos Verdes Drive
Deputy DirectorMih ranian presented the staff report, briefly explaining the modified
project and how It diffeirs.ftom the original project and the previously revised project. He
stated that staff believes t6a-prpject now fits in with the character of the neighborhood
and the applicant has successfully"redticed the bulk and mass of the project. With that,
staff recommends the Planning Commission—approve the project as conditioned in the
staff report. He referred to condition No. 23, in regards to landscaping, and suggested
additional language that requires the applicant to install I nds.paping prior to the issuance
of the certificate of occupancy, W
Planning GorneissiQn Minutes
July 28,,2515
D-52
City Council Minutes
(September 2, 2014 —Initiation)
E-1
Community Development Director Rojas provided a brief staff report and PowerPoi
presentation regarding this item.
City Attorney Lynch suggested that the City Council Policy be memorialize ith the
adoption of a resolution which affords the policy more solemnity.
Lenee. Bilski, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that this item should be nsidered as an
amendment to the glossary of terms in the back of the Coastal S cific Plan and
suggested staff could contact the Coastal Commission staff to i - quire about the
process. She suggested a shorter definition should be used r the "viewing station" to
keep it simple and clear.
Discussion ensued among Council Members, staff an City Attorney Lynch.
Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by May Pro Tern Knight, to adopt City
Council Policy No. 49, as amended, thereby in ituting a policy for identifying the
viewing station described in the City's Coas Specific Plan Corridors Element for
purposes of determining the visual impac f development projects from the public right-
of-way for projects within the City's des' nated Coastal District that are not located
within a defined visual corridor. The licy language was amended to state the
following: " ... It shall be the policy . # the City that for purposes of this requirement, the
"viewing station" shall be at an nation that is 3 -feet above the "fog line" (painted white
line/bike lane line) adjacent to a vehicle travelling lane along the seaward side of
Palos Verdes Drive West o alos Verdes Drive South where the best and most
important view exists ov the site of the proposed project. The viewing station may or
may not be immediate adjacent to the subject property line."
The motion pass on the following roll call vote:
AYES: rooks, Campbell, Knight, and Mayor Duhovic
NOES: None
ABSEN Misetich
Cit ttorney Lynch noted that staff would return with a resolution commemorating the
C uncil's decision at the next City Council meeting,
Code Amendment Initiation Request (CAIR) to Improve Citywide Outdoor Lighting
Regulations for Exterior Lighting (CASE NO. ZON2014-00320)
City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the
meeting and there were no requests to speak regarding this items.
Community Development Director Rojas provided a brief staff report regarding this item.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff.
City Council Minutes
September 2, 2014
Page 8 of 11
E-2
Mayor Pro Tem Knight moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to direct Staff to
initiate a Code Amendment to improve the City's existing Development Code Standards
for non-residential exterior lighting on private property including, but not limited to,
specifying that light fixtures are to be fully shielded so the light source is not visible from
any adjacent property, establishing acceptable color temperatures for exterior lights,
imposing restrictions on exterior light emissions based on lumens instead of wattage,
and addressing the glare of exterior lights to vehicles on public rights-of-way.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Brooks, Campbell, Knight, and Mayor Duhovic
NOES: None
ABSENT: Misetich
Sptus Report on Crime Prevention Technology
ActiCity Manager Petru provided a brief status update report regarding crime
preven n technology, which has been discussed at the Regional Law Enforcement
Committe Committee) meetings,
Councilwoman ooks provided additional information regarding the Committee's work
and noted the next eeting would be held on November 13, 2014 to continue the
discussion of crime pr ention technology.
Discussion ensued among uncil Members and staff,
Councilman Campbell left the dai t 9:51 P.M. and returned at 9:55 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Knight moved, second by Mayor Duhovic, to receive and file the
status report on the Regional Law Enforce ent Committee's consideration of crime
prevention technology in conjunction with the mita Sheriffs Station.
Without objection, Mayor Duhovic so ordered.
Claim Against the City by Ming Gong
City Clerk Morreale reported that Councilman Campbell reques d this item be removed
from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration.
Councilman Campbell provided comments regarding the process of the jection of
claims and requested quarterly reports regarding the Claims Against the
Discussion ensued among Council Members, staff and City Attorney Lynch.
