PC MINS 20140422 Approved May 13, 2014
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 22, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Leon at 7-03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse
Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner James led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance,
ATTENDANCE
Present,- Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Vice Chairman
Nelson, and Chairman Leon,
Absent- Commissioner Tomblin was excused.
Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn,
and Associate Planner Kim.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented,
COMMUNICATIONS
Director Rojas reported that at their last meeting the City Council heard an appeal of the
Planning Commission's denial of a project on Knollview Drive and agreed to remand the
revised project to the Planning Commission for further review. The City Council also
considered a draft policy for identifying a viewing station for projects in the coastal zone
area outside of visual corridors and continued the matter for further staff refinement.
Director Rojas distributed three items of late correspondence related to agenda item No.
1.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda iterns)*
None
CONTINUED BUSINESS
1. Point View Master Use Plan, six month review (Case No. ZON2010-00087)
Chairman Leon stated he lives within 500 feet of this project and therefore recused'
himself and left the dais.
Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, summarizing the item before the
Commission and the Commission's discussion of the project at their March 251h
meeting. He explained that, based on the Commission's direction, staff has prepared a
resolution, which is now before the Commission for review and approval. He briefly
reviewed the changes that were made to the resolution by staff to reflect the Planning
Commission's direction,
Commissioner Gerstner asked if a small event was limited to the event garden, or if it
could be held anywhere on the property.
Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the Master Use Plan specifies an event
garden area where events are to take place. However, it is not specified that this is the
only area where events can take place,
Director Rojas agreed that the language could be clarified.
Commissioner James stated that at the last meeting there was discussion regarding the
earth toned driveway, and referenced condition No. 39. He asked staff to explain the
added language,
Director Rojas explained that, in reviewing the Commission's previous determination
with the City Attorney, it was her opinion that if it was the Commission's intent to find the
existing driveway to be acceptable, the Commission must be clear that it is determining
the driveway to be an earth tone color as stated in the condition.
Commissioner James referred to the additional ten small events and the added
language "based on no complaints having been received by the City". He questioned if
that language was language suggested by the Planning Commission.
Senior Planner Schonborn stated that there had been some discussion among the
Commissioners as to the acceptable level of complaints, however in crafting this
condition staff needed to identify the criteria for the Director to use in allowing future
events. Staff felt one complaint should be sufficient grounds for the Director to not grant
additional events.
Commissioner James questioned the difference between any complaint versus a
legitimate complaint.
Director Rojas stated that he would look at any complaint and ensure it is a legitimate
complaint before making any decisions.
Nanning Commission minutes
April 22,2014
Page 2
Commissioner James stated that at the last meeting he was in favor of giving the
applicant twenty additional events, and he still feels the same.
Director Rojas stated this is an open public hearing and these topics are open for
discussion and possible changes from what the Commission conceptually agreed upon
at the last hearing,
Commissioner Emenhiser stated he made the motion at the previous meeting, and he
could not recall anything in the motion regarding complaints. He recalled his intent was
to see how the first ten events went and then allowing an additional ten events with
Director discretion. He felt that the current wording would allow just one phone call with
a random complaint, to stop any additional events on the property,
Director Rojas agreed that, as written that could happen. He explained that the City
Attorney wanted the condition to be clear and enforceable, and therefore staff included
a standard into the condition. However, the Commission could change this standard,
Commissioner Cruikshank referred to condition No, 60 and noted the legal judgment on
use of Narcissa Drive states that members of the general public shall not be deemed to
include employees, representatives, contractors, and persons acting on behalf of York
Long Point. He felt that some of the individuals mentioned in condition No. 60 includes
some of those listed in the judgment as being allowed to access the site via Narcissa
Drive. He asked staff if this is in conflict with the judgment,
Director Rojas acknowledged that the court order says that Mr. York's employees,
contractors, and persons acting on behalf of York Long Point can use the Narcissa gate,
However, staff is proposing to restrict these individuals from using the Narcissa gate to
minimize impacts to the neighborhood. He stated it was staff's understanding from the
last meeting that the Commission wanted anyone associated with an event to be
required to use the Palos Verdes Drive South entrance,
Referring to condition No. 54a, Vice Chairman Nelson recalled that the Planning
Commission had agreed that the additional small events would be solely for the use of
Terranea Resort or by charity organizations or for private events held by the property
owner. However, staff's wording states that for private events there will be no
compensation. He felt the current wording made it sound as if the owner could receive
no compensation for charity events or private events, and he would not want this
misread by future Planning Commissions or future staff members. He felt it should be
very specific that the property owner can receive compensation for private events held
by the property owner. Additionally, he felt that if the language states that one
complaint could cancel an additional ten events on the property, there should be some
language to allow an appeal by the property owner. In regards to condition No. 60, he
noted conflicting language regarding the use of the Narcissa gate. He stated he would
like to resolve the conflict in favor of the court decision by saying general public
vehicular access for all event related activities occurring at the cook shack or event
garden area shall be from Palos Verdes Drive South only, Vehicular access to the cook
Planning Cornrnissson Minutes
April 22,2014
Page 3
shack or event garden from Narcissa Drive is limited to emergency personnel,
employees, representatives, contractors, maintenance crews, persons acting on behalf
of York Long Point and its successors, and the personal use of York Long Point and its
successors. The gate at the entry point at Narcissa Drive shall remain closed when not
in use.
