Loading...
PC MINS 20140225 Approved 3/25/2014 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES tK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 2014 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 Lewis 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, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Kim, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their February 18th meeting the City Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a new house on Vista del Mar and remanded a revised project back to the Planning Commission for consideration. He also reported that at their March 4th meeting the City Council will consider whether or not to appeal the recent Planning Commission's decision regarding the project at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. Director Rojas asked the Commissioners to contact staff if they are interested in attending the League's upcoming Planning Commissioner Academy at the end of March. Director Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence for agenda item No. 1 and three items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 3. Lastly, Director Rojas thanked outgoing Commissioners Tetreault and Lewis for their many years of service on the Planning Commission. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2013-00111): 28041 Hawthorne Blvd Chairman Emenhiser recused himself from this item and left the dais. Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report explaining the scope of the project, including the antennas and the encasement. She stated staff was able to make the required findings in order to recommend approval. She noted minor changes to the Resolution, beginning with Condition No. 4. She stated the condition makes reference to "residential" development standards, which was changed to "commercial" development standards since this property is a commercial property. Secondly, in reference to Condition No. 12, she noted the modified language so that it no longer ties the AT&T project with Sprint PCS. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff to clarify the modified language in condition No. 12. Associate Planner Kim explained that the AT&T enclosure will match the Sprint PCS enclosure in terms of height, size, and color, however Sprint PCS objected to the language. Sprint was concerned that if some point in the future the Planning Commission made a change to the AT&T encasement that Sprint would have to also make the same change to their encasement. Associate Planner Kim added that condition No. 16 of the resolution is unique to Sprint, explaining that AT&T currently has temporary antennas outside of their encasement, as they are building a new encasement. Once the encasement is complete AT&T is required to put the antennas back into the encasement before the building permit is finaled. To ensure that is done, staff added condition No. 16 which requires the AT&T encasement to be finaled by Building and Safety before permits can be issued to Sprint for their work. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Kim Nguyen (Sprint PCS) stated Sprint was able to review the staff report and the public comments submitted to the City. She noted that this is a minor modification, in reducing the number of antennas from six to three, thus reducing the radio frequency emissions that some residents expressed concern over. In regards to Condition No. 16, she stated that Sprint respectfully requests the Commission reconsider this condition, as they feel it does hold up Sprint's ability to provide better service to their customers. She Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 2 stated that in the event that AT&T does not complete their project, it technically prohibits Sprint the ability of serving its customers effectively. Sprint feels the condition should be removed as AT&T has a separate approval and conditions they must abide by, and the two applications have no relation to each other in terms of scope of work. Commissioner Lewis noted that Sprint currently has antennas on the building, and the purpose of this application is to improve the service. He asked Ms. Nguyen how Sprint customers would be adversely affected if there was a delay in the implementation of this application. Ms. Nguyen answered that this application is to improve the technology, and a delay in the project will cause a delay in improving the technology for Sprint customers and therefore impacting their network. Vice Chairman Leon asked if the RF energy from this enclosure will be directed equally 360 degrees or if it will be directed away from the neighbor which is in the direct line of sight. Ms. Nguyen explained that there are three antennas, one antenna is shooting north at 340 degrees, one antenna is shooting southeast, and the other is shooting southwest. With that explanation, Vice Chairman Leon noted that it appears most of the energy is being directed towards the left and not towards the fence on the right. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if it was the City's intent to have the two enclosures match now, and forever in the future. Associate Planner Kim explained the City's intent was to have some type of symmetry, and hopes it is maintained in the future. She stated that any proposed change in the future to either enclosure that does not maintain the symmetry would most likely not obtain staffs support or approval. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if it was their expectation that staff would be seeking to have both of these enclosures reasonably match each other continually in perpetuity. Director Rojas explained that the current situation has been achieved not by design but rather through different proposals over the years that staff has sought to hide as much as possible. The question becomes what will happen if one of the carriers in the future says they need a larger enclosure for bigger antennas, and there will be a discussion that the two enclosures will be asymmetrical. The Commission does have the authority to open and modify either Conditional Use Permit to require they be symmetrical. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff what will happen if a third carrier requests antennas on this building with a third enclosure. He suggested it may be a good idea for the building owner to discuss a long range plan with staff in regards to the antennas. Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 3 Director Rojas stated there is one property owner, and the multiple approvals all run with the property. Therefore, there is the ability to require some type of master plan for the antennas, but the questions is at what point does the City require that. He suggested that since this application is attempting to achieve symmetry, it may be appropriate to have that discussion with the next application. Rudy Kerkhof(Villa Rosa Drive) explained he was not opposed to the first enclosure built on the building, however this is now a second enclosure and it is very close to his property line. He was concerned with what will happen when a third carrier wants to build a similar enclosure on top of the building, and questioned at what point does the City stop these carriers from blocking the views from neighboring properties. He questioned if these cell towers this close to his property will affect his ability to sell his property in the future. He stated he is losing more and more of his view and the radio frequency waves are moving closer and closer to his property. Connie Semos referred to a discussion in the staff report regarding Sprint v the City of Palos Verdes Estates which says that if a City denies or conditions a wireless facility project, the decision must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. She asked if the City has anything like this to protect its residents, their health, and their views. Further, the City must prove its decision was authorized by law. She questioned if the City has such law, as she only aware the City has Guidelines. She asked where the resident's protection is of their property values in the immediate neighborhood, not just Mr. Kerkhofs. She felt there were several antennas on the building, stating that staff has noted there are unidentified antennas on the building. She also read from the staff report that to successfully challenge a decision regarding a particular application the wireless provider must prove a significant gap in service exists. She stated, that looking at the maps that all the Commissioners have, those gaps are in Palos Verdes Estates, not Rancho Palos Verdes. She noted the project has been delayed due to structural issues, and questioned what those issues are and if they are safety issues. Joan Davidson stated that recently a Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilman stated that the health and safety of its residents is the foremost responsibility of the City. She felt the City needed to look at this building, noting there are twenty eight cell antennas on the roof, and felt it was an antenna farm. She also noted for this application the number of antennas will be reduced from six to three, however the coverage will be intensified and spread. She felt that this will result in an increase in power and radiation throughout the community. She referred to the City Guidelines, and asked if encouraging co-location meant allowing twenty eight antennas on a small commercial building. She asked if the intent of co-location was to affect the property values of the surrounding neighborhoods, and ask why the City does not have a Municipal Code requirement capping the number of antennas on small commercial properties. She referred to Guideline No. 4 addressing view corridors, and asked the Commissioner if they had visited the affected properties. She did not feel the pictures did justice to the actual view impairment from the affected properties. She referred to Guideline No. 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 4 regarding the balance between public and private benefits, and felt the City could benefit it the antennas were placed on City land rather than this private property. She stated this project will cause adverse impacts by view impacts, noise, and property devaluation. She was asking for a ninety day extension, because the residents deserve the same accommodation as was given to Sprint, to allow residents to discuss the issues with staff. Joy Ciniero stated she had the same concerns that were already addressed. She was also concerned that this property is one of the early impressions that one gets when entering the City, and that the building is an eyesore as it stands now. She asked exactly how many antennas are currently on the roof, as she has not been able to get a clear answer from staff. She asked if there is a plan for antenna locations in the City, and why there are so many antennas located at this one location. She asked to what extent there has been a study of the environmental impact of these antennas and what is the size of the perimeter that is affected by the antennas. She felt it was premature to proceed with any further increase in antennas until these questions have been addressed. Kim Nguyen (in rebuttal)felt all of these comments have been addressed. Vice Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they are familiar with the laws and regulations that govern these antennas. Director Rojas answered that staff is aware of the laws and regulations, as staff has processed a number of applications over the years. He stated that staff has consulted the City Attorney in regards to this application and noted that cities are preempted from regulating the radiation aspects of antennas. Commissioner Lewis asked that if the Planning Commission determined that the radiation emanating from these antennas is a problem and therefore rejected the application based on radiation, would staff expect that decision be appealed to the City Council, and possibly challenged in court. Director Rojas felt the applicant could appeal that decision to the City Council. Commissioner Lewis stated he goes to this particular 7-11 quite often and doesn't like the look of the towers. He asked if he were to side from an aesthetic point of view that the building would look better without those towers, would that be a basis for him to vote against this application. Director Rojas stated that the application before the Commission is a Conditional Use Permit, and one of the findings that needs to be made is that the project will not result in an adverse impact to surrounding properties, and aesthetics may be a factor in making this finding. However with antennas, the Federal Telecommunications Act must be Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 5 taken into account by local jurisdictions and if denying the project somehow infringes on the rights of carriers to provide telecommunication services to the public, then that may override the aesthetic findings. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they would be supportive of keeping condition No. 16 and adding language saying the Sprint enclosure has to match the AT&T enclosure as it was approved, but Sprint shall not be required in the future to match any changes AT&T may make in the future. Director Rojas answered he would be supportive of such a revision. Commissioner Nelson asked staff if the City Attorney found this application to be in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Director Rojas answered that was correct. Commissioner Nelson noted there are three antennas within ten feet of the building silhouette at Crenshaw and Highridge, and he has heard no objections. There are nine antennas around St. John Fisher Church, and there have been no complaints. He stated he is in favor of this application. Commissioner Tetreault stated that as much as the Commission may have questions and concerns in regards to radio frequency, he referred to Title 47 of the United States Code which prohibits the City from regulating the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent the facilities comply with regulations concerning these emissions. He stated there are other areas where the City may have discretion, however radio frequency emissions is not one. He asked staff if they have discussed with the applicant, or requested any alternatives to this proposal. Associate Planner Kim answered that the proposed project before the Commission is a result of the City requesting aesthetic upgrades to the building which staff has been working with Sprint on for over a year. The original proposal was to replace the existing antennas on the roof with larger antennas. She stated staff was not in support of that, explaining staff's intent is to try to clean up the roof top of the building so it doesn't look like a proliferation of antennas. In regards to alternative locations, that was not considered in this application since Sprint already has antennas on this building. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff where the six antennas are currently situated on the building. Associate Planner Kim pointed out where the six antennas are currently located. Commissioner Tomblin stated that the Commission gets these antennas in a piece-meal situation and it is very difficult to control the number of users and antennas on a building. He was considering asking the Commission to consider a continuance of this Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 6 application to allow staff and the owner to come up with a master plan as to what will happen with antennas in the future. Director Rojas explained there is an application before the Commission and, because of the Permit Streamlining Act, a decision must be rendered within a certain time frame. The only way to deny the application is if the Commission cannot make one of the findings. If the Commission wants to continue the item, within the time constraints of the Permit Streamlining Act, and have a discussion with the owner about a master plan this can be done. He noted, however, that staff has found the trend to be for carriers to keep antennas in their existing locations and merely upgrade the antennas based on new technology. He noted the decision deadline for this application is April 23rd. Commissioner Lewis asked staff, if this item is continued, and if the Commission asks the property owner to come up with a master plan in regards to the.antennas, and if the Commission were not happy with the submitted master plan, could the Commission use that as a basis to deny the current application. Director Rojas answered that the Commission could not use that to deny this current application. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the Commission asked for a master plan and it didn't happen, could the failure to produce a master plan then be used to deny this current application. Director Rojas answered it could not. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if one of the reasons staff was supporting this application was because the overall number of antennas was being reduced. Director Rojas answered that staff is supporting the application because the number of antennas is going to be reduced, thus helping to clean up the rooftop of the building. Secondly, staff believes the encasement does not result in significant view impairment. However, the Commission may disagree that the amount of view impairment is not insignificant and determine that any amount of impairment is significant since the finding is very broad in that it requires no significant adverse effect to occur. Commissioner Tomblin understood, however he suggested the Commission look at this with regards to cumulative view impacts. He felt this approval could set up another enclosure for another user, and he felt there would be a cumulative view impact to the neighbors. Commissioner Tetreault discussed condition No. 16. He agreed with the applicant's concerns over the condition that this may hold up Sprint's project. He stated he has not seen a condition such as this before, where the City is tying approval of a project to something that is completely extraneous and external as to the applicant. He asked if the City Attorney had reviewed condition No. 16. Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 7 Director Rojas stated that condition No. 16 was suggested by the City Attorney. He explained that AT&T has temporarily placed antennas outside of the structure, and there is no incentive for them to place these antennas inside the structure for another year until the permit is set to expire. However, the City Attorney felt that since it is the property owner who is the recipient of the Conditional Use Permit, the burden can be put on the property owner to make sure AT&T finishes their job so that Sprint can add their antennas to the building. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendations as modified: 1) Section 5 of the resolution be modified to add language stating "The finding is made, in large part, based on the current symmetry of the two proposed enclosures on the roof." 2) Condition No. 12 be modified to add "Nothing stated in this condition shall require the applicant to update the look or construction of the improved encasement should AT&T's encasement have a different look or construction in the future." Seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the restrictions on the enclosures are restrictions on Sprint or the building owner. He felt that it's not Sprint's enclosure but rather the building owner's enclosure around Sprint's equipment. Director Rojas stated the Conditional Use Permit is binding on the property owner. Commissioner Gerstner suggested referring to it as Sprint's enclosure rather than the building owner's enclosure. Director Rojas stated that change can be made. Commissioner Tetreault noted Section 5 states the finding is that these antennas will increase communication services to the residences. He stated that he has not seen in the staff report, nor has he heard anything at this public hearing as to whether staff has received evidence in support of that statement. Director Rojas agreed that staff has not received such evidence from the applicant, and suggested changing the word "increase" to "improve" as stated by the applicant during the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault moved to amend the motion to modify the work "increase" in section 5 to "improve". The amendment was accepted by Commissioner Lewis and seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion to approve staffs recommendation as modified, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2014-10 was approved, (5-1)with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting. 2. Golden Cove Center Master Sign Program review Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 8 Chairman Emenhiser returned to the dais. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining that at its November 12th meeting the Planning Commission determined that Golden Cove Center is operating in accordance with the conditions of approval associated with its Conditional Use Permit. However, given testimony heard from some of the tenants of the property regarding the need for additional on-site signage, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for the master sign program to allow staff the opportunity to discuss possible amendments to the sign program with the owner of the property. In doing so, the owner indicated that he would rather propose amendments that would affect the entire center, while granting some allowances to some tenants who do not currently have visible signage, all without creating an unintended proliferation of on-site signage. As such, staff is recommending the Planning Commission provide the additional time requested by the applicant to allow the property owner the opportunity to propose modifications, and to continue the review of the master sign program to May 27, 2014. She explained that the Planning Commission had also requested staff address the Planning Commission's authority to re-open the Center's Conditional Use Permit. She stated that, although staff does not see a need to re-open the CUP, the Planning Commission does have the authority to initiate an amendment if they feel an amendment is warranted. As such, staff was seeking direction from the Commission on whether to initiate an amendment to the CUP, and to identify the conditions that are to be considered for an amendment. Commissioner Tomblin stated he was absent from the November 12th meeting, however he has reviewed the tape and the minutes and felt he could participate in this discussion. Commissioner Tetreault noted that there are two issues before the Commission, and it may be best to bifurcate the item to the two issues. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Christopher Minniti (representing Golden Cove) stated he was available for questions. Paolo Giacomoni stated he is a member of the board of Villa Capri HOA. He stated he does not object to Golden Cove changing its sign program, but asked the Commission 'to take into consideration the possibility of criteria to maintain the status quo while improving the situation at Golden Cove. He asked that the status quo be maintained in regards to the brightness of lights at the Center, requiring the power used to provide the lights be the same or less than it is now and that the luminosity of the master sign be equal or inferior to what it is now. This will allow the residents at Villa Capri the opportunity to use their balconies without too much Fight from the Golden Cove Center shining on their property. Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 9 Bart Fors stated he operates the locksmith store at Golden Cove. He stated he was in favor of modifying the master sign program, as more signage is needed for the businesses. Chairman Emenhiser stated that at the previous meeting there was the idea that city staff, the property owner, and tenants meet to address some of the issues, and asked Mr. Fors if he was aware if the meeting ever occurred. Mr. Fors stated he was aware of a meeting with staff and the property owners and management, but not with the tenants. Saab Saniar stated he owns Yellow Vase and Avenue Italy at Golden Cove, and at both locations he has problems with signage, and was requesting the ability to add more signs to advertise his businesses. Commissioner Tetreault moved staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing for the review of the master sign program to May 27, 2014, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved without objection. In discussing the issues at Golden Cove, Commissioner Nelson explained his issue has to do with what is allowed with the Conditional Use Permit and what is actually taking place in regards to signage. He noted every lamp post advertises Urgent Care, but no other tenants advertise on the lamp posts. The signs throughout the Center say two hour parking, however the Commission approved four hour parking. In addition, there is signage at all entrances that restricts delivery trucks from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. He understood the owner may be more restrictive than what is allowed by the CUP, however he felt that was hurting the tenants. He suggested changing the CUP to better reflect what it appears the owner of the center prefers. Commissioner Lewis understood the signage concerns expressed by the owner of Yellow Vase, and felt some type of accommodation needs to be made for the unique geographic position the restaurant has in the center. And while he won't be on the Planning Commission in May when this item returns, he would support some type of modification to the Sign Program to help meet Yellow Vase's needs for signage. Commissioner Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Lewis' remarks. In regards to 'opening the CUP for review, he felt the City should stay out of the issues at hand as he felt these were operational issues. He did not think it was appropriate for the City to micromanage a shopping center, nor did he think it was an appropriate signal to the community that the City was thinking about doing that. He felt this is a landlord /tenant issue the City should stay away from. Commissioner Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Tetreault, but also pointed out that if the CUP is restricting deliveries to a certain time and the landlord is saying there will be no deliveries, that really doesn't comply with the intent of the CUP. Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 10 Vice Chairman Leon also felt that the Master Sign Program should be reviewed and possibly modified for businesses such as Yellow Vase. He added that a complaint he often receives about Golden Cove is that the center is under parked, noting that quite often there is no parking available. He would like to have some facts and data associated with the parking to see if it might be appropriate to change some of the parking conditions, and stated he would like to see that at the next meeting when this item is heard. Chairman Emenhiser felt it is incumbent on the Planning Commission to do as much as reasonably possible to support local businesses, as local businesses support the community. He agreed that businesses at Golden Cove such as Yellow Vase need some help with their signage issues. He also agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's concerns about the City getting too involved in landlord tenant issues. Commissioner Nelson respected and understood the Commission's comments. With that, he moved not to initiate an amendment to the Golden Cove Center's Conditional Use Permit, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Nelson acknowledged the Vice Chairman's request for additional information regarding parking. He noted on page 11 of the staff report there are some statistics regarding the parking. However, he also noted that the parking is based on a tenant list from 2011 and since then there have several new businesses added. He felt this list was outdated and should be updated and the parking reviewed. The motion to not initiate an amendment to the Golden Cove's Conditional Use Permit was approved, (6-1) with Vice Chairman Leon dissenting. 