City Council Minu"t-M
September 2, 201 �
Page 9 of 11
E-3
City Council Staff Report
(Code Amendment Initiation Request)
(September 2, 2012)
F-1
CITYOF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JOEL ROJAS, AICP, COMMU D ELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2014
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT INITIATION REQUEST (CAIR) TO IMPROVE
CITYWIDE OUTDOOR LIGHTING REGULATIONS FOR EXTERIOR
LIGHTING (CASE NO. ZON2014-00320)
Reviewed By: Carolynn Petru, Acting City Manager
Project Manager: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planne(�F4)
RECOMMENDATION
Direct Staff to initiate a Code Amendment to improve the City's existing Development Code
Standards for non-residential exterior lighting on private property including, but not limited
to, specifying that light fixtures are to be fully shielded so the light source is not visible from
any adjacent property, establishing acceptable color temperatures for exterior lights,
imposing restrictions on exterior light emissions based on lumens instead of wattage, and
addressing the glare of exterior lights to vehicles on public rights-of-way.
BACKGROUND
At the October 25, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission
requested a Staff Report of how exterior lighting for proposed non-residential development
projects is reviewed by Staff and how conditions of approval are applied in order to avoid
and/or minimize exterior lighting impacts.
On January 24, 2012, the Planning Commission was presented with a Staff Report that
explained the typical exterior lighting conditions that are applied to non-residential projects
throughout the City. The report described how non-residential lighting is reviewed before
and after non-residential projects are constructed. During the meeting, the Planning
Commission created a sub -committee, composed of Commissioners Gerstner, Leon and
Tomblin, to work with Staff in reviewing the City's current outdoor lighting requirements as
well as lighting standards used by other similar cities for the purpose of determining
whether amendments to the City's Development Code should be considered.
On August 14, 2012, the Planning Commission was presented with a compilation of
outdoor lighting requirements for other Southern California cities that were considered to
F-2
CAIR — Outdoor Lighting
September 2, 2014
be similar to Rancho Palos Verdes' semi -rural and/or coastal character. As a result of the
discussion that ensued, the Planning Commission directed Staff to gather information from
the International Dark -Sky Association, review Portland, Maine and other municipalities
that have recently established guidelines for regulating exterior lighting, and report back to
the Planning Commission with the additional information. In addition, the Planning
Commission directed Staff to provide the Planning Commission with the code language
used by the other City's on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
On February 25, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the additional information
compiled by Staff and directed Staff to bring a code amendment initiation request to the
City Council to improve the City's current exterior outdoor lighting requirements for non-
residential private projects throughout the City. The Planning Commission requested that
the City Council direct the Planning Commission to take a broad look at lighting within the
City in all. aspects and how it affects both public and private property (see attached
February 25, 2014 Minutes).
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.68.030. B, 'An amendment to any part of [the
Development Code] ... may be initiated by the Director or Planning Commission, upon
petition to the City Council. The City Council shall review the petition to determine if the
requested amendment ... is necessary or desirable."
As noted in the Background Section of this report, the Planning Commission has been
interested in the City's current process for reviewing exterior lighting on non-residential
projects. As a result of reviewing the City's current process, the Planning Commission
directed Staff to conduct research on a number of Cities that are semi -rural in nature or a
coastal city, similar to Rancho Palos Verdes. After considering the research, the Planning
Commission agreed that the City's lighting requirements should be geared toward
prescriptively designed lighting, as opposed to performance related terminology which is
outlined in the City's current Municipal Code (attached).
Over the last two years, several non-residential projects have been constructed within the
City, most notably Chase Bank, Palos Verdes Art Center, Pt. Vicente Veterinary Clinic, St.
John Fisher and the Marymount parking lot that have raised the issue to Staff and the
Planning Commission of appropriate exterior lighting. After analyzing the exterior lighting
installed at these projects, Staff and the Planning Commission identified the portions of the
City's Development Code that fall short on reducing lighting impacts related to glare and
the degradation of the dark -sky, rural character of the City. Given the current Code's
shortcomings on exterior lighting standards, Staff worked closely with the applicants of the
abovementioned projects to ensure that the exterior lighting of said projects are fully
shielded so as to reduce the impacts of light glare to adjacent residents and motorists. This
process involved ensuring that the lighting plans submitted by the applicants included the
right fixtures with the right shielding, as well as making adjustments to the installed lighting
after it is installed (see attached typical conditions). While these efforts have eliminated the
halo effect of unnecessary light pollution, Staff has found that the topography of a project
site may make the elimination of all lighting impacts next to impossible. Furthermore, this
process requires applicants to go back and make changes to installed lighting which is
costly to applicants. Staff and the Planning Commission agree that the Code should be
F-3
CAIR — Outdoor Lighting
September 2, 2014
changed to specify the appropriate fixtures in advance.