Jim York stated he had a concern with condition No. 54a, as he hoped he could have
twenty events approved. He noted that Terranea has compiled a list of events they
hoped to hold over the summer at his property. He explained that it is difficult for
Terranea to schedule and publicize these events to be held in late August or September
if they don't know the City will allow for the extra events. Therefore, he would prefer to
be allowed twenty events. In addition, he did not recall discussion on not being
compensated, noting it costs him money to have the event garden. He also requested
the ability to have unamplified live music available at some of the events. Has asked
that the language be clarified that there are no "legitimate" complaints. Referencing
condition No. 60, he agreed that for every event where the general public is in
attendance everyone will use the Palos Verdes Drive South entrance. This would
include the maintenance crews and workers. However, for other uses on the property
he uses the Narcissa entrance, as allowed by the judgment.
Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. York what he felt the neighbors' primary concern or
complaint was relative to his use or the facilities use of the Narcissa gate.
Mr. York was not aware of any current complaints of his use of the Narcissa gate. He
added that he has offered to help pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the road.
Lynn Swank questioned the use of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, noting that it
appears very easy to change the document at a later date. She noted that with the
limited access of Narcissa gate, there has been no further study anticipating increased
traffic or possible congestion at the driveway at Palos Verdes Drive South. In regards to
the driveway, she noted that the Planning Commission itself imposed the earth tone
color requirement when the project was approved. She stated the only Rancho Palos
Verdes reference she could find that defines earth tone is in the neighborhood
compatibility handbook, and read that definition. She felt that the Commission's
decision will impact projects in the future because of the questionable way the
Commission altered the condition for the benefit of the property owner. She felt the
property owner willfully ignored the condition and there is no doubt his intent was to
have a black asphalt driveway. She urged the Commission to change their decision
made at that last public hearing and require the property owner to comply with the
condition of approval.
Minas Yerelian stated he has no issues with what Mr. York is wanting to do with his
property, however he did have issues with what is called a golf course on the property.
He too felt that Mr. York should be made to comply with the conditions of approval in
terms of the driveway color.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22,2014
Page 4
Vice Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Emenhiser stated it was his memory that it was staff's recommendation
that the current driveway met the intent of the earth tone standard and the majority of
the Commission voted in favor of that.
Director Rojas agreed but noted the City Attorney's subsequent input that the finding
had to be more specific,
Commissioner Emenhiser noted condition No. 39 is now proposed to say that any future
slurry over the driveway will also have to be earth toned. He asked if there was an
earth tone color slurry.
Director Rojas clarified that at the last meeting there was a discussion about what will
be done when the driveway needs to be slurried in the future, and staffs response was
that staff would ensure the owner does the same treatment on the slurried driveway that
is currently there.
Commissioner Gerstner stated there are different types and colors of slurry, however it
is still asphalt and can stand out for reasons other than color.
In regards to the driveway, Commissioner James recalled at the last meeting that staff
stated that the color of the existing driveway was not necessarily an earth tone color,
however staff felt it met the spirit of the decision. In light of the driveway meeting the
spirit of what was intended, it didn't make sense to require the owner to remove the
driveway and replace it with a true earth tone color. He did not think staff said the
current driveway met the standard, and the motion agreed with staff's recommendation.
He felt that now staff was sliding and saying that the driveway is an earth tone color. He
agreed that it doesn't make sense to require the owner remove the driveway at this
time, and he also agreed that the driveway doesn't stand out; however, he did not think
it was earth tone as initially defined. In regards to the number of events, he felt it made
sense to increase the minimum number of people in attendance to not be considered an
event, and allow for an additional twenty events. He again questioned the use of
amplified versus unamplified music in terms of defining an event.
