PC MINS 20130528 Approved
June 2 2013,
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 28, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Emenhiser at 7:04 p.m. at the Fred
Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ATTENDANCE
Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Leon,
and Chairman Emenhiser. Commissioner Tetreault arrived after Agenda
Item No. 3.
Absent: Commissioner Gerstner was excused.
Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn,
Associate Planner Kim, and Associate Planner Mikhail.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Tomblin suggested moving the Consent Calendar item to the end of the
Agenda, to be heard after agenda item No. 5. There was no objection from the
Commission.
COMMUNICATIONS
Director Rojas reported that at their May 21't meeting the City Council approved the
proposed Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project as recommended by the
Planning Commission, with the exception of a potential amendment to the haul route.
Director Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 2.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items):
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Zone Text Amendment— Fences, Walls and Hedges
Commissioner Lewis recused himself from this item as he has an ongoing dispute with
a neighbor that will be impacted by this item. He left the dais.
Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining the item was before the
Commission at their last meeting and the Commission gave staff direction on the item.
Staff is returning tonight with a Resolution memorializing the Planning Commission's
decision. He noted a Resolution is typically placed on the Consent Calendar, however
because this was a public hearing, staff wanted to ensure there was another opportunity
for the public to speak. He stated staff is recommending adoption of the Resolution and
will forward the recommendation to the City Council.
Vice Chairman Leon stated that what he would like to see is not a subsidization of the
Fence Walls and Hedges Permit fee but rather a simplification of the process so that it
costs less. He asked staff if there was a way to simplify the process.
Director Rojas answered that to do so would be to change the Code. Staff is going to
note to the City Council that the current fees for a permit are expensive and see if the
City Council would like to subsidize the fee. He stated the alternative would be to
simplify the review process by seeing what steps can be taken out or simplified, but that
will entail rewording the code language that the Planning Commission just approved last
meeting.
Vice Chairman Leon suggested that sometime in the future the Commission look at the
process.
There being no speakers, the Chairman opened and closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Nelson moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by
Commissioner Tomblin. The motion was approved and PC Resolution 2013-10
was adopted, (4,-0-1) with Commissioner Lewis recused.
Commissioner Lewis returned to the dais.
3. Variance Revision,(Case No. ZO�N2013-00079): 30132 Via Borica
Commissioner Tomblin disclosed that he knows the Armstrongs, but his vote will not be
influenced one way or the other by this.
Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the
property and explaining the scope of the proposed project. She explained the need for
the Variance, stated staff was able to make the required findings to support the
Variance, and was recommending approval.
Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing,
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28,2013
Page 2
Freeman Han stated he is the architect for the project and explained that the current
configuration of the residence is almost like two separate buildings and not well utilized.
The owners decided it would be better to connect the two, thus the need for the
Variance. He stated the design is consistent with the main house and nothing pops out
and away from the existing house.
Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Leon moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by
Commissioner Nelson. The motion was approved and PC Resolution 2013-11
was adopted, (5-0).
4. Variance, Coastal Permit, Site,Plan Review, Lot Merger (Case No. ZON2013-
00041): 98 Yacht Harbor
Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project
and the need for the various applications. She noted there are four Variance requests
and staff was able to make the findings to recommend approval of thee of the requests.
She explained staff was not able to make the findings to support approval of the trellis
structure at the rear of the home as the Code prohibits construction of structures other
than decks or mechanical equipment over extreme slopes. She stated staff is
recommending the Planning Commission approve the project as recommended by staff
in the staff report.
In regards to the trellis, Commissioner Tomblin reviewed the contour lines and asked
staff if a good portion of the trellis was actually not over the extreme slope.
Associate Planner Mikhail answered that there is a portion of the proposed trellis that is
not over the extreme slope, but in order to not require a Variance the applicant would
have to detach the trellis from the new addition and have posts outside of the extreme
slope area. She stated there is no leniency in the Code to allow staff to make a
recommendation that only a portion of the structure is over the extreme slope and not
the entire portion.