Additionally, Staff has found that in some cases the color of new lights tends to be a
brighter white color. The bright white lights are likely a result of State -mandated energy
efficiency lighting requirements that were implemented in the last several years and the
new lighting technology that has evolved as a result. More specifically, the State of
California requires exterior lighting to be high efficacy fluorescent or LED lighting, unless
the lights are installed with a photo and motion sensor. Although bright white lights are the
most common color of fluorescent or LED lights, the lighting industry has produced other
color temperatures that continue to meet the Uniform Building Requirements for safety and
efficiency. As such, on occasion, Staff has requested applicants to change the light source
to a warmer/yellow color light bulb through the typical 6 -month review process on larger
projects.
While Staff and the Planning Commission believe that the current code does help eliminate
some lighting impacts related to height, number of fixtures and impacts of glare at a
property line, the existing code should be updated to include lighting specifications to help
reduce lighting impacts before exterior lights are installed. Doing so will eliminate or
minimize applicants having to make costly adjustments after the lighting is installed. As
such, the Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council initiate a code
amendment to update and improve the City's exterior lighting standards for private non-
residential projects. Examples of some potential code changes include, but are not limited
to, the following:
• Specify that light fixtures are to be fully shielded so the light source is not visible
from any adjacent property; and,
• Light fixtures that are installed for public safety purposes are to be fully shielded so
the light source is not visible from any adjacent property, to the maximum extend
feasible; and,
• Establish acceptable color temperatures for exterior lights; and,
• Impose restrictions on exterior light emissions based on lumens instead of wattage;
and,
• Add specific regulations to prevent the glare of exterior lights to vehicles on public
rights-of-way.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Notice:
A Code Amendment Initiation Request does not require a public notice. However, if the
City Council initiates the Code Amendment, Staff will send a public notice to all property
owners of non-residential properties throughout the City as well as residents within a 500
foot radius of each affected non-residential property.
Planning Commission Review
If the City Council initiates the Code Amendment, as recommended by Staff, the formal
Code Amendment language will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and
F-4
CAIR — Outdoor Lighting
September 2, 2014
consideration at a noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission's recommendation will
then be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision. Staff anticipates returning the
City Council with a formal Code Amendment between March and May of 2015.
FISCAL IMPACT
Should the City Council approve the initiation request, Staff would process the request as a
Citywide application. The Staff time associated with the processing of this proposed Code
Amendment is estimated to be approximately 80 hours, including the time already spent
conducting previous research. This process would be considered an Advanced Planning
Project and is accounted for in the Community Development Department's budget. As
such, no budget adjustment would be required.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the City Council's consideration:
1. Deny the CAIR, and direct Staff to take no further action on the matter. If this alternative
]s chosen, Staff would continue with the current process of reviewing exterior lighting on
non-residential project based on current Code and review practices; or,
2. Initiate the Code Amendment and provide direction with regards to specific
amendments.
ATTACHMENTS
• February 25, 2014 P.C. Minutes
• January 24, 2011 P.C. Staff Report
• Sample of Typical Conditions of Approval
• Current Municipal Code
F-5
February 25, 2014 P.C. Minutes
F-6
the pub Baring to the March 11th meeting so that the Planning Commission can
discuss the olution and allow the public to comment on it as well.
The motion was approve ;
NEW BUSINESS
4. Outdoor liahtin
Associate Planner Mikhail presented a brief staff report, stating that for the reasons
outlined in the staff report staff is requesting the Planning Commission request staff to
petition the City Council to initiate a code amendment to improve the City's existing
lighting regulations to address issues as noted in the staff report.
Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing.
Diane Smith felt that with the new types of lighting available today the City needs to
update its outdoor lighting code, and explained her issues with the lighting at
Marymount College. She felt if the City's code could be amended to clearly regulate
exterior lighting to avoid light pollution and nuisance to residents, it may help the
predicament caused by Marymount's parking lot lights that she currently experiences.
Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gerstner moved staff's recommendation, adding that staff seek
direction from the City Council not in a narrow way but rather have the City
Council direct the Commission in a broader manner to take a broad look at
lighting within the City in all aspects and how it affects both public and private
property. Seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (7-0).
6.General Plan ConsistencyFindingCase No. ZON2014-00046: 32639
asket Drive
Chairman Emenhidd?'?Commissioner Nelson recused themselves from this item and
left the dais.
