PC MINS 20130827 Approved
September 2
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7V
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 27, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Emenhiser at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred
Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
FLAG SALUTE
Vice Chairman Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ATTENDANCE
Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Lewis, Nelson, Tetreault, Tomblin, and Vice
Chairman Leon, Chairman Emenhiser
Absent: None
Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, and
Associate Planner Kim.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Commission unanimously agreed to hear agenda item No. 3 after agenda item No.
1.
COMMUNICATIONS
Director Rojas reported that at their August 6, 2013 meeting, the City Council reviewed
the Commission's recommendations on the code amendments to the Fence, Wall and
Hedge Permit process and remanded the item back to the Commission to review
language proposed by staff to help streamline the permit process. The Council also
reviewed the Commission's recommendation on the arterial wall code amendment and
asked staff to research alternative replacement wall materials. The item will go back to
the City Council some time after the first of the year.
Director Rojas distributed two letters related to agenda item No. 1 and three letters
related to agenda item No. 3.
Vice Chairman Leon reported on his participation in the Transpac boat race from San
Pedro to Honolulu. The Commission congratulated him on winning his class.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items):
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1, General Plan Consistency Finding
Commissioner Nelson requested the item be removed from the Consent Calendar in
order to discuss the item and ask questions.
Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, explaining that before the City can
purchase any parcels within the City the Planning Commission must make a finding that
purchasing the vacant parcels is consistent with the General Plan. With that, the City
Council authorized the staff to purchase two vacant parcels near Cherry Hill Lane in the
active landslide area. He stated that the staff report explains why staff believes the
purchase of these two properties would be consistent with the General Plan, and staff is
recommending the Planning Commission make the necessary finding.
Commissioner Nelson referred to Sunshine's letter and her comment that her home has
moved in such a way that her kitchen is partially on the lot the City is considering
purchasing. He asked staff to comment.
Director Rojas noted a past court decision that concluded that property lines do not
move, however the land does. With that, he agreed that there are situations in the
active landslide area where people's homes are moving on to other properties. He
stated it is conceivable that if Sunshine's home is located upslope from the parcels the
City wishes to purchase, that at some point some portion of the structures on her
property will move onto the City owned lot.
Commissioner Nelson asked if there will be any consequence from the City to Sunshine
when that happens.
Director Rojas was not aware of any consequence, noting the only consequence the
City has addressed is when a home moves on to the City's right-of-way.
Commissioner Nelson noted the City will be paying $51,389 for one lot and $4,973 for
the other lot. He explained that it may sound like a lot of money, but when purchasing a
tax defaulted property the buyer must pay the defaulted taxes plus $300.
Commissioner Nelson moved to approve staff's recommendations, seconded by
Commissioner Gerstner.
Commissioner Gerstner asked if Sunshine or anyone else seeking to buy the property.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27,2013
Page 2
Director Rojas explained that the public agency is given the opportunity to buy the
property and first right of refusal. He did not know if Sunshine or anyone else was
interested in purchasing the property.
In regards to the General Plan, Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if this property is
being purchased as part of the Open Space Hazard Zone, and if there is a chance the
City could change that zoning.
Associate Planner Kim stated the property would remain Open Space Hazard,
Director Rojas added the City does not typically change that designation, as it is not a
site the City would use as parkland or for development.
Vice Chairman Leon briefly discussed the issue of the landslide and lot lines and,
because these issues may come up again in the future, requested staff get some
background information for the Commission from the City Attorney regarding the court
decision with respect to the active landslide and property lines. He also stated that he
understood the Commission is tasked with deciding if the purchase is consistent with
the General Plan, however he was surprised that the City Council is buying these lots
as he did not think there was much utility from buying them. He felt that if the City did
not buy these lots, anyone could buy them at market price, which is probably a fraction
of what the City will be paying. If the property were allowed to go to auction, the City
would then be able to purchase the property at a fraction of what it is now paying.
Therefore, while he could find General Plan consistency, he felt it was an unwise
purchase.
Commissioner Tetreault noted that purchase of these properties helps to avoid potential
future litigation, as this area has been fraught with litigation for many years, If the City
buys up these vacant properties it becomes property that will not be in litigation in the
future, and could potentially save the City money in the future.
Director Rojas agreed, adding that buying these properties also helps the City not have
to deal with expensive easements on private properties and legal fees associated with
those.