3. Green Hills annual review (Case No. ZON2003-00086): 27501 Western Ave Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief synopsis of the various approvals Green Hills has received from the City since the last revision approved by the Planning Commission in 2007 and 2008. He noted these approved projects have been consistent with the Planning Commission approved Master Plan for the site. He noted staff has received several complaints from residents of the adjacent condominiums located in the City of Lomita in regards to the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum, which was recently completed in 2013, primarily with respect to the ground internments located on the roof top of the mausoleum. He noted the most significant complaints from the neighboring residents with respect to the ground internments above the mausoleum have been visual and privacy impacts, as well as noise issues. He showed several photos of the mausoleum in relation to the neighboring condominiums. As a result, staff is presenting to the Commission an operational review in order to see what can be done to mitigate some of these impacts. He noted staff's recommendations for additional operational conditions for the site. He stated that city staff recently met with the staff from Green Hills, at which time Green Hills presented some alternative suggestions they felt could realistically be done to help mitigate some of the impacts being experienced by the neighboring condominiums in the city of Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 11 Lomita. He stated staff is open to some of Green Hill's proposals, however staff has requested Green Hills present their alternatives to the Planning Commission so the Commission can also weigh in on them. Additionally, this will give the public an opportunity to weigh in on these suggestions. He stated Green Hills has expressed some concern in regards to some of staffs proposed conditions, especially with regards to some of the suggested hours of operation. With that, he stated staff was recommending the Planning Commission review the proposed recommendations in changes to the conditions to help minimize the impacts, and direct staff to return with a Resolution at a future date. Chairman Emenhiser noted suggestions of fencing and walls for privacy, and asked staff if the addition of vegetation had been considered. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that it is staff's understanding that there is a potential to add vegetation, however because of the close proximity of ground internments to the edge of the wall, there may not be enough space for the vegetation. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Ray Frew (President CEO Green Hills Memorial Park) stated Green Hills has been in operation for 65 years, and it is the firm conviction of the management that every effort be made to be a good neighbor and be supportive of the community. He stated the cemetery is open 365 days per year and average 1750 burials per year. He stated that with the number of burials that are held, the normal visitation by families and friends, and the community events that are held at the site Green Hills averages more than 150,000 visitors per year. He stated that management's overall view is that the number of complaints and incidents the Park is made aware of is minimal in the overall picture. He stated there is contracted security personnel in the Park seven days a week and they respond to all reports of excessive noise, unruly behavior, and alcohol consumption. He also noted the Park keeps security logs of all incidents in the park, including calls about noise and behavior. He stated only three incidents near the northern boundary have been recorded in the 2013 and early 2014 logs. He stated Green Hills presented a revised Master Plan in 2007 that was subsequently approved by the City, and that Master Plan did include the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum as it has been built. He added that all required approvals and permits to build the Mausoleum were obtained from the City, and every aspect of the construction was overseen, inspected, and approved by the City's Building and Safety Department. He stated burials have been taking place in the area immediately adjacent to the Mausoleum since 2009. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Frew to comment on the staff report and the recommendations with regards to several of the conditions of operation. Mr. Frew explained that Green Hills' own rules and regulations prohibit some of the things that have taken place that staff has written about. He stated he is certainly in agreement to try to find some mutual resolution for some of the issues. He noted a Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 12 concern.with the recommendation to put a vinyl fence along the railing near the mausoleum and if there are currently concerns regarding views, this solid structure will completely eliminate any views from the condominiums. He stated the proposed hours of operation are the largest area of concern, noting the Park has already reduced the time machinery can go to that building. He explained the park hours and their goal to have all of their internments before 4:00. He felt the 11:00 a.m. recommendation was impractical in many ways, explaining Green Hills does not control the schedule established by outside funeral homes nor do they control religious beliefs or church services. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Frew if he had any alternative conditions that Green Hills would like to propose. Mr. Frew displayed several photos depicting types of screening proposed by Green Hills. He felt this screening would greatly diminish anybody's view into the pool deck from the mausoleum roof top. He showed photos of sound proofing type screening that is available to help reduce any equipment noise. He noted, however, that putting up this type of fence will affect the view currently afforded to the condominiums. He also explained Green Hills is trying to eliminate the big equipment in the area as much as possible and use the smaller equipment. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Frew if he knew, on any given weekend, how many of the burials are roof top burials as opposed to non-roof top burials. Mr. Frew displayed a graph showing the number of burials that have taken place at this roof top area. He stated that any burials on a Sunday are extremely rare, and typically there may be only one burial on any given day. He clarified that in cases where a plot is sold and the death takes place before the area is developed, there are temporary internments. When the mausoleum was completed there were approximately nineteen temporary burials that needed to be placed on the roof top area, which accounted for an unusual amount of activity on the roof top area for a short period of time. Vice Chairman Leon asked Mr. Frew if the temporary screening of funerals is practical. Mr. Frew answered that temporary screening is practical. John Resich (Chairman of the Board at Green Hills Memorial Park) explained that what they have tried to do since this mausoleum was built was to modify the use of the equipment, explaining how the equipment is typically used and how it has been modified in this area. He also explained that Green Hills does not control the time of the service, which is either controlled by the mortuary or the church. He stated the religious organizations really dictate to Green Hills when and how they are coming to the Park, and unfortunately every so often there is a service that will run late or will start early. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Resich if, at the rate of current burials, he felt that the roof top area of the mausoleum would be filled in approximately two years, or did he Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 13 expect that after a bit of time the frequency will diminish and burials may linger on for another four or five years. Mr. Resich answered that if burials continue at the same rate, it will be a very short period of time. However, he could not predict the future rate of burials in the area. Mike McLachlon (Attorney representing the Vista Verde HOA) questioned the comment from Green Hills about trying to be a good neighbor, pointing out that the HOA has not been invited to meet with Green Hills to discuss any potential fixes to the problems at hand. He stated that these internments happen several times a week and each process takes a great deal of time, with loud noise producing activity taking place constantly. He stated sound amplification is regularly used, and even without the sound amplification one can hear every word of a service from the living room of the condo. He questioned why there was originally a forty foot setback historically that, for reasons unknown, was changed to eight feet. He felt a more comprehensive study of this issue was needed. He stated that there has been no discussion on the economic impact to the residents with regards to the loss of the view, and the loss of property value. He stated that almost all of the first floor units had their ocean views completely irradiated. He stated the second floor units have also had their views impacted. He felt the recommendation to erect a wall was a terrible idea, as it will make the view issue worse. He pointed out that the mausoleum is slated to be expanded, and flagging should be erected now to study view issues. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. McLachlon, putting aside the issue of future construction and focusing on current operations, are there any additional conditions other than what staff has proposed that he would like to see in place. Mr. McLachlon answered that there is an issue of drainage and a water problem on the back side that is causing a significant amount of moisture to condensate at the site. He stated he has not yet hired anyone to study the issue, however he felt it was something that could be remedied. Operationally, he felt a noise study was needed. He noted incidents of mariachi bands playing and twenty-one gun salutes being performed within approximately twenty feet of the residents. He also discussed the suggestion of restricting the time windows, which he felt was critical and felt that restriction could go even farther. Commissioner Lewis asked if the condominium complex had an HOA board and president, and if so this person would be a good point of contact for Green Hills staff. Mr. McLachlon answered that there is an HOA board and president. Commissioner Lewis asked if there were any other conditions he would like to see in terms of operations. Mr. McLachlon felt that the idea of a temporary screen suggested by Green Hills might, with further study, help with the visual situations during services. Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 14 Julie Keye (resident at Vista Verde) stated that what originally attracted her to her condo was the very large balcony which opened up to a harbor and ocean view and the peaceful atmosphere of the neighborhood. She stated that, while two or three funerals a week in this area may be insignificant to Green Hills, to her it is constantly having to see grieving people, not to mention the noise and disturbances. She stated she was very frustrated because there is no end in sight to the funerals in the area, and felt that having to live this close to so much grieving was a form of mental cruelty. Booth Tarkington stated his backyard overlooks the cemetery and he has enjoyed this view for many years. He stated that at the last meeting he attended the subject of alcohol and noise at green Hills was addressed and in looking through the notes from the meeting there was a comment made that Green Hills would erect signage that alcohol and loud noises were prohibited on site. He questioned if this was done and if Green Hills staff enforces the prohibition. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if they had any comments on the recommendation and conclusion in the staff report. Director Rojas explained that staff met with two condo owners and visited their units, and felt these two units were the two most impacted units. He explained that from the higher unit the issue seemed to be more about noise and privacy impacts rather than the view impacts. However, from the lower unit there was also a view impact. In speaking to the resident in the lower unit, he explained that one way to mitigate the noise issue is to put up some type of barrier at the site, which will create further view impacts. He asked her which she would prefer, and at that point in time she indicated that she would prefer some type of noise buffer since her view has already been lost. In speaking to Green Hills, they pointed out that a five or six foot wall will not do much with regards to mitigating the noise from the machinery, and could cause more view impacts. Therefore, when Green Hills discussed their idea of a temporary type of screening that comes up for services and is retracted after the service, staff was open to this idea. In regards to the hours, he explained staff is open to a combination of the two ideas, noting that Green Hills has stated there are certain aspects of cemetery operations that are out of their control. John Resich (in rebuttal) noted signage is in place and handed staff information that is given out in terms of the rules and regulations of the Park and its prohibition of alcohol and loud music. He stated Green Hills tries its best to ensure the visitors abide by the rules. In regards to the twenty-one gun salutes, this is something that is allowed under Federal regulations and did not think Green Hills or the City can prohibit this activity. Commissioner Lewis stated that one of the conditions of approval when the mausoleum was approved was that there be a phone number residents can call to speak to security personnel when there was a problem. He asked if there is such a number and if that number is answered by a person rather than a machine. Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 15 Mr. Resich answered that there is such number and a staff member does answer the phone during business hours, and every call is recorded. Vice Chairman Leon understood there is a lengthy process that takes place at the site after the actual funeral service, and asked Mr. Resich if there is a way to divide the process such that there is a short portion after the burial so that the service can finish up at a time that is more convenient to the neighbors. Mr. Resich explained there are certain individuals and religions that want to see the complete burial and covering. He explained the time it takes to lower the casket, put the lid on, and fill in the dirt can take anywhere from ten minutes to thirty minutes. Vice Chairman Leon asked about the sound amplification at the services, and asked if that equipment can be directed away from the residences. Mr. Resich noted that Green Hills does not supply any sound amplification equipment, and Green Hills can do whatever it takes to make sure the sound is not directed towards the residences. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the park operating hours and asked Mr. Resich how Green Hills can say they have no control over when funerals will take place. Mr. Frew responded by explaining that churches and mortuaries set up funerals in the Park, knowing the Park hours. However, occasionally there will be an instance when a service may run late and they are late in arriving at the Park. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Frew if it would be possible to further restrict the burial times on the roof top of the mausoleum area in question. Mr. Frew answered that Green Hills may be able to do so, but could not guarantee on every occasion that the hours would be abided by. He did not think Green Hills could be held responsible for these occasional services that are not compliant with these wishes. Commissioner Tetreault stated he was not aware of any law or statute which says a twenty-one gun salute is a right of every veteran and local communities cannot prohibit that tradition, and asked if Green Hills could provide said law or statute to staff. Commissioner Tetreault stated that Green Hills has acknowledged that this mausoleum is not exactly what was envisioned from the perspective of the people who live behind it. He asked if they agreed, that compared to the rest of the cemetery property, this mausoleum is somewhat unique and is presenting a legitimate concern to these neighbors. Mr. Resich agreed and understood the concerns. Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 16 Commissioner Tetreault asked if they would consider it at all appropriate to modify the park operations with respect to just this rooftop property so that there may be greater limitations on this area, and the sales personnel can tell people interested in purchasing this property of the restrictions and limitations in this location as opposed to other sites within the facility. Mr. Resich understood the issues and stated that can be done, however he noted again that Green Hills does not have control over what family members, the church, or the mortuary may want to do when it comes time for the actual burial. He also explained that there are contract issues, in that the owner or the person who bought the plot, is dead and it's only a personal property right as opposed to a real property right. Mr. Frew added that Green Hills will attempt to limit the hours in this area and will try to inform people of these limited hours, however he noted a concern that with these limited hours there may be an unintended result in that with the condensed hours there may be more services performed in this shorter period of time rather than stretching them out and having more time between services. Commissioner Gerstner read from Section 578 of Public Law 106-65 of the National Defense Authorization which says that any family that requests military funeral for an honorably discharged member of the armed forces is entitled to such, which may include some variation of a gun salute. Matt Martin stated the residents have written letters to Green Hills expressing their concerns with the mausoleum, contrary to statements made by Green Hills. He also stated Green Hills has never used any type of temporary screening at the site, adding that at services the people are positioned so they look directly into the condos. He also stated that he was with the Director when he made his site visit to the condos, and noted that nobody agreed to a fence or wall being erected at Green Hills. He stated that under no condition is he or other residents ok with restricting the view even more than it is already. He also did not think that would address the noise issues. He felt that no more burials should be allowed on the top of the mausoleum. He stated one of his biggest concerns is the equipment with its noise and vibrations, and questioned why Green Hills couldn't use shovels in this area. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Martin his opinion on the suggestion of temporary screens that can be raised when a service is taking place, and lowered afterwards. Mr. Martin felt that was a ridiculous suggestion, noting it does nothing for the noise and the privacy. He reiterated that a huge mistake was made in approving this mausoleum, and Green Hills should be required to either greatly reduce the number of burials allowed at this particular site, or no more services should be allowed. Commissioner Lewis asked staff, given some of the concessions by Green Hills in that they are unable to control noise and are powerless to restrict hours of burial, does the Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 17 Planning Commission have the authority to impose a 90 day moratorium on roof top internments pending a further review and imposition of more restrictive conditions. Director Rojas explained this is a review hearing and the Planning Commission does have the authority to add, delete, or modify conditions of approval on issues of concern that are brought to the City's attention. To that extent, the Commission has the authority to set a temporary moratorium on roof top burials which would be made binding through a condition of approval of an adopted Resolution. He stated Staff does not have a prepared Resolution before the Commission at this time, however if so directed by the Commission, staff could return with a Resolution that would impose this temporary moratorium at the next meeting in two weeks. Commissioner Lewis stated that he was on the Planning Commission when the application for the mausoleum was before the Commission, and apologized stating he didn't truly understand what the Commission was approving and it wasn't apparent to him at the time that these services would be so intrusive to the neighbors. Commissioner Lewis moved to direct Staff to return at the next Planning Commission with a Resolution imposing a ninety day moratorium on roof top internment, pending the Commission's adoption of more restrictive conditions that would address the issues of noise, vibrations, and privacy infringements, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Tomblin understood this was an unfortunate situation for both the property owner and the neighbors. He questioned why the cemetery couldn't have personnel at each burial to help facilitate the noise issues. He felt there may be some flaw or gaps in the operational system at Green Hills that need to be addressed. He stated he supports the ninety day moratorium, but noted that if there is a previous sale at the site, the burial would still need to take place. Commissioner Lewis stated that the speaker explained that before the mausoleum was constructed there was a temporary burial site, and the people were then relocated to the area when the mausoleum was completed. He stated he had that testimony in mind when he made the motion. Commissioner Tetreault wanted to make sure this proposed 90 day moratorium was a productive and functional time, not just a 90 day relief for the neighbors. Commissioner Lewis agreed, noting he had a list of issues he would like staff to address with the application, which included: drainage issues, direction of the crowd at services, modification of the existing noise conditions, amplification, dropping of the planking, contacting Green Hills staff, and additional issues. Commissioner Tetreault addressed the plots that has already been sold and may need to be utilized in the next 90 days, and questioned how that would work. Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 18 Commissioner Lewis stated it was his understanding Green Hills has a temporary entombment, or the family can choose a different spot. Commissioner Tetreault noted Green Hills has a completed mausoleum and has already laid out approximately 400 spaces for rooftop burial. He asked if staff felt Green Hills has the right to utilize the rooftop property for burials. Director Rojas responded that he has had conversations with the City Attorney regarding this issue and the City Attorney feels comfortable that the City has the authority to do what it can to minimize impacts. However, there may be a grey area if the Commission suggests something that may adversely affect the business operations or any vested rights that Green Hills has. He stated that if this motion passes he will discuss it with the City Attorney, however he felt that because the motion is intended to place a temporary 90 day moratorium while issues are being worked out, she may not have an issue with the proposal. Commissioner Tetreault requested staff speak to the City Attorney and ask if the City has the legal authority to cease all internment operations on top of this mausoleum. Commissioner Gerstner stated that if the intent of the moratorium was to be punitive he would not support the motion. However, as a means to solve a problem that will work best for everybody, he was supportive of the motion. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend the motion to impose a 90 day moratorium on roof top burials at this mausoleum and with direction to staff to come back with tighter conditions addressing the following issues: drainage, noise amplification issues, dropping of the planking, cemetery staff reaching out to residents directly rather than a designated HOA staff member, logging and recording of noise complaints, further discussion of the temporary privacy shades, and further feedback regarding the size and type of equipment allowed at the site. Seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Lewis stated that he would also like to see, but not include in the motion, some type of committee that includes residents and Green Hills staff, that meets once a year at a minimum to discuss issues and concerns at the site and to help Green Hills communicate with the residents. Chairman Emenhiser acknowledged this is a very difficult situation, and noted that the City cannot remedy all of the problems, regardless of the process. He agreed with Commissioner Lewis, recommending a negotiated solution between the homeowners and,Green Hills, suggesting staff may be able to serve as an informal mediator to help the process. He felt both sides may be better off with a negotiation rather than something imposed. Director Rojas understood the motion, noting the Resolution will be before the Commission at the next meeting in two weeks. His recommendation was to continue Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 19 the public hearing to the March 11th meeting so that the Planning Commission can discuss the Resolution and allow the public to comment on it as well. The motion was approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 4. Outdoor lighting Associate Planner Mikhail presented a brief staff report, stating that for the reasons outlined in the staff report staff is requesting the Planning Commission request staff to petition the City Council to initiate a code amendment to improve the City's existing lighting regulations to address issues as noted in the staff report. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Diane Smith felt that with the new types of lighting available today the City needs to update its outdoor lighting code, and explained her issues with the lighting at Marymount College. She felt if the City's code could be amended to clearly regulate exterior lighting to avoid light pollution and nuisance to residents, it may help the predicament caused by Marymount's parking lot lights that she currently experiences. Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved staff's recommendation, adding that staff seek direction from the City Council not in a narrow way but rather have the City Council direct the Commission in a broader manner to take a broad look at lighting within the City in all aspects and how it affects both public and private property. Seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (7-0). 5. General Plan Consistency Finding (Case No. ZON2014-00046): 32639 Nantasket Drive Chairman Emenhiser and Commissioner Nelson recused themselves from this item and left the dais. Commissioner Lewis disclosed that several years ago during his campaign for City Council the applicant hosted one of his events. Notwithstanding that, he felt he can be fair and impartial in hearing this item. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, summarizing the need for the consistency finding as explained in the staff report. He explained that in looking at vacating this particular easement, staff has contacted the various utility companies who have all indicated they have no infrastructure facilities nor do they plan in the future to provide for any infrastructure within the easement. He stated staff feels the easement Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 20 vacation is consistent with the policies and goals of the General Plan, especially since the intent of the original easement no longer exists. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Dana Ireland (applicant) stated he was in complete agreement with the staff report, and felt this is merely a completion of the vacation of easement that was granted to him in 2010. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Ireland how this vacation of the easement will affect or benefit his property. Mr. Ireland answered that the home on Lot 1 was approved in anticipation that vacation of this easement would be granted. Senior Planner Schonborn added that Mr. Ireland has submitted his final map application, and in looking at the conditions of approval of the parcel map and entitlements staff noted one of the conditions of approval is this easement be vacated. In order to do so, the City Attorney directed Staff to go through a General Plan Consistency Finding process. Bob Nelson stated he was before the Planning Commission as a private citizen representing the Sea Bluff HOA. He listed the various requirements needed to accommodate this request for development, and noted that a finding of neighborhood compatibility could not be made. Therefore, on the advice of the City Attorney, this was made a neighborhood unto itself. He noted the project has gone to the Coastal Commission and has received an approval from them. He stated that at this point in time the HOA has no objection to the project. Vice Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. The motion was approved, and PC Resolution 2014-11 adopted (5-0). Chairman Emenhiser was excused from the remainder of the meeting. Commissioner Nelson returned to the dais. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes from January 28, 2014 Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Lewis abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 21 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on March 11, 2014 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:19 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 25,2014 Page 22