Commissioner Lewis disclosed that sd',ql years ago during his campaign for City
Council the applicant hosted one of his even ,_Notwithstanding that, he felt he can be
fair and impartial in hearing this item.
Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, summa the need for the
consistency finding as explained in the staff report. He explained t n looking at
vacating this particular easement, staff has contacted the various utility`' �ease'
who
have all indicated they have no infrastructure facilities nor do they plan in the to
provide for any infrastructure within the easement. He stated staff feels th
Planning Commission Minutes
February 25, 2014
Page 20
F-7
January 24, 2011 P.C. Staff Report
CITYOF
ZF#_ TO, rel ivJ14TT
ILARANCHO
PALOS
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOEL ROJAS, AICP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: JANUARY 24, 2011
SUBJECT! DISCUSSION ON EXTERIOR LIGHTING CONDITIONS
Project Manager: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file a report and discussion on exterior lighting conditions that are applied to
non-residential projects throughout the City.
BACKGROUND
At the October 25, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission
requested that Staff prepare a discussion regarding Conditions of Approval that are applied
to non-residential development projects in order to avoid and/or minimize exterior lighting
impacts. In requesting this discussion, the Planning Commission referred to two (2)
recently approved development projects (Pt. Vicente Animal Hospital and Chase Bank)
whereby conditions of approval intended to regulate exterior lighting pursuant to the City's
Development Code were applied. A discussion of Staff's process in reviewing non-
residential lighting plans and imposing applicable conditions of approval is provided below.
DISCUSSION
The City's "Environmental Protection" Section of the Development Code (Chapter 17.56)
includes development standards for outdoor lighting throughout the City. Included in this
chapter, Section 17.56.040 (attached) outlines outdoor lighting requirements and limitations
specifically for non-residential uses (i.e. commercial buildings, institutional buildings, etc.).
These development standards apply to all non-residential properties where new
development projects are proposed, or where existing lighting is proposed to be updated or
changed.
When a new non-residential project or modification to an existing non-residential project is
proposed whereby an applicant is proposing to install new or updated exterior lighting, Staff
requires the applicant to prepare and submit a conceptual lighting plan for Staff's review to
ensure that all proposed exterior lighting is in compliance with the development code
standards related to outdoor lighting for non-residential uses. Said lighting plan is typically
required to include the location, height, number of lights, wattage, estimates of maximum
F-9
illumination on site and spill/glare at property lines and must show that it is in conformance
with the standards outlined in the Development Code (Section 17.56.040 of the RPVMC).
Staff imposes conditions of approval to address exterior lighting to a development project
as part of the planning entitlement process. This applies to projects reviewed by both the
Director and the Planning Commission. Conditions of approval that are typically imposed
are attached to this memo for the Planning Commission's review. It is important to note
that a majority of these conditions of approval stem from the current requirements of the
Development Code (attached) and 'include a requirement to submit a final site lighting plan
for review prior to Building Permit Issuance while limiting maximum heights and wattages
for exterior lighting. When considering development projects, Staff and/or the Planning
Commission may also choose to impose additional conditions of approval to mitigate
potential lighting impacts that are specific to the proposed project and are considered on a
case-by-case basis. Examples of these additional conditions, such as light timing
conditions or post installation reviews, are also attached to this memo.
As noted above, Staff typically imposes a condition of approval that requires an applicant
to submit a final lighting plan prior to Building Permit issuance. Once an applicant has
submitted a final lighting plan for review during the Building and Safety stage, Staff verifies
that the lighting plan is in compliance with the Development Code and any applicable
Conditions of Approval imposed on the planning entitlement. In addition, once submitted
into Building and Safety for Plan Check review, the lighting plan is also required to meet
the requirements of the most recently adopted edition of the California Building Code.
While the Development Code does not explicitly require light fixtures to be shielded, the
Code does prohibit a light source from being directed toward or resulting in direct
illumination of another parcel. As such, Staff typically imposes a condition of approval that
requires a light fixture to be shielded in order to minimize any impacts of direct illumination
or glare onto neighboring properties or the public rights-of-way. In addition, Staff will
typically review the type of lighting fixture that is proposed at both the conceptual stage and
final review stage of a lighting plan to check for light fixture shielding. Notwithstanding this
review, it is not uncommon for some direct illumination or glare issues to be revealed once
the lighting is installed and powered up. In order to address any unanticipated lighting
impacts that may occur once a light fixture is installed, Staff typically imposes a condition of
approval that allows the Director or the Planning Commission to require further
modifications to lighting fixtures in order to mitigate any impacts. An example of this is what
occurred with the Pt. Vicente Animal Hospital project. In this case, the lighting plans were
reviewed and the proposed shielding was thought to be adequate. However, once the
lighting was installed and turned on, Staff noticed more glare and direct illumination of
other properties than expected. As a result, the property owner voluntarily reduced the
lighting wattage, provided a perforated cover around the light source and fully shielded the
back portions of the light fixture to reduce direct illumination and glare impacts to Villa
Capri residents and the public right-of-way. With these adjustments, the lighting was re-
evaluated and determined to be in compliance with the Development Code requirements.