Commissioner Tomblin asked if the Planning Commission had the purview to make
such a determination,
Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the Planning Commission does have that
purview.
Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing.
Russ Barto stated he is the architect for the project and representing the owners. He
explained the trellis is intended for sun control, as it is at a west facing section of the
residence. He felt the trellis is no different than an extended eave overhang, which he
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28,2013
Page 3
felt could have been permitted in this particular area. He addressed the concerns of a
neighbor below on Spindrift in regards to water runoff from the property, and noted it is
his intention as part of this project to take as much of the water as possible onto Yacht
Harbor to minimize the amount of water going onto Spindrift.
Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Barto if all of the support for the trellis comes off of
the main building.
Mr. Barto answered that yes, all of the support does come off of the main building and
there are no posts.
Vice Chairman Leon asked if this project was reviewed by the architectural review board
in the Portuguese Bend Club area.
Mr. Barto answered that the plans have been submitted, but he has not yet received
comments back.
Commissioner'Tomblin moved to approve staff's recommendation as amended to
approve the proposed trellis that staff recommended denial, seconded by
Commissioner Lewis.
Commissioner Lewis explained that the Commission must find there is an exceptional or
unusual circumstance in order to approve a Variance. He felt that he could make that
finding in regards to the trellis, as this is an overhang rather than a structure over the
extreme slope.
The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2013-12, thereby approving project as
recommended by staff with the amendment to approve the proposed trellis was
approved, (6-0).
Commissioner Tetreault explained that the Code does not allow structures over extreme
slopes for a very good reason, however in this particular situation this is an overhang
with no posts, and he therefore did not feel this constituted a structure built over an
extreme slope.
5. General Plan Update — Proposed name change to the General Plan Land
Use designation of "Hazard",
Director Rojas explained that staff would like to re-notice this item because there are
some property owners who currently have Open Space Hazard on their property and
there is no plan to change that designation because they may be along a bluff or in the
landslide area. Staff wanted to make sure these residents understand there is no
proposed change to their property.
The Commission agreed to take no action so that staff can re-notice the item for a future
public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28,2013
Page 4
NEW BUSINESS
6. Western Avenue Vision Plan
Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief introduction to the
project and how the Western Avenue Vision Plan came about. With that, he introduced
Gaurav Srivastava, the consultant for the project, to explain the draft plan that is before
the Commission.
Mr. Srivastava explained that the document being presented is only about 75 percent
complete, as he wanted to get the Commission's input before completing the document.
He gave a brief background of the project and showed the area that includes the
Western Avenue corridor. He explained the project goals and the four categories he
placed those goals in. He explained the process being used, including public meetings,
vision committee meetings, and an open house and workshop. He discussed the vision
committee and the members that make up that committee. He explained Western
Avenue is dated and needs improvement, and reviewed the guiding principles and
aspirations that were discussed with the vision committee and the residents. He also
noted that it is critical that Rancho Palos Verdes and San Pedro work together to come
up with an image for Western Avenue. He discussed the three segments of Western
Avenue and their current uses, noting the poor transit access to the area. He showed
photos of comparable boulevards in the region, noting the comparable boulevards had
strong street walls, active ground floor uses, a network of special places to visit, a
primary pedestrian use, and an enhanced quality of the public realm. He stated none of
these five attributes currently makes any appearances on Western Avenue. He then
discussed the recommendations, with two themes that underpin all of the
recommendations: an emphasis on complete streets which equally serve all types of
users, and the second being the need to update patterns of development along the
corridor on a case by case basis. He showed several examples of how the Western
Avenue corridor could be improved, noting the challenges that will be faced because of
City boundaries with the City of Los Angeles. He explained there are a few short term
next steps that must take place, and described those steps.
Commissioner Tomblin asked if a demographic study was done along Western Avenue,
and where do the demographics come into play with these recommendations.
