Loading...
PC MINS 20130709 APPROVED 7123113 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 9, 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 Community Development Director Pfost, and Senior Planner Alvarez. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their upcoming July 30th meeting the City Council will be presented with the proposed Western Avenue Vision Plan, along with the Commission's feedback on the item. In addition, the Commission's recommendations on the proposed Code Amendment related to the existing Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit process will be presented at that meeting. Director Rojas distributed three items of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 3 and one item of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 4. Vice Chairman Leon reported on his attendance at the Mayor's Breakfast, which included discussions on the policing within the community, the light Planning Department workload and work at San Ramon Canyon. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agends items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Heli ht Variation, Gradin and Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2007- 00593): 5 Cayuse Lane Chairman Emenhiser stated that he was not present at the last meeting when this item was discussed, however he reviewed the minutes from the meeting and felt he was able to participate in this discussion, Director Rojas presented the staff report, noting at the last meeting the Commission requested the item be continued to allow the owner of the property the opportunity to explain the hardship associated with the request to waive the requirement that the utilities to a new residence under construction be placed underground. He also clarified that the finding to allow the waiver has two parts, either of which can be met to grant the waiver. The first part of the finding requires a hardship, while the second part requires that there is no planned undergrounding in the area and other lines in the area are above ground. He stated staff has checked with Edison and there is no planned undergrounding in this area. In addition, the applicant's neighbors have lines that are above ground, Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there was any planned undergrounding elsewhere in the City for utilities. He stated that the second part of the finding assumes Edison has planned undergrounding for other parts of the City. Director Rojas explained that in checking with Edison they confirmed there is no future utility underground project in this area, but staff did not obtain any information on plans for other areas in the City. Vice Chairman Leon asked if developers usually underground the utilities for new homes, or is this the exception to the rule. Director Rojas explained that typically applicants or developers of new homes will underground the utilities and the exception is to request a waiver. Vice Chairman Leon asked if many exceptions to this requirement have been requested. Director Rojas estimated possibly two or three exceptions have been requested over the past five or more years, Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Planning commission Minutes July 9,2013 Page 2 Laura Goddard stated she was available to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Commissioner Gerstner asked Ms. Goddard why she felt she couldn't underground the utilities. He noted that in her waiver request she noted she can't go through her neighbor's property, but he did not feel she needed to go through the neighbor's property and wondered why she couldn't go on her own property. In addition, it was noted that the retaining wall was built and now it is difficult to put the utilities under the retaining wall. He noted that Ms. Goddard built the retaining wall and had the opportunity to put the undergrounding in before the wall was built. Ms. Goddard explained that according to her electrician her underground utilities will have to go through either 1 or 7 Cayuse Lane, and that Edison felt going through 7 Cayuse was the most reasonable solution. In regards to the retaining wall, she stated it was her mistake, explained it was very difficult to build the wall because of the bedrock and the grading involved, and at the time she was not aware that she would have to underground the utilities under the area where the retaining wall is built, Commissioner Gerstner referred to an aerial photo in the staff report and the location of the power pole at the corner of the property. He stated that if the power pole is in the corner of the property then the undergrounding should be entirely on her property. Ms. Goddard stated that to come straight from the power pole to her property, half of the undergrounding would have to be on 7 Cayuse Lane. Commissioner Gerstner felt that there were other ways to get to her house from the power pole without going through 7 Cayuse Lane, Ms. Goddard stated that according to her electrician the utilities had to go straight from the pole to her property and could not zig- zag through her property. She also noted that to go around the retaining wall may then cause problems with the seepage pits that are along the rear of the property. Commissioner Gerstner understood that undergrounding the utilities may be difficult, but it may not be as difficult as some people are making it sound. He felt that if the intention of the Code is to underground the utilities as new homes are being built, then the utilities should be placed underground. Ms. Goddard stated that she would prefer to have her utilities underground, however she did not realize how infeasible it would be until she met with the Edison inspector at the site, Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing, Pfanning Commission Knutes July 9,2013 Page 3 Commissioner Tetreault asked staff, given the testimony of Ms. Goddard and the research staff has conducted, if staff still felt the exemption should be given and why. Director Rojas stated that staff felt the exemption should be given. He explained that there is discretion involved in this decision and much of that discretion has to do with the degree of difficulty in undergrounding the utilities. He stated that most undergrounding projects are more straightforward where one would simply trench to the nearest pole. On this property there is more difficulty in that there is a steep slope, a large retaining wall that was possibly built prematurely by the applicant, and a neighbor who will not allow access onto their property. Therefore, staff felt that these circumstances, combined with Edison's statement that there is no planned undergrounding in this area and that the neighbor's do not have their utilities underground warranted approval of the exemption. He acknowledged that while the undergrounding could be done, staff felt the degree of difficulty to do so was higher than with typical situations, Commissioner Nelson moved to accept staff's recommendation to grant the waiver to the requirement that the utilities to this new home be placed underground, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. The motion was approved, (5- 2) with Commissioners Tomblin and Gerstner dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Zone Text Amendment— Notice procedures for Cit Tree Review Permits (Case No. ZON2013-002391 Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, explaining this is a City Council initiated code amendment proposing to amend the City Tree Review permit procedure to increase the public notification of permit approvals. He gave a brief background of what led up to this proposed amendment and noted the specific language proposed by the City Council for the Planning Commission to consider. He stated that staff carefully reviewed the two proposed changes and concluded that a change to a radius notification method is not recommended, but an amendment that would allow for posting approval notices on trees can be supported. He explained staff's concerns regarding changing the notification process to a radius method, which included notifying a less than desirable number of properties being captured within the radius; capturing properties on streets other than the street where the tree is located; and the notification would be subject to accuracy of staff to locate a tree trunk using aerial images. He explained staff was recommending using the current method of notification which is notifying the ten closest neighbors, and increasing that notification to the twenty closest neighbors and that those properties be in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. He stated staff was recommending the Planning Commission review the City Council's proposed amendments, provide feedback on staff's suggestions, and continue the public hearing to July 23rd so that staff can bring back any amended language for the consider in a Resolution, Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2013 Page 4 Commissioner Tetreault asked if the notification of the twenty closest residences was sent to the property owner or to the resident. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that the code specifies the notification go to the property owners. Commissioner Tetreault asked if a renter of a property can adopt a city tree. Senior Planner Alvarez noted the existing code language specifies that property owners can adopt a city tree. Commissioner Lewis pointed out that Mayor Brooks asked for the Planning Commission to consider a very specific proposal, which was a notification radius. He asked if the Planning Commission were to vote to approve the very specific proposal that the Mayor has recommended, would staff then go before the City Council and state that staff was recommending not going with the radius but rather increasing the notification from the ten closest homes to the twenty closest homes. Director Rojas explained he has spoken to the Mayor and her intent was to increase the notification. She recognized that her proposal would be vetted through staff and the Planning Commission. Staff will report to the City Council of its reasons to support an increase in number not radius. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff what they envisioned for the notices that would be posted on actual trees. Senior Planner Alvarez stated the notices would be placed in weather-proof sleeving and stapled to the tree. He explained the notice would be of the Director's decision and would include appeal dates and comment periods. The notice will most likely be a bright color, either yellow or orange. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve staff's recommended language to expand the current notification to include the twenty closest properties, limiting adoption to only Rancho Palos Verdes residents, and posting the notice of decision on the tree with certain hazardous exceptions, and to continue the public hearing to July 23, 2013 to review the draft Resolution. Seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (7-0). 3. General Plan update — Proposed name change to the General Plan Land Use designation of"Hazard" and change in land use boundary for specific Properties. Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report. He stated that the Commission had directed staff to change the name of the "Hazard" designation to "Open Space Hillside" and to change the boundaries of the Hazard areas where there would only be a reduction proposed by the City Geologist, The item before the Commission is a request Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2013 Page 5 to change the name from Hazard to Open Space Hillside on all of the properties the Commission has not yet seen that do not have a boundary change, with the exception of properties in the landslide moratorium area and along coastal bluffs. The second item before the Commission is to change the boundary location on properties along Crestridge Road. He stated that staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve both requests, and if approved these recommendations will go to the City Council. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff, if this is a proposed amendment, and has the appropriate notice been sent to the general public, Deputy Director Pfost answered that this is considered an amendment to the General Plan and appropriate notice has been given to the public. Commissioner Nelson moved to accept staff's recommendations as outlined in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). 4. General Plan update — Proposed change inland use boundary design,tion at Upper Point Vicente site (City Hall site) Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining in 2011 the Planning Commission approved changing land use designations throughout the City to allow for the Open Space Preserve land use designation. He noted the Upper Point Vicente site was one of the sites where the designation was added to it. In addition, in 2012 the Commission directed staff to change the designation at Upper Point Vicente from Recreational Passive to Active. He stated the item before the Commission is a boundary change designation to be more consistent with the existing Zoning Code. Staff is recommending the General Plan designation be changed to mirror the same configurations as in the Zoning Code. He explained that staff believes that since there is not currently a civic center master plan that it would be in the best interest to maintain the Recreational Passive land use designation on the City's civic center property. If the City moves forward with a master plan for the site, the city can then determine where any recreational uses could be on the property, consistent with the program of utilization. Commissioner Tomblin noted there are already activities at the civic center site, such as the grading for parking and the dog park, which he did not feel were consistent with Recreational Passive uses, and asked staff to comment. Deputy Director Pfost did not think the grading for the parking lot nor the dog park are inconsistent with a Recreational Passive designation. He pointed out that the tennis courts and the volleyball court, which tend to be more active uses, are located in the recreational passive area. He noted the program of utilization does provide for an active recreational use somewhere on the site, Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2013 Page 6 Commissioner Tetreault asked if the tennis courts are in the Institutional area or the Recreational area of the property. Deputy Director Pfost answered the tennis courts are located in the Recreational Passive area of the property. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff to comment on the fact that the tennis court, which is an active use, is in the Recreational Passive area and is an inconsistent use in the area. Deputy Director Pfost agreed, but explained staff is trying to keep the area with the same General Plan Land Use designation until the city moves forward with a master plan for the entire site. In that manner, he stated the tennis court and volleyball court would be considered a non-conforming use. Vice Chairman Leon asked if there was a reason the map wouldn't be made accurate and designate the areas Institutional Public. Director Rojas understood the Commission's concern and explained how there are two parcels on the property that are owned outright by the City and do not fall under the program of utilization. However, the other surrounding parcels that are owned by the City are subject to the program of utilization and are technically governed by the National Park Service, Staff's recommendation is trying to respect the existing documents that exist in regards to the site. He was unaware if the tennis courts were built with permission from the National Park Service. Chairman Emenhiser asked if the dog park is considered an active or passive use. Director Rojas did not believe that a determination was made as to whether the dog park is a passive or active use. He noted that a portion of the dog park is located in the Institutional Public area and a portion is in the Recreational Passive area. Commissioner Tomblin moved to accept staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of June 11, 2013 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 6. Minutes of June 25, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2013 Page 7 Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0-1) with Chairman Emenhiser abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-A-genda for the meetinq on Jul T9,2013 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 9,2013 Page 8