Director Rojas referred to the staff report where the pre-existing condition language
states the use of amplified sound in the form of a disc jockey has been modified so the
criteria is now the use of amplified sound. He noted Mr. York is now requesting that at
some of the requested small events certain unamplified musical instruments be allowed.
Commissioner James felt Mr. York was saying there would be no amplified music and
nothing more than a single instrumentalist.
Director Rojas agreed, and noted that staff will modify the language in the condition if
that is the Commission's direction,
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22,2014
Page 5
Commissioner Gerstner felt the issue was the amount of sound emanating from the
event, and the distinguishing characteristic is amplification versus no amplification. He
did not think it mattered what instruments were being played, as long as they aren't
amplified and can't be heard off of the property. He suggested the condition be worded
so that at these additional small events there be absolutely no amplification of any type.
He also felt that some unamplified musical instruments, such as horns and percussions,
not be allowed as they can be quite loud even without amplification.
Senior Planner Schonborn pointed out that condition No, 68 states that musicians shall
use low volume instruments, which includes acoustic instruments and string
instruments. He felt that this language may be able to be included into condition No.
54a.
Commissioner James moved that the first bullet point in condition No. 64a read,
no amplification, disc jockey, or live music other than low volume instruments '
including but not limited to acoustic instruments and string instruments such as
a harp, guitar, or violin. Seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was
approved, (5-0).
Commissioner Cruikshank moved to remove the phrase "for no compensation"
from the language in condition No. 64a, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser.
Commissioner Gerstner did not recall that the Planning Commission ever directed that
this was anything but a profit making enterprise, and never asked that events be held at
the site for no compensation.
The motion was approved, (6-0).
Commissioner Gerstner referenced the third bullet in Condition No, 54a, and felt that the
language regarding finishing no later than 8 p.m. should be changed to "ends no later
than 8 p.m." so that it is consistent with other language. In addition, he felt that there
should be some language that discusses what is allowed to happen after an event ends.
Vice Chairman Nelson referenced condition No. 70, and read the language as currently
written.
Senior Planner Schonborn suggested using the language in Condition No. 710 and
modifying it for Condition No. 54a so that the language would say "ends no later than 8
p.m. and all guests shall vacate the property by 8:30 p.m. Further, all workers
associated with the event shall vacate the property by 9 p.m".
Commissioner Gerstner moved to modify the language in Condition No. 54a as
stated by Senior Planner Schonborn, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank.
Approved, (5-0).
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22,2014
Page 6
Commissioner Emenhiser moved to change the language in Condition No. 54a to
allow for twenty small events and thereby deleting the bottom bullet point in the
condition, seconded by Commissioner James.
Commissioner Gerstner felt that, based on the very few number of events that have
occurred and the City has to go by, increasing the number of events on the property by
70 percent is a giant leap. He was more comfortable with allowing the additional ten
events with the possibility of adding ten more at the Director's discretion. He also noted
that at the last meeting the applicant had indicated he was good with allowing ten
additional events.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked the Commissioners if they would be comfortable with
allowing fifteen additional events rather than twenty,
Commissioner Gerstner stated that what made him comfortable was the applicant's
statement that ten would be good. He was uncomfortable with saying the applicant
could have twenty, but if something bad happens the City will cancel the subsequent ten
events.
Commissioner James suggested making a change in the definition of events where
currently it defines an event as having more than twenty persons. He suggested raising
the number of allowed persons to twenty five or thirty persons, which will allow for more
small events,
Commissioner Cruikshank stated he was in favor of the motion, noting that the way the
paragraph is currently written in regards to the discretion of the Director based on no
complaints seemed a bit unfair, as anyone could complain. As a business owner he
also understood not having certainty as to whether or not additional events will be
allowed and how to book events with this uncertainty. He stated he does not have an
opinion on the terms of the number of people allowed at a small event.
Commissioner Gerstner liked the suggestion made by Commissioner James, as it
raises the baseline which allows events of up to 25 or 30 people that won't have to be
counted towards the additional small events at the site.
Vice Chairman Nelson stated that applicant has had approximately thirteen events at
the site with no complaints to the City. He therefore was in favor of adding the twenty
events as suggested, with an additional six month review.
The motion to allow for an additional twenty events was approved, (3-2) with
Commissioners Gerstner and James dissenting.