Mr. Srivastava answered that a mini market study was performed that looked at
demographics, real estate, and the kinds of users. In the document there is an analysis
of income levels and populations within one-half mile buffer, a one-mile buffer, and a
three-mile buffer. He noted those residential densities within those buffer distances
often exceed those along Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena. He stated this is a fairly
dense urban environment compared to other successful retail corridors.
Commissioner Tomblin commented on the discussion regarding the light rail and
questioned if the discussion justifies the spending of monies, as light rail needs very
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28,2013
Page 5
high residential density which does not exist along Western Avenue. He questioned if
this is something the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would like to have in terms of their
Master Plan and why this money would be spent if it is not really within the
demographics of this City.
Director Rojas did not think this was being pursued, but rather as the plan was being put
together all ideas were considered, and there is a wide range of ideas.
Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Srivastava what the recommendation was in regards
to the wide variety of types of walls along Western Avenue,
Mr. Srivastava showed a diagram on how the look of the walls would be softened with
different treatments and vegetation.
Commissioner Tomblin asked if there was any proposal or recommendation to finance
these improvements in the future through business districts or assessment districts.
Mr. Srivastava answered that there is a discussion in the document on business
improvement districts, using the model of South Lake in Pasadena. He noted that the
challenge along this corridor is the boundary between Rancho Palos Verdes and Los
Angeles.
Commissioner Lewis noted the discussion on how The Terraces is a key piece of
property on Western Avenue for any type of successful transition along this area. He
was hoping to see more about The Terraces in the document, such as a few pages
dedicated to alternative vision so the current or future owners of that property knew
what the City would be expecting. In general, he commented that he thought this was a
very interesting and well written document, without giving any specific recommendations
but rather a range of recommendations.
Commissioner Tetreault asked if traffic impacts from the proposed Ponte Vista project
have been analyzed or discussed, as he felt the project would have a very major impact
to traffic in the corridor once it is developed.
Mr. Srivastava stated that this project came up often in discussions. He felt the reality
of that project is that it is on its own timeline and there is very little in terms of
recommendations that this plan can do to influence the Ponte Vista project. He added
that he has not engaged directly with, the developers and it was unlikely that he would.
Commissioner Tetreault stated that one expects there would be more dialogue as these
two projects become closer to fruition and adjustments to the Vision Plan as a result.
Mr. Srivastava explained that the process has not allowed for a full on engagement with
Ponte Vista, and he doubted Ponte Vista would be amenable to such a discussion. He
noted that the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council has been the recipient of his
ideas He stated that as an urban planner and designer there are things being
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28,2013
Page 6
proposed by Ponte Vista that he would not at all recommend. He felt that given the fact
he is recommending design guidelines that will have the full partnership with the City of
Los Angeles, he may be more empowered to make recommendations and directly
engage Ponte Vista. He explained that he has stepped back from being proactive with
properties in Los Angeles, as Los Angeles is not the recipient of the grant funding. He
stated the recommendations proposed all pertain to the jurisdiction of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
Commissioner Nelson noted this document is 75 percent complete, and asked what is
in the missing 25 percent.
Mr. Srivastava answered that what is missing are additional renderings and spot studies
for key opportunity areas, one being The Terraces.
Commissioner Nelson asked what the total cost of this project will be.
Mr. Srivastava answered that he did not delve into the cost of the project, as this is a
vision plan and was setting the framework for the improvements the City would like to
see. He stated that there is no analysis or understanding as to if and when the funding
will be available.
Commissioner Nelson asked how long Mr. Srivastava felt it would take to see this to
fruition.
Mr. Srivastava answered that when corridors and boulevards reinvent themselves and
try to come up with a new vision, the process to achieve that vision is always
incremental and takes a generation.
Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Srivastava what the current business owners along
Western Avenue think of this plan.
