Loading...
PC MINS 20140128 Approved February 25, 2014 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 28, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Leon at 7:04 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. W FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Nelson, Tetreault, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman Leon. Absent: Commissioner Lewis and Chairman Emenhiser were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the January 21St meeting the City Council approved the proposed code amendment to reduce the allowable construction hours as recommended by the Planning Commission. The Director also reported that the recruitment for Planning Commissioners is continuing with appointment targeting for the March 4th City Council meeting. Director Rojas distributed a report that discusses minor revisions the final draft Housing Element (Agenda Item No. 3). COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Height Variation &Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2013-00268): 6309 Alto Circle Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the applications. She stated there were no issues in regards to view or privacy impacts as a result of the proposed project. She stated staff was recommending approval of the proposed project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Gerstner referred to the elevations, and asked if the applicant was proposing carriage lights on the second story fagade. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that appeared lighting was being proposed, and would verify if the standard lighting conditions had been added to the Resolution. Commissioner Gerstner noted that carriage lighting is not typically found on the second story and he did not believe staff would be able to find an example of such lighting anywhere in the immediate neighborhood. Commissioner Nelson noted the proposed addition is being built directly over the existing garage, and asked if staff was aware if the architect had made any provision for preventing a garage fire from reaching the sleeping areas above the garage. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that Building and Safety will address these issues during the plan check process. Vice Chairman Leon referred back to the lighting, and asked if the Development Code requires shielding of the light source. Associate Planner Mikhail stated the Planning Commission can condition the project to ensure the light source is shielded. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Gerstner stated he would like to hear from the applicant or owner as to their opinion on the lights and why they are there. Vice Chairman Leon re-opened the public hearing. Douglas Leeds (designer) stated the actual lights have not been specified for this particular area. He felt the lights are very important for illuminating the house, but could Planning Commission Minutes January 28,2014 Page 2 be shielded in a manner as to direct the lighting so not to disturb the properties across the street. He added that this house is located on a cul-de-sac and therefore there is quite a distance between this house and the houses across the street. In addition the house is not pointed directly at a house across the street. Commissioner Gerstner felt that if the lights are carriage lights they will not be illuminating the building, but rather they illuminate themselves. He felt that if the goal is to illuminate the building, carriage lights may not be the best choice. He stated that his preference was to not have carriage lights on this house, however if they are to remain he suggested they be put on dimmers. Mr. Leeds explained that Title 24 now requires the outdoor lighting be either low voltage A or fluorescent. Vice Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved to amend the motion to require that if carriage lights are used they be placed on dimmers. Commissioner Nelson accepted the amendment, as did Commissioner Tetreault. The motion to approve the project as amended was approved, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2014-04 (4-0). 2. Fence. Wall, and Hedge Permit (Case No. ZON2013-00346) Commissioner Tomblin arrived prior to the staff report being presented. Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining this item has been before the Commission several times, and at the last meeting the Commission reviewed all of the proposed language and staff is now bringing that language to the Commission in the form of a Resolution that can be adopted and forwarded to the City Council. He added the City Attorney has reviewed the language and has given her input and approval. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Karen Oste[gren stated she submitted information that was included with the staff report, and reiterated her reasons outlined in her letter for wanting the six-foot height restriction to remain. She felt that there is a possibility there will be more residents than not that will be unhappy with a seven-foot tall fence and there might be some type of litigations or problems as a result. With that, she urged the Commission to reconsider their decision and to maintain the six-foot high fence height. Vice Chairman Leon asked staff to explain the rationale in changing the Development Code to match the new California Building Code in regards to fence height. Planning Commission Minutes January 28,2014 Page 3 Director Rojas explained that this year the State changed the Building Code to allow freestanding fences and walls up to seven feet in height without the need for a building permit. Staff noted to the City Council at the time of adoption of the new building code that unless the zoning code is changed to match the new building code, a resident that wants to increase the size of their fence or wall to seven feet would have to apply for a Minor Exception Permit or a Variance to allow the extra one foot the Building Code allows. For that reason, the City Council felt it made sense to change the Zoning Code to match the Building Code. He noted that staff and the City Council had concerns regarding view impacts as a result of this change, the Fence Wall and Hedge Permit process is a protection in the current Code to minimize view impairment. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff, with this proposed change how are views either continued to be protected, protected less, or are more protected. He asked how this change will protect the community. Director Rojas answered that because the review triggers in the Fence Wall and Hedge Permit are not changing the review process stays the same and whether someone is proposing a five foot tall wall or a seven foot tall wall if the wall meets one of the triggers it still must be reviewed for potential view impairment. Therefore staff does not believe the code change would result in detrimental view impact, as there is a process already in place to address a wall built in certain locations on a property, regardless of its height. Commissioner Tetreault asked, if this is in place, why make the change. Director Rojas answered that this change will prevent property owners who want a seven foot tall fence or wall from having to apply for a Minor Exception Permit or Variance. Commissioner Nelson felt that there will be quite a few seven foot tall fences built that staff will know nothing about, and there has been no discussion on enforcement. He felt it was important that the City take a strong stand on enforcement on these issues. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Tetreault stated that when this came before the Commission previously he was reluctant to support the change, as he was not sure seven foot tall fences are necessarily a good thing and would vote against the motion. Vice Chairman Leon was also not in favor of allowing seven foot high fences throughout the City, and would like to see a little impedance in going from a six foot to a seven foot high fence, which is what the Planning permit process would afford. The motion to approve staff's recommendation, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2014-05 was approved, (3-2) with Commissioner Tetreault and Vice Chairman Leon dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes January 28,2014 Page 4 3. An Amendment to the City's General Plan Housing Element and certification of a Negative Declaration Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining the Commission had reviewed the preliminary draft Housing Element, which was then forwarded to the City Council. He reviewed the changes made by the City Council and stated the preliminary document was then sent to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their review. HCD recommended some minor changes and indicated that with these changes the Housing Element would be certified. He explained that before the Commission is the draft Housing Element with all of the modifications and changes incorporated, and once the Commission approves the document it will be forwarded to the City Council for review and approval. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the Negative Declaration, which focuses on the thirty one in-fill properties projected for the future. Deputy Director Pfost stated that was correct, and noted that all of these properties were addressed in previous environmental documents, either the original General Plan of the City or through their own environmental documents. Commissioner Tetreault asked if any of the thirty one properties are part of the State mandated affordable housing requirements. Deputy Director Pfost explained the State does not require the affordable housing units be built, but rather that the City shows thirty one units can be built in the City. Of those thirty one units, thirteen must be at an affordable rate and the Element must show where these units could be constructed. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the Negative Declaration and the various impacts the construction of thirty one homes might have on the City. He noted the Negative Declaration states the building of the homes will have no impact in terms of several items, including traffic. He asked staff how building thirty one new homes would have no impact on traffic in the City. Deputy Director Pfost explained that the impacts have already been analyzed and addressed in the original General Plan and EIR, as both documents anticipated the development of the City which includes these infill lots. Commissioner Tetreault discussed his concerns with the traffic in the City and how it has become much denser over the years and the City is to the point where we should be doing something to mitigate the traffic, but we're not. He noted that now the City is envisioning more housing and none of it ever seems to be considered a significant impact. However, he felt the reality is that at certain times of the day there are serious traffic impacts throughout the City and it is likely to only become worse. He acknowledged that the City is following State statutes when preparing the Negative Planning Commission Minutes January 28,2014 Page 5 Declaration and following the protocol, however the reality is that these sorts of things are having negative impacts on the community and the City isn't doing anything about it. Commissioner Nelson noted the document states the City is currently using the 2010 California Building Code, when in fact the City is using the 2013 California Building Code. He also questioned the statement in the report that an average of one homeless person is seen in the City every seven months, as he felt there were many more homeless persons in the City. He felt that more must be done for the homeless and was amazed that the document was largely silent on addressing homelessness. He asked that this statement be changed to more accurately reflect the current homeless situation in the City. Deputy Director Pfost explained that this number was given to the staff by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. He also noted that there are other provisions in the report that talk about supportive housing to address homeless issues that are now allowed by-right in the Zoning Code, which were required by the State. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the General Plan Housing Element and recommend it be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration pending modifications and corrections made by the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Nelson noted a spelling error, the change to the 2013 California Building Code, and asked that something be done with the sentence regarding the number of homeless in the City. Vice Chairman Leon noted there are areas in the document that discuss action items that will be done in terms of the document, and felt that many of these items have already been done. He therefore suggested staff look at the things suggested that staff was going to do or will do, as a number of them have been done and the document should reflect that. Secondly, he referred to Section 2-4, which discusses reduced funding due to sequestration. He did not think that is relevant and does not belong in the document. The motion to approve the Housing Element as modified was approved, (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. December 10, 2013 Minutes Commissioner Tomblin noted a spelling error on page 2 of the minutes. Planning Commission Minutes January 28,2014 Page 6 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (5-0). 5. January 14, 2014 Minutes Commissioner Tomblin noted a revision to page one of the minutes. Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved (4-0-1) with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on February 11, 2014 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 28,2014 Page 7