Commissioner Gerstner referred to his earlier comment regarding language that events
occur only at the Event Garden or if they can occur anywhere on the property.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22,2014
Page 7
Director Rojas explained that when the Commission reviewed and approved the project,
the plans and all of the discussion indicated activities would be at the Event Garden.
However, in actuality there can be gatherings at the golf course area or the agriculture
areas. Therefore, if the Commission wants to limit activities to the Event Garden, then
clarification will be needed,
Commissioner Gerstner stated his understanding was that all events would take place
only at the Event Garden, however he noted that the conditions of approval are silent
about an event happening anywhere else on the property.
Director Rojas stated that from a staff's perspective, staff would prefer to limit events to
the Event Garden in that there may be all new impacts created as a result of events
being held on other areas of the property.
Commissioner Gerstner noted that Commissioner James had pointed out to him
another condition that may cover this issue, and he therefore was not going to make a
motion on this subject.
Vice Chairman Nelson stated he would like to discuss condition of approval No. 60
regarding access, and reiterated his earlier comments in regards to what he felt was
conflicting language. He felt language in condition No. 60 was contrary to the court
decision,
Commissioner Gerstner felt the Planning Commission was allowed and had the
reasonable right to restrict use of the Narcissa Gate, per the conditions of this project, in
a way that is more stringent than the court decision. However, he did not object to the
access being consistent with the language in the court decision.
Commissioner Cruikshank agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments.
In regards to condition No. 60, Commissioner Cruikshank moved to remove
"contractors and maintenance crews of event related activities" from the second
sentence of the condition.
Commissioner James noted the next sentence states that the access from Narcissa
Drive shall be limited to the property owner and emergency personnel only. Therefore,
the motion excludes contractors and maintenance crews from both entrances.
Commissioner Cruikshank moved to amend his motion to also eliminate the
sentence "Access to the Point View property from Narcissa shall be limited to the
property owner and emergency personnel only", seconded by Commissioner
James.
Vice Chairman Nelson did not think the modified motion met the intent of the court
decision,
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22,2014
Page 8
Director Rojas suggested deleting the first and third sentence of condition No. 60, and
leave the second sentence as modified, He felt that doing so would meet the intent of
what the Planning Commission is trying to accomplish.
Commissioner Cruikshank moved to amend his motion to eliminate the first
sentence of condition No. 60; modify the second sentence to remove
"contractors and maintenance crews of event related activities from the second
sentence; and eliminate the third sentence, seconded by Commissioner James.
Commissioner Gerstner questioned the word "visitor" in condition No. 60, noting that
since nobody lives on the property everyone might be considered a visitor. He asked
staff if"visitor" was used in the court judgment,
Director Rojas did not see the word "visitor" in the judgment and felt the word could be
eliminated from condition No. 60. He noted the court decision does say "any other
members of the general public",
Commissioner Cruikshank moved to amend his motion to say "any other
members of the general public" rather than "visitor" in the second sentence,
seconded by Commissioner James.
Senior Planner Schonborn summarized the motion that condition No. 60 reads as
follows: Vehicular access to the cook shack / even garden area from Narcissa Drive by
patrons, event attendees, and any other member of the general public is prohibited.
The gate at the entry point along Narcissa Drive shall remain closed when not in use.
The motion was approved, (5-0).
Vice Chairman Nelson referred to condition No. 6a, and asked staff if any part of this
condition has been changed by any decision made by the Commission during this
hearing.
Senior Planner Schonborn did not feel any amendments made affected condition No. 6a
and the six month review.
Commissioner Cruikshank moved to approve condition No. 6a as written,
seconded by Commissioner James. Approved, (5-0).
Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve condition No. 13 as recommended
by staff, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Approved, (5-0).
In discussing condition No. 39, the asphalt driveway, Commissioner Cruikshank felt that
earth tone is really in the eye of the beholder, as the range in color can be quite great.
He noted there is an asphalt sealer that can be put on top of existing asphalt to change
the color from a black to a more earth tone type color. He also noted color can be
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22,2014
Page 9
added to asphalt prior to pouring it to change the color, however engineers often do not
suggest that be done to asphalt used on streets.
Commissioner Gerstner suggested there probably is an asphalt emulsion or slurry that
might more closely match the intent of the Planning Commission's condition. He did not
think it was necessary to do this now, but possibly be addressed in the future when the
road needs to be reslurried.