Mr. Srivastava responded that what has been related to him from the business
community is that improvements to the pedestrian experience and foot traffic as well as
improved access for the customer and employees are important. The business
community also had a lot of ideas on how to generate a vision for the corridor.
Commissioner Nelson asked if there were any comments from the business community
in regards to moving their buildings up to the strong wall.
Mr. Srivastava answered that there was discussion and there was some resistance from
one of the developers.
Commissioner Nelson asked staff what has been budgeted for the consultant to do
design guidelines for this project.
Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the City was requesting $175,000.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28,2013
Page 7
Vice Chairman Leon noted that Western Avenue is one of the primary ingress and
egress arterials for both San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes, and it appears that the
vision plan in this corridor is restricting the traffic flow. While that may be good for the
local businesses, he did not think it was good for the residents of this City. He would
like to see the traffic hurried through this area as opposed to creating lots of
experiences for them to possibly impact traffic. He suggested there be an emphasis on
things such as elevated pedestrian crossings, turn-outs for buses, and other things that
may accelerate the traffic pace rather than decelerate it. He also felt that bicycles are
much more compatible with pedestrians than they are with cars and his inclination
would be to put a bike path that is much closer to sidewalk and separated from the road
rather than putting it next to the traffic. He felt these were two suggestions that would
help improve the plan.
Chairman Emenhiser stated his concern is that Rancho Palos Verdes is once again
taking the lead on a project that should be a joint initiative between Rancho Palos
Verdes and the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Cal Trans, and residents
on both sides of Western Avenue. He felt that if it can become a project with a broad
appeal and involvement, it has a better chance of coming to fruition. He asked Mr.
Srivastava if a traffic count or traffic study was done in this corridor area.
Mr. Srivastava stated a traffic study was not done specifically for this plan, instead they
relied on the available data.
Chairman Emenhiser agreed with the Vice Chairman's comments about mixing bicycle
riders and auto traffic, and felt there was a reason bicyclists aren't presently on Western
Avenue. He agreed that bicyclists should be separated from the traffic in some fashion.
He encouraged staff to think about the politics and financing of all of this and asked staff
where this goes from here.
Director Rojas appreciated the Commission's comments, noting that the reaction is
similar to that of staff and the public when seeing such a grand vision plan. He
explained that staff has approached this very simply in that Western Avenue was
designed over fifty years ago and staff has reached out to see what can be done to
improve it. The experts have provided staff with success stories for similar situations
and shown staff what possibilities exist to improve Western Avenue. With that, staff
sees the recipe for successful future grants for implementing components of the plan, is
that there is a plan in place, the plan has approval by the City Council, and there is a
partnership with the City of Los Angeles. He explained there are many grants available
for such projects and staff is also going to press Cal Trans for improvements. He stated
that staff would like to start with getting the public improvements put into place, and
once public improvements start happening that may inspire the private property owners,
many of whom have not updated their properties in decades, to improve their
properties.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28,2013
Page 8
Chairman Emenhiser understood, however he reiterated his biggest concern was that
the City pays attention and does its part and the City of Los Angeles continues to treat
Western Avenue as a back alley.
Director Rojas agreed that may have occurred in the past, however he noted that for the
first time he sees the City of Los Angeles fully engaged in these efforts, which he
attributes to Councilman Busciano's early working relationship with then Mayor
Misetich. He stated he feels very good about the partnership with the City of Los
Angeles, however the challenge is always with Cal Trans.
Commissioner Tomblin preferred the Encino Boulevard, Sunset Boulevard, and Santa
Monica Boulevard through West Hollywood comparisons, He was also intrigued by
what could be done with The Terraces.
Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Srivastava what his definition of "successful" in
terms of reformation of Western Avenue.
Mr. Srivastava explained that he comes at it from an implementation angle, noting plans
are more likely to succeed if the recommendation of the plan gets implemented while
the planning process is ongoing, or soon after.