While the lighting fixtures for the Pt. Vicente Animal Hospital had to be modified after
installation, in other cases, Staff has been able to require modification at the planning
stage to address potential impacts. For example, with the parking lot lighting for the St.
John Fisher Master Plan project, Staff required that the applicant use fully shielded fixtures
F-10
so that the fixtures emit no light in the area above the
lowest point of the light fixtures. These types of light
fixtures only emit light from the bottom or end of the
fixture, so that the actual light source is embedded within
the fixture. These type of lights ensure that light is only
directed toward its intended surface. The picture to the
right of this paragraph illustrates the difference between
an unshielded light fixture verses a shielded light fixture.
Examples of these light fixtures can currently be found in
the recently constructed St. John Fisher parking lot.
Attachments:
.` unshielded
Shielded
• Typical, Conditions of Approval for non-residential outdoor lighting
• RPV Development Code Section 17.56.040 (Outdoor lighting for non-residential uses)
F-11
Typical Conditions of Approval for
Non-residential outdoor lighting
F-12
OUTDOOR LIGHTING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Below is a list of "typical" outdoor lighting conditions of approval that apply to all lighting
plans submitted to the City for review and approval:
Typical Outdoor Lighting Conditions of Approval
1, All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.040 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,
2. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, the applicant shall submit a final site lighting plan,
prepared by a lighting contractor, for the review and approval of the Community
Development Director. The lighting plan shall include the location, height, number of
lights, wattage, estimates of maximum illumination on site with no spill/glare at the
property line. The plans shall also demonstrate that all lighting fixture on the building
and throughout the entire project site shall be designed and installed so as to contain
light on the subject property and not spill over or be directed toward adjacent
properties or public rights-of-way.
3. Exterior lighting fixtures in the landscape area shall be low, downcast, bollard -type
fixtures, not to exceed forty-two 42") inches in height. Parking lot lighting shall not
exceed ten feet (10') in height, as measured from the surface of the parking lot and
shall employ downcast and shielded lumieres.
4. No one light fixture shall exceed 1,200 watts, and the light source shall not be
directed toward or result in direct illumination of an adjacent parcel of property or
properties other than upon which such light source is physically located. All exterior
lighting shall be arranged and shielded so as to prevent direct illumination of abutting
properties and to prevent distraction of drivers of vehicles on public rights-of-way.
5. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a
building, is above the line of the eaves. If the light source or fixture is located on a
building with no eaves, or if located on a standard or pole, the light source or fixture
shall not be more than ten (10) feet above existing grade, adjacent to the building.
Additional / Optional Outdoor Lighting Conditions of Approval
(Subterranean Parking Garage Condition)
6. Interior lighting within a subterranean garage shall be screened and shielded so as to
contain light within the garage and not create glare for nearby downslope residences.
(Light Timing Condition — Case-by-case review)
7. With the exception of approved security lighting, all exterior lighting shall be
extinguished by
8. With the exception of approved security lighting, all parking lot lighting shall be
extinguished by
F-13
(Balcony and Common Area Condition — Case-by-case review)
9. Exterior lighting fixtures on balconies and common exterior walkways shall be
downcast, shielded and shall be equipped with light sensors so that they will only be
illuminated
(Post Installation Reviews)
10. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, or final of a building permit,
whichever occurs first, and within two (2) weeks of installation/use of all site lighting,
the applicant shall request that the Director or his designee conduct an inspection of
the site to ensure that there is no spill-over of light onto adjacent properties or cause
a negative impact to adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. Upon determination
by the Director that any installed lighting creates an impact, the property owner shall
modify said lighting to the satisfaction of the Director.
11. After installation of lighting, but prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for a
building or parking lot, the property owner shall request that the City conduct an
inspection of the site to ensure that there is no spill-over of light onto adjacent
properties and all potential lighting impacts have been adequately resolved.
