Loading...
PC MINS 20100126 Approved February 23, 2 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:06 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Ruttenberg led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis. Commissioners Tetreault and Tomblin arrived during Agenda Item No. 1 Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Principal Planner Mihranian, and Associate Planner Fox APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the December 15, 2009 meeting the City Council elected not to pursue a code amendment to clarify which city maps to use to determine the location of the coastal setback line on coastal properties, and agreed to make a final interpretation that the city is to use the zoning map to determine the location of the coastal setback line. The City Council also denied the appeal and granted the Variance for the after-the-fact improvements at 24 Seacove Drive. The director also noted that at the January 19, 2010 meeting the City Council adopted the final Housing Element as recommended by the Planning Commission Director Rojas distributed two items of correspondence for agenda item No. 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation, Minor Exception Permit& Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2009-00149): 4319 Palos Verdes Drive South Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and the need for the various permits. He explained that based on the revised proposal, staff reassessed the application for neighborhood compatibility with respect to bulk, mass, and architectural style, and briefly reviewed the original and revised plans. He stated that staff believes the revised project reduces the apparent bulk and mass of the addition and incorporates design elements that are more commonly found in the immediate neighborhood. Therefore staff feels the project is now compatible with the immediate neighborhood. With respect to the Minor Exception Permit, staff reevaluated the project for consistency with the Minor Exception Permit findings and was able to make one of the findings in order to recommend approval. He stated that staff now recommends conditional approval of the revised project. A discussion followed regarding a "storybook" ranch style home. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that the proposed addition does not seem to follow through with the detail in the main house, giving the appearance of a definite addition. Associate Planner Fox noted that the Planning Commission could ask the designer to incorporate more of the detail of the eaves and fascia into the new second story gable. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Ricardo Flores (designer) stated it would be possible to match the overhang on the eaves and fascia board with the existing house. Vice Chairman Gerstner explained that this is a difficult massing to deal with and he felt that the only way to make this addition look like it is part of the house is to use as much of the same detailing as possible. Mr. Flores also felt he could make the window styles on the addition match those on the existing house. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestam felt that the designer made the adjustments suggested by the Commission at the previous hearing. Commissioner Perestam moved to approve the project as conditioned by staff with the added condition that the architectural style of the addition be modified wherever possible to match the existing residence at the approval of the Director, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Planning Commission Minutes January 26,2010 Page 2 Commissioner Ruttenberg commented that this particular neighborhood is very consistent in the design of the homes. He felt that what is facing the Commission is the choice of leaving the neighborhood as it is entirely or allowing the development. He felt that this is a very modest proposal and will set a good precedent for the rest of the homes. Commissioner Knight still felt it looks a bit like a pop-up, however with the changes proposed he felt he would be able to support the project. The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2010-01 thereby conditionally approving the project as revised and recommended by staff was approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit Revision, Mitigated Negative Declaration (Case No YON 2009-00441) Principal Planner Mihranian explained this project is for proposed improvements at lower Point Vicente Park. He gave a brief history and background of the site, including the construction of PVIC and a brief explanation of the Rancho Palos Verdes Coast Vision Plan. He explained the components of the proposed project before the Commission, which include expanding the parking lot, reconfiguring the driveway, new lighting, landscaping and hardscaping, and trail improvements. He discussed the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by staff which identified, noting that the identified potential impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the appropriate mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He explained that staff was asking the Commission's input on the proposed project and to provide staff direction to bring back the information at the February 9t" meeting. Commissioner Knight asked about the relationship between this project and the Annenberg proposal. Director Rojas answered that this project can proceed with or without the approval of the Annenberg project, noting that there are separate entitlements being processed and separate CEQA reviews. Commissioner Knight asked if the Annenberg project will be using any of the new proposed parking and if so, why this parking wasn't put into their EIR and addressed in a separate Mitigated Negative Declaration. Director Rojas explained that Point Vicente Interpretive Center has its own parking needs, and this proposal is based on fulfilling that need that was identified years ago. The Annenberg project will have its own parking demands based on a traffic study. Nonetheless, it is anticipated that there will be shared parking. Planning Commission Minutes January 26,2010 Page 3 Principal Planner Mihranian added that this is part of the needed parking that was identified in the 1998 traffic study for Point Vicente Interpretive Center. He noted that PVIC is currently deficient in parking and the dirt overflow lot is quite often used. Commissioner Knight stated that he is concerned about the lighting at PVIC and questioned if it was compliant with the Code when it was installed. He felt that if the previous project was supposed to comply with the code section, something didn't work, and he wanted to make sure there is some assurance with this new project that the same situation doesn't occur. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that since installed staff has expressed its concern with the lighting, noting that there are problems with both the light source and the light standards. He stated that staff has worked very closely with the proposed project's designers in regards to the lighting. He noted that the new lighting plan proposes to change out the existing lighting at the site. Commissioner Knight asked if the landscape plan was in compliance with the new model landscape plant ordinance recently passed by the City Council. Principal Planner Mihranian was not sure if the landscape plan is compliance with that new ordinance or not but that staff could add a condition to ensure that it is. He did note the plant palette that was selected for this project was the palette that was approved by the Coastal Commission for the Terranea project and staff used the Land Conservancy to help select certain plant species for the landscape plan. Commissioner Knight asked if there was any type of integrated pest management plan for the non-native areas of landscaping to help avoid the use of pesticides. He was concerned with the pesticide use because of the close proximity to the ocean bluffs. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that such a plan has not yet be developed. He noted that there are only two small grass areas where this will be needed, as most of the landscaping will be native vegetation. Commissioner Knight discussed noise mitigation, noting a letter was received from a resident expressing concern over operational noise at PVIC and asked if there was a way to see if that is an issue to be addressed. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that currently staff is not aware of complaints regarding operational noise from PVIC. Commissioner Knight suggested staff contact the person who wrote the letter and get more information on the types of noises to see if there is a way to mitigate the concern. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the current overflow parking lot will be eliminated with this plan. Planning Commission Minutes January 26,2010 Page 4 Principal Planner Mihranian explained that it is proposed that the dirt overflow lot will be improved with a paved lot and the Coast Guard dirt lot will continue to be used as an overflow parking lot. Commissioner Perestam asked if there were any discussions regarding changes in the hours of operation or land use at PVIC. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that there have been no discussions regarding changing the hours of operation at PVIC or change in land use and staff has been given no direction to do so and there has been no need identified that the hours of operation should be changed. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. There were no speakers. Commissioner Knight asked if the City is working with the Coast Guard to use the dirt lot for parking. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that the City is currently working with the Coast Guard to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding to utilize the parking lot. He noted that this overflow parking lot will be important during the construction phase to accommodate the daily parking needs. Commissioner Tetreault expressed some concern with the deficient parking at the PVIC site and asked if there was anything about the project, because it is City property, that would cause the Planning Commission to consider it differently than a private project with regards to parking requirements. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that the project should not be treated differently and explained that because the project is under a Conditional Use Permit the Commission can modify the conditions regarding parking, which is also true in the case of a private project. Director Rojas added that, as with other projects, when there isn't enough parking on a site the City asks that there be agreements with another neighboring party. The City has operated with an informal agreement with the Coast Guard for many years in regards to parking and the City is in the process of formalizing this agreement. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he was a little concerned about this project and its ties to the Annenberg project, especially since the Annenberg Foundation has an application for a very large project in the very near future that will be heard before the Planning Commission. He did not want in any way to appear that the Planning Commission was showing any kind of favoritism towards the Annenberg Foundation. Planning Commission Minutes January 26,2010 Page 5 Commissioner Tomblin also expressed his opinion that it was important that the Planning Commission treat the City, as an applicant, in the same way a private individual would be treated before the Commission. Chairman Lewis stated that he would like to see a condition of approval that a formal written agreement be made with the Coast Guard regarding the overflow parking. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing and directed staff to take the recommendations made by the Planning Commission and return with a Resolution for adoption at the next meeting, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Commissioner Knight requested that staff look into pervious concrete, as it helps minimize runoff. The motion to continue the public hearing to February 9, 2010 was approved without objection. 3. General Plan Update — Open Space and Conservation Element(Case No. ZON2009-00107) Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, giving an overview of the conservation and open space elements. He gave a brief explanation of the organization of the element, noting that because the open space element and the conservation element have a similar content they were combined into one element. He explained how the element is set up today in the General Plan and how staff followed that same direction. He also explained that the General Plan update is supposed to be one that updates the information and text of the General Plan, and not rewriting and restructuring the entire content of the General Plan. He stated that staff wanted to introduce this element to the Commission and then turn it over to the subcommittee who can then look at the details of the element who can then work with staff to suggest revisions for the overall Planning Commission's review. Commissioner Knight was concerned about language in the draft which seemed to indicate the use of the ESA maps. He questioned, with the recent Planning Commission and City Council decisions, if this should be modified. Deputy Director Pfost explained that mention of the ESA maps is included both for historical background and for reference in identifying different developable areas in the coastal zone. He stated that he would find the specific language and forward it to the subcommittee for review. Commissioner Perestam felt it was also important for the subcommittee and Commission to be open to reviewing the content and the order of the content and how it flows. He also suggested that there be consistency in the level of detail throughout the document. Planning Commission Minutes January 26,2010 Page 6 Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Lowell Wedemeyer felt that there is technology being used currently in the City that can be used with the document that would facility consistency between the General Plan, zoning, and individual lots. He stated that GPS can be tied into Assessor Map Parcels and there is massive amounts of technology that can be used as an electronic data base for the City. He felt the General Plan should be built from the bottom up rather than the top down. Commissioner Knight asked staff their opinion of taking an electronic data base and expanding on this data base. Director Rojas explained that the City as a whole is trying to create an electronic database, however there is a huge cost to do so and there are State laws on public record keeping that must be taken into consideration. For the day to day processing of planning applications he explained that staff does utilize a GIS system and that the City is looking to purchase additional electronic databases that will greatly enhance staffs ability to look at various aspects of a piece of property in the City. However, to re-map the maps in the General Plan based on a database created by someone reviewing all the information on file with the City with respect to private property would be beyond the direction given by the City Council. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that there is a section in the General Plan that discusses what the City uses and what the City relies on to get to where we are and he suggested putting in a discussion that the goal of the City is to advance this in such a way with more advanced data that the City is not faced with the problems it has been faced with in regards to map usage. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed and added that he questioned why the City would want to create something that intentionally lacks detail, as he did not think that was necessarily beneficial. Commissioner Ruttenberg suggested that somewhere in the introduction of this section, where it would seem to apply the most, there should be mention that the goals are to be as accurate as we possibly can and one way to do that is to keep up with the technology with regards to mapping. Chairman Lewis noted that the subcommittee will meet and discuss this section and report back to the full Commission in February. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of November 10, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes January 26,2010 Page 7 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved without objection. 5. . Minutes of November 24. 2009 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (5-0-2) with Vice Chairman Gerstner and Chairman Lewis abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. 6. Minutes of December 8. 2009 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (6-0-1) with Chairman Lewis abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on February 9, 2010 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 26,2010 Page 8