The motion to approve staff's recommendation, thereby adopting PC Resolutions
2013-18 and 2013-19 was approved, (7-0).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Review of the preliminary draft General Plan Housing Element
Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, providing a brief background of the
Housing Element and noting the Housing Element typically must be updated every five
years. He reviewed the items that State Housing Law requires be in the Housing
Element and explained the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and how it
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27,2013
Page 3
applies to the City. He noted that staff cannot identify eight of the required thirteen
lower income housing requirements; subsequently, staff must develop a program to
identify potential sites where those eight units can be developed. He also noted that
within the Housing Element there are fourteen programs that deal with addressing the
housing needs of the City, and one deals with the adequate sites issue. He focused on
program No. 1, the Western Avenue Vision Plan adequate sites program, explaining
staff has taken steps to move forward with phase 2 of the plan by applying for a grant
from SCAG. He also explained that staff is proposing to use phase 2 of the Western
Avenue Vision Plan to look at the Western Avenue corridor for the potential of mixed
use to possibly identify locations for the remaining needed eight units. He explained all
of the program details would be determined through the upcoming Western Avenue
Specific Plan process and Zoning Code process, which would be through public
hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that staff is
supportive of the Housing Element as prepared, and recommends the Planning
Commission provide comments to staff that staff can present to the City Council at their
September 17th meeting,
Commissioner Tetreault asked if State law is only requiring the City to meet the density
requirement, rather than providing for the actual units.
Deputy Director Pfost stated that was correct.
Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if the City would be out of compliance with State law
if, in the process of public hearings, this Western Avenue plan is not approved by the
City Council.
Deputy Director Pfost answered the City would be out of compliance, and per State Law
the City would have to come up with another program that will meet that adequate sites
need of eight units. That's why, in staff's opinion, the Western Avenue corridor provided
the best opportunity to meet the need from a mixed use standpoint. He noted that the
City has a good opportunity to use the consultants through the grant process as part of
the second phase of the Vision Plan process to help staff do this analysis and create
development standards,
Commissioner Nelson asked staff what sites, other than Western Avenue, were looked
at.
Deputy Director Pfost stated there are not many other sites available in the City where
this can be done. He didn't think this would be wanted in a single family residential
district, as the zoning would have to be changed from single family to multi-use. He
also explained that the other commercial areas within the City have a different zoning
than that on Western Avenue, which is zoned CG. In addition, Western Avenue already
has some residential uses along the street.
Commissioner Nelson could not believe there was not another site, noting that the
implementation of the Western Avenue Vision Plan is probably twenty years in the
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27,2013
Page 4
future. He felt that to sit here and say the City is going to meet an affordable housing
requirement on a plan that hasn't even been costed is a bit in advance of reality.
Commissioner Lewis asked if the City Council has approved moving ahead with the
next step on the Western Avenue Vision Plan.
Deputy Director Pfost answered that the City Council has given the approval to apply for
the grant.
Commissioner Lewis asked if staff is proposing that some of that grant be used in
developing standards on Western Avenue to help the City meet the housing needs.
Deputy Director Pfost answered that was correct, explaining that part of that grant is
looking at both private and public property and making improvements. In regards to
private properties, it includes looking at development standards. The Phase Two of the
Vision Plan is going to look at the details of site analysis and things the City can do.
This is an easy component to add to that, which would be looking at potential
development standards for mixed use.
Commissioner Lewis asked if the Western Avenue Vision Plan calls for the City to go
out and demolish existing buildings.
Deputy Director Pfost explained the Vision Plan outlines a potential for future
development based upon the market and it's up to, private property owners to actually
develop their site. The Vision Plan provides a program that allows this as a viable
option for private developers. He noted the Vision Plan will look at public
improvements, such as streets and landscaping.
Vice Chairman Leon felt the use of the Western Avenue corridor for this is most likely a
good choice. With that said, he noted that in the past year the City has had many more
than thirty one new units built in the City, and to get thirty one units in the next eight
years may be somewhat laughable. Therefore he did not think the bar was set too high.
He noted the Housing Element, while part of the General Plan, has been written as
somewhat of a stand-alone document, with portions of it that are redundant to other
portions of the General Plan. He questioned if Sections one and two of the document
presented to the Commission are needed. He did not think it was necessary to rehash
the social and geologic history of the peninsula or to recopy State Law in Sections one
and two.
Deputy Director Pfost agreed the Housing Element is a stand-alone document. He
explained that the main reason to include Sections one and two, and staff's goal with
this Housing Element, is to satisfy the State requirements and get certification by HCD.
He agreed that portions of the introduction section are repetitive and can be removed,
however he would like to keep the second section as it gives a summary that gives HCD
staff good background information.
PlannKng Commission Minutes
August 27,2013
Page 5
Vice Chairman Leon suggested including an addendum section that basically cross
references and lets the State know where in the document the required elements are
located.
Deputy Director Pfost explained that HCD includes a completion checklist that will be
attached to the document where staff will identify how the document meets all of the
State requirements,
Commissioner Gerstner felt that the language in the introduction of the Housing
Element should be the same language as in the introduction of the General Plan.
Commissioner Tomblin asked how the Western Avenue plan is different from what was
proposed several years ago by the owner at Golden Cove for housing units at the
shopping center.
Deputy Director Pfost explained that the Golden Cove proposal was a bit different in
that the owner wanted to use existing commercial space for tenants who worked at the
Center to reside. The Western Avenue plan goes a bit further and actually creates
multi-family units.