12. The effectiveness of the exterior lighting conditions of approval contained herein shall
be subject to review and modification, as deemed necessary and appropriate by the
final deciding body, (some period of time) after issuance of a final Certificate of
Occupancy for (some portion of a project) . The (deciding body) shall review
the applicant's compliance with the conditions of approval, and determine if the
conditions are accomplishing their intended purposes. Notice of said review hearing
shall be published and provided to owners of a property located within a 500' radius,
to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the
property owner in accordance with the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code
Section 17.80.090. At that time, the (deciding body) may add, delete, or modify
the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate by the (deciding
body) . As part of the review, the (deciding body) may impose more restrictive
standards and conditions to mitigate any impacts resulting form the operation of the
Project.
F-14
Development Code Section 17.56.040
(Outdoor lighting for nonresidential uses)
F-15
17.56.030
17.56.030 Outdoor lighting for residential uses.
No outdoor lighting shall hereafter be installed or
used in the single-family residential (RS) or multiple -
family residential (RM) zones, except in accordance
with the provisions of this section.
A. Except as hereinafter provided, no out-
door lighting shall be permitted where the light source
is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a
parcel of property or properties other than that upon
which such light source is physically located. Individ-
ual, nonreflector, incandescent light bulbs, not exceed-
ing 150 watts each, or an aggregate of 1,000 watts for
each lot or parcel shall be permitted. On lots exceeding
15,000 square feet, an additional 100 watts in the aggre-
gate shall be permitted for each 1,500 square feet of
area or major fraction thereof, by which the lot or
parcel exceeds 15,000 square feet; provided, that in no
event shall the aggregate exceed 2,000 watts. As used
herein, the term "watts" is irrespective of the voltage. If
nonincandescent lighting is used, the wattage of each
nonincandescent light shall be multiplied by the follow-
ing conversion factors to ascertain a standard wattage
that is comparable to the wattage associated with incan-
descent lighting:
Type of Lamp
Multiplier
quartz/tungsten-halogen
1.23
mercury
2.4
fluorescent
3.7
sodium vapor HPSV
5.7
sodium vapor LPSV
9.0
metal halide
4.9
incandescent reflector
1.6
B. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted
where the light source or fixture, if located on a build-
ing, above the line of the eaves, or if located on a
standard or pole, more than ten feet above grade.
C. Notwithstanding the requirements of this
section, outdoor lighting may be installed and used in a
manner not permitted by this section upon the issuance
of a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 17.60
(Conditional Use Permits), (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997:
Ord. 78 (part), 1975)
(Rancho Palos Verdes 4-14)
17.56.040 Outdoor lighting for nonresidential
uses.
No outdoor lighting shall hereafter be installed in
any nonresidential district, except in accordance with
the provisions of this section.
X Prior to the issuance of the first certifi-
cate of occupancy, a lighting plan prepared by a light-
ing contractor, which shall include the location, height,
number of lights, wattage, estimates of maximum illu-
mination on site and spill/glare at property lines, and in
conformance with the following standards and criteria,
shall be submitted for approval by the director.
1. No one fixture shall exceed 1,200
watts and the light source shall not be directed toward
or result in direct illumination of a parcel of property
or properties other than that upon which such light
source is physically located. Wattage for nonincandescent
lighting shall be calculated using the multiplier values
described in Section 17.56.030(A) of this chapter.
2. No outdoor lighting shall be per-
mitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a
building, is above the line of the eaves. If the light
source or fixture is located on a building with no eaves,
or if located on a standard or pole, the light source or
fixture shall not be more than ten feet above existing
grade, adjacent to the building or pole.
3. All estimates or testing shall be
done with the entire facility illuminated.
4. Testing equipment shall be a cali-
brated gossen panalux electronic 2 or an equal ap-
proved by the director.
B. The director may approve deviations
which exceed the standards set forth in Section
17.56.040(A)(1) through (A)(3) of this chapter, when
the director finds that such deviations are required for
public safety. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
312
17.56.050 Residential neighborhood protection.
A. No commercial vehicles weighing in excess of
6,000 pounds shall be parked or stored in any residen-
tial district, except during residential construction or in
conjunction with residential deliveries within the hours
stated in Section 17.56.050(B) of this chapter.
B. Deliveries involving commercial vehicles weigh-
ing in excess of 6,000 pounds shall be allowed in resi-
dential districts only between the hours of seven a.m.
and seven p.m., Monday through Saturday.
F-16