Commissioner Tetreault noted an essential theme to this plan is the reversal of the
relationship between the retail and the parking, and just taking that one change, he
asked how this impacts either the volume of the people coming into the area, how far
people will come to get to that area, the amount of traffic that comes through, and the
amount of time it takes to get through a segment. He asked if any studies have been
done on any of those topics and how moving the relationship between the parking and
buildings will affect the entire design.
Mr. Srivastava answered that it boils down to how much of a destination the stake
holders want to make this segment of Western Avenue. He used two examples,
Colorado Boulevard and the Third Street Promenade, explaining they had a vision in
mind and they put in the infra-structure to support that vision. He stated that he was not
in any way suggesting that is the level of intensity the stake holders along Western
Avenue would like to see the corridor evolve into. His opinion was that a reduced
density, not as intense of retail destination orientated redevelopment effort is the
preference of the community,
Commissioner Nelson stated that in his mind a plan is not a plan unless it is costed, and
until then it's just a dream. He felt this is an excellent dream, but it must be costed. He
asked that all residents be involved in this plan, and even include the Planning
Commission Chairman in these discussions.
With that, Chairman Emenhiser noted that the Commission had given staff feedback on
this Vision Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28,2013
Page 9
CONSENT CALENDAR
'1. General Plan consistency finding,for the Capital Improvement Program
Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if the Planning Commission is simply ruling on the
consistency of the CIP with the General Plan, and not discussing the finances or
personal preferences.
Director Rojas stated that was correct, noting Ryan Mills from the Finance Department
is present. He stated Mr. Mills worked on puffing together the Capital Improvement
Plan, which will be presented to the City Council for a decision. However, there is a
State Code that says before the City Council approves a CIP, the Planning Body must
make a finding that the CIP is consistent with the General Plan, which is something the
Commission has done in the past several years. He stated that staff believes the CIP is
consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Tomblin explained that the reason he asked this item be open up for
discussion was because of several projects listed, which he identified. He asked why
these projects are on the list, noting these are projects he felt could have changes to the
land use that might affect the General Plan. He questioned if staff was asking the
Commission to agree that these proposed projects are consistent with the General Plan
without ever seeing a plan for each project.
Mr. Mills explained this is a five-year snapshot of what the city is proposing. He
explained that the City Council only approves one year at a time so as to remain flexible
throughout the years that are coming up. He stated that the purpose of this item is to
find these projects are consistent with the General Plan in concept.
Director Rojas added that the purpose of the Government Code requirement is for the
Planning Commission to note whether any future conceptual projects may be, in the
opinion of the Commission, inconsistent with the General Plan. He stated that staff has
looked at all of these projects and felt they are all improvements that are consistent with
the General Plan in terms of implementing the goals of the General Plan and are not in
conflict with these goals.
Vice Chairman Leon stated that the project that caught his eye was the Abalone Cove
project. He stated there are been several suggestions from staff in applying for grants
to do things at Abalone Cove that have been received negatively by the community
members. When looking through the CIP it said the proposal was to pave the parking
lot, stripe it, and put in wheel stops. He did not think that was in character with the way
the community views that area, which is more of passive open field with parking.
Therefore, he would have to say that particular project is not consistent with the General
Plan's designation of that site as passive open space.
Commissioner Nelson stated his comment has to do with sanitation sewers and the role
of the City. He read a sentence from the CIP which states the County maintains the
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28,2013
Page 10
sewer system while the City retains responsibility for its operation. He then read a letter
from the LA County Sanitation District to the City's Public Works Department in which
they discuss how the Sanitation District manages, operates, and maintains the City's
sewer system. He noted the word "operate" appears both in the Sanitation District's
letter and the 2013 CIP. He questioned how many people in the City are involved, as it
says in the 2013 CIP, in the operation of the sanitary sewer system.
Mr. Mills noted that unfortunately there are no members of the Public Works
Department present and his role in this is putting together the project sheet with the
financial components. Therefore, he didn't know the answer to the specific question.
