Loading...
PC MINS 20111213 Approved January 24, 2012 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Gerstner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Vice Chairman Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Associate Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to hear agenda item No. 1 after agenda item No. 6. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their last meeting the newly elected council members were sworn in and the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem were selected. The City Council also agreed to conduct interviews for the three expiring Planning Commission positions on January 17, 2012. Director Rojas provided a status report regarding exterior lighting at the Palos Verdes Animal Hospital. He also provided a status report regarding the parking lot improvement project at Lower Point Vicente. Director Rojas distributed seven letters related to agenda item No. 5 and four letters related to agenda item No. 6. Vice Chairman Tetreault reported that he attended an HOA meeting in Torrance to discuss the possible adoption of a view restoration policy. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2011-00309): 26139 Basswood Ave Commissioner Lewis noted that this case is in his neighborhood, and though he is out of the 500 foot radius, he would recuse himself from this item. He left the dais. Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report. She explained the scope of the proposed project and the need for the height variation. She stated that staff was able to make all of the required findings to recommend approval of the project, as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated he agreed with staff's recommendation of approval. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. PC Resolution 2011-39 was approved, (5-0) with Commissioner Lewis recused. Commissioner Lewis returned to the dais. 3. Conditional use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2011-00277): 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Commissioner Emenhiser recused himself from this item and left the dais. Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and noting that the Public Works and Building and Safety Departments have reviewed the request and given their approval. She stated staff was able to make the required findings to recommend approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there were any issues with the storage of the fuel on site. Associate Planner Kim answered that the Building Official noted that as long as the Fire Department grants an approval at the time of plan check there won't be a problem. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 2 Alexander Lou (representing Verizon Wireless) stated Verizon Wireless has requested the Planning Commission clarify condition of approval No. 18 and possibly striking condition of approval No. 19. He felt condition of approval No. 18 was a bit broad and vague in terms of what would be required of his client in five years time. In regards to condition of approval No. 19, he explained that typically the CUP runs with the land and he would like to keep the real estate negotiation side of things separate from the land use approval side of things. As currently worded, the condition may put the City in an odd position where the approval is considered an expiration date that would contradict California Government Code Section 65964, which doesn't limit Conditional Use Permits to a period shorter than ten years. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked Mr. Lou why it was necessary to have a generator installed at this location. Mr. Lou explained that this site has been deemed by Verizon Wireless as one of their critical sites, and during a prolonged power outage it is possible the infrastructure will go down. With this proposal, the onsite emergency generator will kick in and provide the needed power. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked Mr. Lou if it would be acceptable to modify and tighten up the language in condition No. 19 so that it was clear that this approval will continue as long as the lease continues for the site. Mr. Lou felt that would be acceptable. Commissioner Gerstner asked if there was an alternative to an emergency generator on site that is used in other critical facilities. Mr. Lou answered that Verizon prefers to have their own emergency generator equipment at the site. Chairman Tomblin understood Verizon's concern, however stated he would prefer to keep the language in condition No. 19 with some modification if needed. Director Rojas explained that condition No. 18 is a standard condition of approval that is placed on all antenna approvals. He explained that condition No. 19 was added in an attempt to get the lease in sync with other monopole related approvals and he could understand how having a date in the condition can be misconstrued. He stated that language can be added that ties the condition with whenever the lease expires. Mr. Lou asked the Commission for clarification on what exactly would be required from Verizon Wireless in terms of condition No. 18, Vice Chairman Tetreault explained that in the past the concern has been the equipment that is in place and if any of that equipment can be removed because it is outdated or inoperable. A simple status regarding any changes that have been made in the last five Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 3 years and if any existing equipment can be removed is all the Commission is looking for. Mr. Lou understood that the Commission was looking for a quick status report on the current use of the antennas on site and if any of the antennas could be removed. He asked that level of specificity be added to the condition. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the project as conditioned by staff with the modification that the language in condition No. 19 be modified and tightened up so that it is clear that the generator shall be removed upon the termination of the lease by the applicant and that condition No. 18 is clarified so that it will describe the equipment and whether any equipment on site is non- operational and can be removed, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Lewis suggested that the applicant can ask staff to provide examples of past updates provided by Verizon and/or other wireless providers that have been submitted to staff to show the level of specificity or formality the City is looking for. Commissioner Gerstner stated that condition No. 18 is a standard condition that is the same for all approvals, and was reluctant to change the condition for anybody. He stated that if this is what everybody has to do, he would feel uncomfortable making it unique for one applicant and not the others. Chairman Tomblin agreed. Director Rojas stated he had spoken to the City Attorney regarding making the adjustment to the lease. She has read the Government Code and felt the City could have the expiration date tied to the lease. Associate Planner Kim summarized the motion to approve the project with the modification to condition No. 19 to read that the approval shall terminate concurrently with the lease between the City and Verizon Wireless and the equipment shall be removed upon the termination of the lease between Verizon Wireless and the City. In regards to condition No. 18, Vice Chairman Tetreault understood Commissioner Gerstner's comments. However, he noted the condition asks for periodic updates every five years, and he too might question what exactly the City is looking to receive. He felt that language could be crafted for condition No. 18 that simply says the City is concerned there may be outdated equipment, and if so, the City would like that equipment removed. Commissioner Leon felt that leaving the condition broad was a better option, noting there have been no issues in the past. Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 4 Commissioner Lewis felt that changing the wording and/or intent of Condition No. 18 is something that the City Attorney is involved with, and suggested that any changes to the condition be discussed at a later meeting with input from the City Attorney. Director Rojas noted that in 1997 the City Council adopted the Wireless Communications Antenna Guidelines and condition No. 18 is a direct result of those Guidelines. He read from the Guidelines that the purpose of the updates is to identify both new and emerging technology, as well as outdated or obsolete technology whose facilities and infrastructure could be replaced or removed. With that, he agreed with Commissioner Lewis that any changes to that language be reviewed by the City Attorney and the City Council. He suggested that the language from the Guidelines be inserted into Condition No. 18 to better clarify the condition. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to modify his motion to add the language for Condition No. 19 as read by staff and to add language to condition No. 18 that it is the intent of the Commission for the applicant to follow the guidelines as set forth in the Guidelines, and quote the section of the Guidelines, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. The motion was approved, (5-0) with Commissioner Emenhiser recused, and PC Resolution 2011-40 was adopted. Commissioner Emenhiser returned to the dais. 4. View Restoration Permit (Case No. VRP2010-00010) Director Rojas presented the staff report, stating that staffs recommendation is that the Public Hearing be continued to the February 14" meeting, noting all three applicants are in agreement with staff's recommendation. The Commission agreed to continue the public hearing to February 14, 2012 without objection. 5. Code Amendment— Interpretation Procedure Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining this is a City Council initiated code amendment to revise the interpretation procedure to allow a property owner to request an adjustment of an Open Space Hazard zoning district boundary line from the current 30 feet to 100 feet. She explained the current process and how the process would be revised, as detailed in the staff report. She noted that staff was recommending the Interpretation Procedure fee be waived for OH boundary line adjustments until the General Plan update and associated Zoning Map update are completed and adopted by the City Council. Commissioner Lewis asked if this procedure were adopted and a resident disagreed with the Director's decision, could a resident appeal that decision to the Planning Commission, and would that appeal fee also be waived. Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 5 Assistant Planner Harwell answered that the Director's decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission. She noted that staff was not proposing appeal fees be waived, however the Planning Commission can add that proposal for the City Council. Commissioner Leon noted in the staff report that since 1997 there have only been three adjustments in the 30 foot range that were approved by the Director and three additional requests that went before the City Council. He asked staff if the three that went to City Council were requesting an adjustment of less than 100 feet. Director Rojas stated that staff would research the answer. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff who would have standing to appeal a decision by the Director. Director Rojas answered that the proposed Ordinance states the person requesting the interpretation, the property owner affected by the interpretation, and any interested party can appeal the decision. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Joe Oliveri stated he was concerned, as there is a property next to him that is very dangerous and there is currently a proposal before the City to build a new home on the property. He asked if the geologist has visited this property and also noted that the slope is much steeper than it is being represented. Chairman Tomblin thanked Mr. Oliveri for his comments, but noted that this particular project is not on the agenda and therefore cannot be discussed by the Commission. Nancy Sanders felt her house should be the poster child for why the OH Line can be extended, as the line goes right through her residence. She felt the OH line on her property is more of an encumbrance and was not in the correct place, and has geology reports to back that up. She stated that the possible extension of the OH line will make it possible for her to remodel and modestly enlarge her house, which will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. Jeanne Lacombe stated she is president of the Rolling Hills Riviera HOA in eastview and encompasses approximately 721 homes. She stated she had just heard of the Open Space Hazard zoning three weeks ago, and nobody she spoke to in the HOA had heard of the zoning either. She received a letter from the Community Development Department on November 17th, however there was no reasonable way any of the eastview residents could ascertain if the notice had anything to do with the eastview residents. She compared new digital maps from the City showing the OH zone in eastview to the older maps from the City, and noted what she felt were extensive differences in the two maps. She did not feel it was proper to charge eastview residents to move the OH lines because they were incoherently drawn with respect to the rest of the City. Further, she felt that the OH lines were digitally redrawn without regard to Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 6 slope, topography or drainage; they were redrawn in eastview without any public hearing; eastview was not included on the City's OH Hazard Zones Slope Analysis; and there was no prior public notification to the owners of the affected properties. She recommended the City remove the north and central OH zones from eastview, that the eastview homeowners currently undergoing the permit process be allowed to continue the planning process without being charged for moving OH lines while this topic is under review, and that the eastview homeowners that have been denied permits due to OH be contacted and informed of this issue. Commissioner Leon asked Ms. Lacombe if the maps she used in her presentation were from the General Plan or were they the 1975 Zoning Maps. Ms. Lacombe answered that the maps used are the maps from 1984 that were provided by the Planning Department, however the maps do not identify the dates or where the information came from. Director Rojas clarified that the 1975 Zoning Map does not include Eastview, since that area was annexed to the City at a later date. When Eastview was annexed, someone drew lines in three canyon areas to designate OH areas. He also noted that the maps attached to the Ordinance that adopted the Eastview zoning do not match the official Zoning Map of the City that has been in place for 25 years. He felt that Ms. Lacombe's presentation makes a good point of why this matter needs to be corrected as proposed by staff. In regards to the additional request by Ms. Lacombe that certain fees be waived, he noted that only the City Council can waive fees and set policies for the City. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff how the digitized maps end up so different from the underlying original map. Director Rojas explained that the current zoning map was digitized from the official Zoning Map, which differs from the map attached to the Ordinance adopted in 1984. Commissioner Leon noted that the issue before the Planning Commission is whether or not to allow the Director the discretion to approve moving the OH line up to 100 feet, rather than the currently allowed 30 feet. While he acknowledged that Ms. Lacombe raises very important issues, he did not feel these were the issues before the Planning Commission. Peter Lacombe showed an aerial photograph of his property, showing where the OH Line is on the rear hillside and explaining why he felt the line was drawn arbitrarily. He felt the new zones are guesswork based on old arbitrary zones and the property owners are being required to pay a geologist to undo the mess. Mark Karmelich stated he just recently found out that he has an OH designation on his property. He noted that he built a swimming pool in his rear yard in 1972 and had all of the necessary permits and inspections from the County, with no mention of any Open Space Hazard. He also added a seconded story addition to his home without any Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 7 mention of the Open Space Hazard area. He asked if the City was now going to stop him from doing further development on his property, and what about the permitted development that has previously taken place on his property in this OH zoned area. Edward Lassiter stated he has a flat lot on his residential property and a canyon lot. He explained that the past map has a marginal portion of his property in the OH zone, however the newest official map has his entire residence inside the OH zone. His concern was that now that his entire house is in the OH zone, his property values will go down and he may not be able to sell his house. He was also concerned about the fees required to request modifying the location of the OH zone on his property. Maury Williams stated that almost his entire property is zoned OH and his neighbor's properties are partially zoned OH. He stated that he is a civil engineer and could see no common sense in the zoning. He stated he put an addition on the house in 2003 and apparently someone forgot to look at the Zoning Map since the project was permitted and approved. He did not think residents in Eastview were properly notified of the OH zones. Finally, he explained that his property is bound by the OH zone, therefore moving the line 30 feet or 100 feet would do nothing for him on his property as it only benefits those properties where the line traverses the property. Regarding fees, he questioned why residents should have to pay for the City's mistakes. Sharon Yarber voiced her concern with Section 17.90.010.A, stating she felt the paragraph is incomprehensible. Further, Section 17.90.020 then refers back to 17.90.010.A which again, is incomprehensible, overly broad and vague. She also did not think a 15 day noticing period for appeals was adequate, saying 30 to 45 days would be more appropriate. Lowell Wedemeyer referred to 17.90.010.B asking how many times that procedure can be used on a single lot and over what time period. He agreed that the 15 day appeal period was too short. He felt that in 17.90.020.13 there is an ambiguity in regards to what the 100 feet applies to. He noted that one can assume it applies to an existing line, however it does not say if it is perpendicular or parallel to the line, as it is just one dimension and therefore one does not know how big of an area this applies to. He suggested having an area limit as well as specifying if the 100 feet is perpendicular or parallel to some existing line. John McCowan stated he agrees with all of the points that have been made, noting that there are a lot of loose ends. He asked that these issues be dealt with expeditiously and professionally. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated that a couple of maps were referenced during the public hearing, one being a map which was adopted by City Ordinance in 1984 and the other being the Zoning Map. He asked which of those two is the controlling legal map which designates the OH Zone for the Eastview area. Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 8 Director Rojas explained that there was a map used as an exhibit, which was part of the Ordinance, which someone then had to transcribe onto the official map. It appears that when that was done the transcription did not exactly match the map that was in the Ordinance. It is staff's position that because it was transcribed onto a map and then signed by the City Clerk as the official Zoning Map, this is the official map and it takes precedence over the exhibit attached to the Ordinance. However, he added that if this were to happen today, staff would look at the item, confer with the City Attorney, and he felt the City Attorney would recommend staff correct the official Zoning Map to match the attached to the Ordinance. However, he did not know if staff could still do that twenty seven years after-the-fact. He stated he would consult with the City Attorney on this issue. Commissioner Leon stated that the testimony has shown that there are significant discrepancies between the boundary lines as drawn on the Zoning Map and the standards that the City has set in creating an open space hazard as it is defined in the code. He felt this places an unfair burden on residents where there is an arbitrary and incorrect line that is drawn. He would like to see some kind of mechanism that can be used until the City actually has some scientific determination of a boundary line such that the City can make a logical decision as to where the OH line should be placed, whether it is moving the line 70 feet or 250 feet so that the line is moved closer to the top of the slope. Director Rojas answered the Planning Commission can make that recommendation to the City Council. He explained that he does have some reservations on moving the line to match the topography without some type of geologist review, as there could be areas involved that are unstable for development or other issues that are unknown to staff. Commissioner Leon understood the concern, however he noted that even if the line is moved, if a property owner is proposing some type of addition on that area in the future it will most likely have to go through some type of geology review at that time. Commissioner Emenhiser stated it was obvious to him that the City is attempting to correct some mistakes that were made in the 1970's with these maps. He also acknowledged the burden the OH designation puts on the homeowners in terms of property values and insurance rates. He felt what the Commission is considering is the opportunity to provide relief to the homeowners through the elimination and the reduction of some fees and by giving the Director some flexibility in moving this line. Therefore, he was in support of staff's recommendations. Commissioner Lewis stated it is important to remember that the Commission is not deciding whether or not this line is arbitrary, but rather how much relief to give to the residents because of this discrepancy. He felt that the Commission has to recognize how arbitrary that line is before making the decision as to whether or not staff has gone far enough in its recommendations in terms of giving the residents relief. He also felt there were some clarifications to the language that needs to be made. Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 9 Commissioner Gerstner stated that he was an advocate of giving the Director more latitude with adjusting this line and he continues to take that position. He agreed with Commissioner Lewis that the Commission is looking for how much relief to offer, and the maximum reasonable amount of relief should be offered. He also felt the Commission should recommend to the City Council that the work the City Geologist is doing to help correct this line be expedited. He also agreed that some of the language in the Ordinance was too vague and needed to be revised. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated that appears this OH line was applied to these maps in an arbitrary manner, and perhaps with the City Geologist's input some type of basic criteria can now be formulated as to what topographic characteristics would be used today if a map were to be created, effectuated on a lot by lot basis. He understood that geology is unique on each property, however he pointed out that the current maps were not drawn with any consideration to geology and were totally arbitrary. He proposed the City Geologist could provide a set of guidelines for the Director, who would then apply those guidelines to individual properties when a resident proposes to move their OH line. Those lines could then be moved according to those guidelines without the resident incurring costs for a geologist to do so. However, anything a resident might propose that are outside of the guidelines supplied by the City would then require the resident to go back to the current 30-foot rule. Chairman Tomblin agreed that an interim solution to allow the Director to act quickly to cover particular issues is needed, and therefore agreed with staffs recommendations. He also noted that something does need to be done to find a more permanent solution to this problem. He also agreed with the proposed waiver to the fees charged to change the OH line. He was concerned as to where to draw the line in terms of what fees the City should cover and what fees the