Vice Chairman Nelson moved to approve condition No. 39 as presented,
seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser.
Commissioner James stated he could not support the motion, as he was not particularly
comfortable in saying the existing earth tone finish of the driveway is a way to solve a
problem. He stated he was not on the Planning Commission when this decision was
made, and he was not aware of all of the reasons for making this decision. He also
noted that he did not find the driveway to be particularly offensive in any way, but he did
not feel it was earth tone in color and he did not think redefining it and calling it existing
earth tone was a proper way to solve this problem.
Commissioner Gerstner suggested modifying the last sentence in condition No. 39 to
say, rather than "shall match the existing earth-tone finish" to "shall be reviewed with the
Community Development Director in advance of placement". He explained that he
could not support the current motion because he did not feel the driveway matches the
earth tone, however he was willing to accept that the driveway should not have to be
redone at this time and when its redone there should be the opportunity to get a color
that is closer to an earth tone color.
Commissioner Gerstner moved to amend the motion to accept condition No. 39
with the change to the last sentence to state that "Any future maintenance,
alterations, slurry sealing, or the like to the portion of the paved internal driveway
described in this condition of approval shall be presented to the Community
Development Director for approval prior to its application to ensure the finish of
the driveway does not contrast with the surrounding area."
Vice Chairman Nelson accepted the amendment, seconded by Commissioner
Emenhiser. The motion was approved, (5-0).
Commissioner Emenhiser moved to adopt the resolution as amended, seconded
by Commissioner Gerstner. PC Resolution 2014-13 was approved, (5-0).
2. Green Hills annual review (Case No. ZON2003-00086): 27501 Western Ave
Chairman Leon returned to the dais.
Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining this item was continued
to tonight's meeting in the hopes the parties involved could reach an agreement. He
Planning Commission Knutes
April 22,2014
Page 10
stated that staff was informed by the involved parties that they are continuing to meet to
try to find solutions that all can agree to. With that, staff was recommending the
Commission continue the public hearing to the May 13th meeting.
The Commission continued the public hearing to May 13th without objection.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Conditional Use Permit Revision, Grading Permit and Minor Exception
Permit (Case No. ZON2013-00328): 2902 Vista del Mar
Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief summary and
background of the project. She reviewed the portions of the project that had previously
been approved by the Planning Commission in 2008 and those portions of the project
that the Commission denied in 2013. She explained the project as currently requested,
pointing out the differences between the two proposals. She stated that staff feels the
proposed changes address the Planning Commission's concerns expressed at the
previous meeting and staff was able to make all of the necessary findings to
recommend approval of the project as conditioned in the resolution.
Chairman Leon disclosed that AGA Associates performed fuel modification plans for
him, however he did not feel this would affect his ability to make an unbiased decision in
this matter.
Chairman Leon opened the public hearing.
Goiton Tekleision (architect) explained that the owners have been convinced to reduce
the square footage of the proposed residence, but noted that in the future an elevator
may be requested because of the steps down to the front of the house,
Eric Lin (representing the property owner) stated the owner is willing to reduce the
house size and the grading quantity to meet neighborhood compatibility requirements.
He stated the homeowners are very willing to work with the City and the Planning
Commission to meet all requirements for their property.
Chairman Leon closed the public hearing.
Commissioners Gerstner and Emenhiser complimented the architect and owner for
working out the issues and both felt that the revisions have resulted in a better project,
Vice Chairman Nelson moved to approve staff recommendation, seconded by
Commissioner Emenhiser.
Chairman Leon moved to amend the motion to allow for a lift from the parking
area down to the property.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22,2014
Page 11
Vice Chairman Nelson accepted this amendment, seconded by Commissioner
Emenhiser.
Associate Planner Kim pointed out that staff would like to review the design of the
proposed elevator before it is approved, therefore she suggested that a condition of
approval be added that a future lift or elevator of some type can be processed as an
over-the-counter application so that it does not have to return to the Planning
Commission with a Conditional Use Permit application.
Vice Chairman Nelson agreed with this language, as did Commissioner Emenhiser.
The motion to approve PC Resolution 2014-14, as amended, was approved, (6-0).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. March 25, 2014 Minutes
Vice Chairman Nelson noted a typo on page 5 of the minutes.
Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded
by Vice Chairman Nelson. Approved without objection.
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS
5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on May 13, 2014
Commissioner Emenhiser requested a status update on the general plan updated be
added to a future agenda.
The Commission approved the pre-agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22,2014
Page 12