Vice Chairman Leon felt that, in the Housing Element that is sent to the State, the City
could conceivably send several elements which would include the introduction to the
General Plan, the Housing Element, and the compliance sheet and have the State
certify an amalgam document rather than have the Housing Element repeat sections of
the General Plan. He felt the General Plan should hold together as a cohesive
document rather than look like several separate documents combined into one
document.
Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing.
Jim Herrera explained the location of his parcel on Western Avenue and his concern
that the Planning period is through 2021 and beyond 2021 there may be additional
housing units required. He felt that whatever is done in regards to zoning should take
that into consideration. He felt a mixed use scenario may be good, as he did not feel it
would be good for the City to loose commercial property zoning.
Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve staff's recommendation to accept the
draft Housing Element with the recommendations the Commission has given to
staff to make modifications accordingly, and forward to the City Council,
seconded by Commissioner Tomblin,
Deputy Director Pfost stated that the revisions he noted were: 1) To revise the awkward
graphics; 2) Ensure the Introduction section generally matches the General Plan
Introduction in its text, and 3) Ensure the grid lines on page 1-4 are accurate.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27,2013
Page 6
Vice Chairman Leon felt that all references to State Law should be taken out as part of
the text. He stated that it spells out what the requirements are as part of our plan, and
he felt that those are inappropriate in our documents.
Deputy Director Pfost stated the State is very particular about Housing Elements,
reviewing them and comparing them with Housing Element law. He felt that as much
structure as the City can provide the State in the Element to make it easy for them to
review seems to work out the best. He explained the format of this element is very
similar to the structure of the last two elements that were certified. He recommended
the Commission stay with this format, which includes the language, as it provides the
reviewers with some feedback to actually review the document.
Chairman Emenhiser suggested making note of the Vice Chairman's comments and
recommendations and leaving the format to staff's discretion.
Vice Chairman Leon questioned why the City has to put in an awkward Housing
Element just so there is a document that can be given to the State to approve.
Deputy Director Pfost understood the Vice Chairman's concerns, however he noted the
Housing Element over the last ten years has been this same format and one of the
benefits of having an Element that has been twice approved by HCD makes this third
time a bit easier. He stated he is looking to have HCD approve the Housing Element
and not have to go back and forth with comments and questions.
Commissioner Tetreault felt those reviewing this document would be comparing this
document with previous documents submitted by the City and looking for changes. To
that extent, submitting a document in the same format as previous submittals will help
speed the process along. In addition, if there are specific Government Code sections
that are driving the discussion, he felt it would be easier to read if the text of the statute,
as it pertains to the following text, is in the main document rather than referenced and
attached as an appendix.
The motion to approve staffs recommendation as amended was approved, (6-1)
with Vice Chairman Leon dissenting.
CONTINUED BUSINESS
Director Rojas left the meeting at this time.
2. General Plan update — revisions to draft text
Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining he would begin with a
review of the text the Commission had previously recommended modifications to. He
would then review the sections of the Element the Commission has not yet seen, which
are the Visual Resources Element, Safety Element, Housing and Social Services
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27,2013
Page 7
Element, Noise Element, Fiscal Element, and the Glossary. He briefly discussed the
previously reviewed Elements, pointing out the revisions staff has made since the
Commission last reviewed the document.
The Commission had no comments in regards to staff's modifications to the previously
reviewed elements.
Deputy Director Pfost then discussed the next series of elements, beginning with the
Visual resources Element. He noted the Commission has already reviewed and
approved these elements, and what is before the Commission is staff's proposed
modifications to the elements.
Vice Chairman Leon stated that the land use section of the General Plan has grown
from 14 pages to 120 pages, and that is not atypical of many sections of the General
Plan. He felt there was too much flowery text in the overall document, which may cause
the document to be very difficult to work with in the future. He asked staff if there was
going to be a very detailed index or glossary attached to the document.
Deputy Director Pfost answered it was staff's plan to prepare an index to the document
to help provide more guidance. He agreed the new land use element is now longer,
however pointed out that text from another element in the original General Plan was
added to the Land Use Element where it actually belonged.
Chairman Emenhiser agreed that a detailed index would be very helpful.
In regards to the Fiscal Element, Commissioner Tetreault asked staff how important it
was to have specific updated information, noting that the information will be out of date
almost immediately, and will last for years to come. He wondered how important it was
to take staff time to update this information so it is current on the day the document is
adopted.
Deputy Director Pfost agreed it was not too important, but would talk to the Deputy
Finance Director. He noted it is a snapshot in time, giving the reader an understanding
of what was happening in the City at that particular time, and is something that will be
updated approximately every five years.
Deputy Director Pfost briefly discussed the remaining elements and any proposed'
updates or changes.
Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by
Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (6-0).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of July 23, 2013
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27,2013
Page a
Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by
Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (3-0-2) with Commissioners Tetreault and
Lewis abstaining since they were absent from that meeting.
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS
5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on September 10, 2013
The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27,2013
Page 9