resident should pay. He was also concerned with some of the language written into the Ordinance. In trying to help correct the problem and give the Director some discretion, he felt there is a parallel process that needs to be looked at more carefully in terms of studying these issues in more depth which will take more time. With that, he asked the Director how interim this solution can or will be so that the Commission and City Council can work out a more permanent solution. Director Rojas reminded the Commission that whatever authority is given to the Director must be done through a City Council approved Ordinance. If the City Council wants this to be an interim Ordinance until the maps are corrected, that will be stipulated in the Ordinance. He explained that there is already a more permanent solution to this problem in place, as the City Geologist has been tasked to review the OH line citywide, and this will be before the Commission later in the year. Meanwhile, this proposed Ordinance will be in place. If the Commission wants to do more than what is proposed in the current Ordinance, that must be written into the current Ordinance which will be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 10 Commissioner Lewis moved to approve staff's recommendation and approve an Ordinance to be forwarded to the City Council with the changes that 1) the proposed language in the Ordinance be changed to clarify that in addition to waiving filing fees for the interpretation procedure, that any associated appellant fees also be waived; 2) in the process of taking this item to the City Council staff come up with additional proposed language that would identify the subset of properties that are not on a slope and have existing structures that are identified in the OH zone; 3) the issue of properties that are bound by the OH zone, rather than having the OH line traverse the property is addressed; and 4) that in the staff report to the City Council the Council be made aware of the concerns of third party costs associated with the procedure, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Commissioner Lewis if he felt some type of time frame should be put on this proposal. Commissioner Lewis stated he would accept an amendment to the motion to add a one year limit, with the understanding that the City Council may not approve the General Plan within a one year period. Director Rojas stated that he understood the motion and the intent of the motion, however given the public comments on both sides of this issue, he recommended that staff craft language for the Commission to review at the next meeting on January 10th That will give staff the opportunity to consult with the City Attorney and the City Geologist in terms of the language. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion to continue the item to the January 10, 2012 meeting, and in addition to the specific points raised in the first motion, that any other specific points raised be addressed, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Leon stated that nothing can be built in the City without a geology report, especially if it is close to a slope. Therefore, he did not think there was a public safety issue in regards to moving the line without first having a geology report. Commissioner Lewis stated that he would like staff to reword the language in the Ordinance so that successive applications consider prior applications in terms of total feet. He also felt that the City Council should be made aware of the Commission's suggestion that the east side of the City be prioritized in this process. Commissioner Gerstner agreed adding that the Eastview area seems to have a significant problem and a faster fix than other areas of the City. The motion was approved without objection. 6. General Plan Update — Map changes Planning commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 11 Commissioner Lewis stated that Map No. 13 causes a conflict of interest to him, as it is in close proximity to his home. He will therefore recuse himself from this discussion and left the dais. Commissioner Gerstner stated that Map No. 15 causes a conflict of interest, as his home is in close proximity, and therefore recused himself from the hearing and left the dais. Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining the General Plan and the Zoning Map have three overlay control districts. He explained that there are some differences between the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map in terms of these overlay control districts, specifically that in the fifteen areas identified in the staff report there is a General Plan Land Use Overlay Control District of"Natural' where the Zoning Map identifies "Natural" as well as "Urban" Overlay Control Districts on some of the same properties. As discussed in the past, staff considers the Zoning Map a more specific document that occurred later, and is parcel specific. The proposal before the Planning Commission is to take the General Plan Land Use Overlay Control Districts that are "Natural' and add the Urban Overlay Control Districts so that the Zoning Map and the General Plan Map have the same Overlay Control Districts. Commissioner Leon was concerned that it does not appear that any of the Districts are really comprehensive, explaining he can think of other areas where the same sorts of requirements might apply that are designated districts. He asked staff if they felt the Districts are comprehensive if the definition of the districts is applied to all areas in the City. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the fifteen areas identified are only those areas that have the difference in not having the Urban Overlay and there are many other areas on the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map that have Overlay Control Districts. Commissioner Leon questioned if any Overlay Districts are needed on the Zoning Map, as eliminating them may get rid of all of the confusion between the maps. Deputy Director Pfost explained these Overlay Control Districts were created in the 1970s when the General Plan was created and these sensitive areas were identified, and at a time when the City was far less developed than it is today. Therefore there are Overlay Control Districts identified in areas that are developed today. He stated that is a potential task staff could take, however at this point staff is doing what was directed by the City Council, which was to update the General Plan. Commissioner Leon stated that it was just not logical to have a Natural Overlay District and an Urban Overlay District lay on top of each other. Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 12 Deputy Director Pfost agreed it is awkward, but noted that the criteria for both districts is similar as it is trying to have the City look at the development activity on those parcels more carefully. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff to give an argument in favor of keeping these two overlay districts. Deputy Director Pfost stated that the argument in favor of keeping the overlay districts is what the General Plan's intent was when it was first established, which was to retain and protect the natural areas of the City. He stated that absent of Commissioner Leon's suggestion to go through each area to determine whether or not the Overlay District is still applicable, he felt it was beneficial to still have restrictions or the guidelines on properties that may have open space areas. He noted that there are various findings in different entitlements the City issues that require the City to look at the Overlay Control District and whether or not the project meets those standards. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Sharon Yarber questioned if the focus of the changes is just on these fifteen maps, or will there be more maps before the Planning Commission at a future meeting. She also noted that in the notice in the newspaper it stated that the General Plan Map must be consistent with the Zoning Map as required by state law. She stated that is precisely backward, as the Zoning Map must be consistent with the General Plan. With that, the language in the notice is incorrect and misleading. She stated that for people to be properly informed notices must be accurate and factual. Deputy Director Pfost stated there will be some additional issues that will be brought to the Planning Commission regarding mapping and overlay control districts, noting that currently only overlay control districts outside of the Coastal Zone have been addressed. He explained that there are differences between the Coastal Specific Plan Map and the General Plan Land Use Map that staff is addressing. He acknowledged that Ms. Yarber is correct that the Zoning Map must be consistent with the General Plan and staff is recommending changes to the General Plan so that parcels will be brought into consistency. He stated he would look into the noticing procedure to correct any inaccuracies. Bill Gerstner referred to the Area 15 maps and explained that the overlay is on top of a regular residential neighborhood, and asked how any of the overlay district in that neighborhood was established. Deputy Director Pfost explained that the overlay district was established in the 1970s when the General Plan Map was created and he did not know the reasoning. Chairman Tomblin noted the discussion on whether or not some of these overlay control districts are truly needed, and if the Commission approves the changes proposed by Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 13 staff, how will the topic of whether or not these districts are needed be reopened and addressed. Deputy Director Pfost explained that would be a separate task assigned by the City Council. He noted that staff can suggest to the Council that this be done. Vice Chairman moved to approve staff's recommendation regarding the proposed land use changes to the General Plan Land Use Map, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Leon stated that many of these areas are significantly obsolete, much more so than some of the other zoning issues the Commission has seen. He did not think he could support the motion unless the Overlay Districts were removed or redone accurately. Chairman Tomblin agreed, and asked the Vice Chairman if he would amend his motion to add a recommendation that after staffs recommendation is approved that a recommendation be taken to the City Council to ask staff to look at these Overlay Control Districts and make any necessary modifications and/or corrections. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated he was not in favor of modifying his motion as he was not convinced it was necessary and it appeared it would take quite a bit of staff's time. He did not think the current Overlay Districts were impeding anyone's use, enjoyment, or development of their property. He added that currently he did not have enough information and understanding of what the impacts would be to make that recommendation and would keep his motion as stated. The motion to approve the proposed land use changes to the General Plan Land Use Map as recommended by staff was approved (3-1) with Commissioner Leon dissenting. Chairman Tomblin requested that this item be brought back at the next agenda to address some of the concerns that have been raised. Commissioners Lewis and Gerstner returned to the dais. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2010-00293) Vice Chairman Tetreault felt that the Commission should do its best to resolve this issue while the current Commission is seated and before any new Commissioners are appointed. The Commission agreed. Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 14 Director Rojas noted that one of staff's suggested alternatives is for the Commission to forward this proposed code amendment back to the new City Council for direction, since thin proposed code amendment was a result of direction from the previous Council. The Commission unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing to January 10, 2012. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. Minutes of November 22, 2011 Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (4-0-2) with Commissioners Gerstner and Lewis abstaining since they were absent from the meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on January 10, 2012 The Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 Page 15