Commissioner Lewis asked if the Commission should only be looking at consistency
with the General Plan and not looking deeper into the actual details of the project.
Director Rojas explained that staff isn't saying that the Planning Commission should
automatically accept every public improvement as being consistent with the General
Plan, as the Commission has a right to question how a project is consistent with the
General Plan. If a Commissioner looks at a specific project description and does not
see how the project is consistent with the General Plan, and there is a consensus of
Commissioners who share this opinion, the Commission can notify the City Council that
a particular project may not be consistent with the General Plan. He noted the City
Council will make the final decision on whether or not a project is consistent with the
General Plan.
Vice Chairman Leon moved to approve staff's recommendation, with the
exception of the parking lot improvement project at Abalone Cove not being
consistent with the General Plan, seconded by Commissioner Nelson.
Commissioner Tomblin explained he was uncomfortable with this as he felt he did not
have enough time to look at the specifics of the various proposed projects.
Chairman Emenhiser asked staff what would happen if this item were to be continued.
Director Rojas stated the next Commission meeting is, June 11th and the CIP is
scheduled to go to the City Council on June 18th.
Commissioner Lewis noted one consequence of continuing this item may be that at the
next meeting there could be a room full of people who want to talk about their vision for
Abalone Cove. He did not think that would be the proper time or place to do that. His
expectation was that if this CIP is approved and are ultimately funded, there will be
public hearings at that time. He felt it would be misleading to the public to suggest this
is the time or place to discuss the matter of each project, when the actual discussions
will be further down the line.
Vice Chairman Leon stated there was an application for money to implement a plan at
Abalone Cove that wasn't supported by the residents. Had the City actually won that
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28,2013
Page 11
grant there most likely would have been a strong push by the City to do significant
development at Abalone Cove. That is why he is being somewhat proactive in shutting
this type of development down.
Director Rojas clarified there were two different grants for Abalone Cove, one to
construct buildings at Abalone Cove and one that contained more passive
improvements. The building grant received significant public opposition and was not
pursued, but the City did get awarded the grant for the passive improvement. At this
time there is a working group in place made up of different people to work out the plan
to implement that grant, and there is general support for the project,
Commissioner Tetreault understood the concern regarding Abalone Cove, however the
Planning Commission's role is to determine if the proposal is inconsistent with the
General Plan. He felt that from what the General Plan says about Abalone Cove, that
the proposal appears to violate the General Plan. He stated this is a policy decision the
City Council has already made and he did not see that it is contrary to the General Plan.
Therefore, he was not in favor of the motion currently before the Commission.
The motion to approve staff's recommendation with the exception of the parking
lot improvement at Abalone Cove failed, (2-3-1) with Commissioners Lewis,
Tetreault, and Chairman Emenhiser dissenting and Commissioner Tomblin
abstaining.
Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if part of these proposed improvements at Abalone
Cove were to make the parking lot ADA compliant.
Mr. Mills stated it was his belief that the ADA requirements were a component of this
project, however he could not speak for the entirety of the project.
Director Rojas noted there is a component in the project description that includes
asphalt / concrete ADA parking spaces. He did not know if that was because it was
desired or if it was to meet ADA requirements.
Commissioner Nelson asked staff if there was a distinct section describing a series of
projects under ADA,
Mr. Mills noted the first item listed in the CIP, which are ADA improvements.
Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staffs recommendation in its entirety with
the addition that the staff report that goes to City Council indicates that at least
two of the Planning Commissioners expressed serious reservations in regards to
General Plan consistency of the Abalone Cove parking lot improvements,
seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion was approved, (4-0-2) with
Commissioners Tetreault and Tomblin abstaining.
Manning Commission Minutes
May 28,2013
Page 12
Commissioner Tetreault explained that he abstained from the vote because of the
language in the motion regarding the Abalone Cove parking lot improvements.
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS
The pre-agenda was reviewed and unanimously approved.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28,2013
Page 13