Loading...
PC MINS 19940510APPROVED 5/24/94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 10, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:08 P.M., by Chairman Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Trent Pulliam, Director of Public Works. PRESENT: Commissioners Hayes, Ferraro, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio. ABSENT: Commissioner Vannorsdall was ill and his absence was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, Associate Planner Jerex, and Assistant Planner Klopfenstein. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF Director Bernard announced that the CEQA Orientation was postponed due to internal scheduling conflicts at David Evans and Associates. Planning Administrator Petru added that Staff would attempt to reschedule the Orientation when Mr. Evans was available and it was convenient for the Commission. B. COMMISSION Commissioner Ferraro mentioned that the City had arranged for her attendance at a 2 -day conference in Costa Mesa on the re -use of former Military Bases. She stated that the information gained was valuable and that she would be preparing a report on the conference. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 1994. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to Approve the April 12, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes, as written, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). B. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 1 Commissioner Hayes made a motion to Approve the April 26, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes, as written, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). C. PLANNING COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT CODE SUB -COMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 1994. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to Approve the April 28, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes, as written, seconded by Vice Chairman Mowlds. Approved (4-0). D. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM/GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY (CIP/GP); City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (TS) Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to remove this item from the Consent Calendar for discussion, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). Director Bernard gave a brief report summarizing the reason for the report (State law) and Planning Staff's findings. Commissioner Hayes felt that the Commission did not have ample time for review. Then Director of Public Works, Trent Pulliam, gave a summary of the Capital Improvement Plan and made himself available for questions. A discussion ensued between the members of the Planning commission, Director Pulliam, Director Bernard, and Planning Administrator Petru regarding some of the details of the Capital Improvement Plan and how the determination should be made as to its consistency with the General Plan. Director Bernard indicated that the State requires that the City annually make a determination that the proposed Capital Improvements Program is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. He explained that the Capital Improvements Program, was not being brought before the Commission to analyze in detail or to vote for a specific Capital Improvement Program. The responsibility of the Commission was to determine whether each and/or all individual improvements are consistent with the General Plan; and, that the Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration during its budget deliberations. Commissioner Ferraro moved to accept the Staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: (5-1) AYES: ALBERIO, FERRARO, HAYES, WANG, WHITENECK NOES: MOWLDS (stating that he did not believe that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 2 E - Capital Improvement Plan followed the General Plan in the area of improving roads because streets were being repaired which were not arterial) NEW BUSINESS A. MISCELLANEOUS HEARING; Kenneth Vukov, 2 1/2 Mustang Road. (DJ) Kim Wang stated that she lives 1,900 feet from the subject property, but felt that she did not have to recuse herself because, pursuant to State law, she felt that the proposed project, if built, would not have a monetary affect (+ or -) on her property of $10,000. Associate Planner Jerex presented the Staff Report. This Miscellaneous Hearing involves a request to build a 33 -inch high parapet wall on a home which is currently under construction at 2 1/2 Mustang Road. This project had a rather lengthy history at the Planning Commission level when a Variance request was filed to allow an encroachment into the front yard setback for a 22' high portico as well as a waiver of certain criteria for second story setback requirements on upsloping lots. The Variance was eventually denied and the applicant worked with Staff to redesign the project to obtain a Staff level approval. This resulted in the project currently under construction which has a maximum height limitation of 161. The applicant would now like to exceed the 16' height limitation to add a 33" parapet wall. This addition would result in the overall height of the structure being 29" over the 16' height. Although the Code allows for certain exceptions to building height restrictions, such as parapet walls, in cases where no view impairment exists, and one comment letter in favor of the project was received, which was included with the Staff Report, Staff does not believe that it was in a position to recommend approval for any additional over -height features on this project under a strict interpretation of the Code and the Commission's earlier (project) direction. Chairman Alberio Opened the Public Hearing. Raymond Medak, (architect representing the applicant) 150 West Sixth Street, #210, San Pedro, CA. Mr. Medak mentioned that he and the applicant had come before the Planning Commission about a year and a half before to request a Variance which was requested and the Variance was denied. He explained several unusual features of the subject lot. Mustang Road bisects the property and there is also a side easement (a 24' easement, compared to the usual 15' to 181) to a flag lot in the rear, which accounts for 50% of the lot coverage area. In general, the site did not lend itself to a normal shaped structure. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 3 Mr. Medak stated that the current request asked for a parapet railing to break up the facade of the building and take away from the vertical height and match the existing parapet wall on the first floor. He emphasized that there is no intention for a balcony, that there is no view, and that there are no neighbors' views being blocked. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked why this parapet wall (or railing) was not in the original design; and, Mr. Medak replied that until the building was well under construction, it was not realized that this feature would be necessary for aesthetic purposes. Kenneth Vukov, (applicant) 2 1/2 Mustang, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Vukov emphasized that his goal was to build a home that was pleasing to the eye and that would enhance the community. Chairman Alberio Closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Hayes expressed her opinion that the building looked attractive without the requested parapet wall. Vice Chairman Mowlds asked what bearing the previous Public Hearing had upon the Staff's recommendation of denial of the current request for the parapet wall. Director Bernard replied that Staff felt that the recommendation for denial was appropriate because to favor the proposal would be apparent conflict with the Planning Commission's direction from the previous Public Hearing on this project. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that he felt the house would look better with the parapet rail. Chairman Alberio commented that Staff followed the proper procedure which is enforcing the Code. Commissioner Whiteneck noted that he was not a member of the Planning Commission during the first Public Hearing on the project and he felt that the parapet wall or rail would add attractiveness to the building. Commissioner Whiteneck made a motion to grant the applicant's request, seconded by commissioner Hayes. Approved by Minute Order (6-0). Chairman Alberio noted that there was a 15 -day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 119 - REVISION "B", PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 663; Edison Co., City Hall Site, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. (DJ) Commissioner Hayes excused herself because she lives within 300 feet of the proposed project. Associate Planner Jerex presented the Staff Report. This request, filed by Southern California Edison, is for three 151 high whip antennas to be added to the existing 801 high monopole located in the City Hall site. Existing tenants on the monopole include PacTel who has five whip antennas on the upper support grid, and L.A. Cellular who has three antennas on the lower support grid. A third company, NexTel, has received approval to construct a third lower tier with three whip antennas. Last month, PacTel received final approval from the City Council to remove the five existing whip antennas and to replace them with the configuration of 11 whip antennas as well as one grid parabolic dish antenna. This new configuration represents PacTel's (now "Air Touch") move from analog to digital technology. Southern California Edison's request for three whip antennas would assist in updating their communication system on the peninsula. The micro -wave emissions which would result from the addition of these antennas, when considered in conjunction with the total buildout proposed by all the tenants on the monopole, is approximately 2,150 times lower than the limit set by the Federal Communications commission, who holds sole jurisdiction for setting power limits for these types of projects. In addition, Southern California Edison has provided sufficient testing and documentation for Staff to recommend that a Negative Declaration be filed for this project. Staff recommends that the project be approved. Chairman Alberio mentioned that he was contacted by Southern California Edison who provided him with photographs and added that the other Commissioners had also been contacted by Southern California Edison. Chairman Alberio felt it was important that the record indicated this contact. Director Bernard explained that there was no violation of the Brown act as long as the Commissioners had not discussed the project amongst themselves prior to the hearing, and that Edison (as well as any applicant) had every right to contact the members of the Planning commission. Chairman Alberio opened the Public Hearing. Scott Gobble, (local area representative for Southern California Edison, the applicant) 505 Maple Avenue, Torrance, CA. Mr. Gobble said that the project before the Planning Commission would improve communication between the trucks working in the field and the main substation, a necessary lifeline used on a day-to-day basis. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 5 mentioned that currently Edison's communication system, of 1940's vintage, was on land owned by the Federal government and the outdated system caused problems because there were areas in which the trucks could not establish communication with the substation. Another advantage of the new system and location was that in the event of brush fires, Edison's communication system would continue even in the event of power outages because there would be generator backup at City Hall. He admitted that the project would have a minor (cumulative) visual impact because of the additional antennas to be placed on the pole. Mr. Gobble reassured the Commission that there was no danger from additional emissions from a electromagnetic field because the radio frequencies are a 60 cycle system which was previously used fifteen to twenty years ago for UHF television and that added that the project manager from Edison, Joe Rabon, was also present for questions as well as Richard Coleman from Motorola who could further address radio frequencies concerns if there were any. Chairman Alberio asked if Edison had a franchise as well as a permit issued by the City. Director Bernard replied that Southern California Edison had both a franchise with the City to operate there and also a lease on the pole from PacTel. Chairman Alberio asked for details regarding EMF (electromagnetic field) and asked if fibre optic cable would be used. Mr. Gobble replied that the EMF is over 2000 times less than ANSI standards, as indicated in the Staff Report, and that there would be no danger to surrounding areas. He added that Mr. Rabon would be better able to address the subject of fibre optic cable. Joe Rabon, (Project Manager for Southern California Edison, applicant) 501 S. Marengo Avenue, Alhambra, CA. Mr. Rabon said Southern California Edison was installing a great deal of fibre optics in support of the operation of the power system but that there would be none at this particular facility. Chairman Alberio asked what would be used at this site. Mr. Rabon answered that Edison would lease a telephone circuit from the telephone company to connect the radio site with the computer control site located in Alhambra, California, and would not require any additional communication facilities to operate the site. He added that the antennas would be placed on the pole for communication with Edison's trucks in the field. Richard Coleman from Motorola was present to answer questions but, since there were no questions, he did not speak. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 6 Chairman Alberio Closed the Public Hearing. Vice Chairman Mowlds made a motion to Adopt the Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of the Negative Declaration for the project; and, also to Adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 119, Revision "B", subject to the conditions as shown in Exhibit "A", seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (5-0-1), with Commissioner Hayes abstaining. Chairman Alberio noted that the Resolutions would be signed that evening and that a 15 -day appeal period would apply. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92 - REVISION 11D111. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1485 - REVISION "A"; Salvation Army, 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopfenstein read the Staff Report. The Salvation Army submitted Conditional Use Permit No. 92 - Revision 11D111, and Grading Permit No. 1458 - Revision "A", to allow a revision to the final grading plan for an Education Conference Center approved by the City Council on May 18, 1993. The Conference Center consists of two independent structures, a two- story conference center and a three-story guest facility with a capacity of 55 persons. At the direction from the City Council, the Salvation Army redesigned the complex to reduce the height and length of the structure. Also, the guest facility was reduced from four stories to three, with a reduction of height to 30' from 421. Unfortunately, when the modification to the height was required, no consideration was given by the designer to the effect this would have on the rear parking lot and associated retaining walls. As a result of tucking the building further into the hillside, the total grading for development of the complex has increased by approximately 6,000 cubic yards of cut. As revised, the total grading is 112,000 cubic yards which will be necessary to develop the Education Conference complex. Staff feels that the increase in grading is necessary to accommodate the reductions in overall building height and is an acceptable and beneficial tradeoff as the additional cut material can be adequately balanced on site. The new retaining walls upslope of the Education Conference area would also be screened by the earthen berm and landscaping from Palos Verdes Drive South. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit - Revision "D1", and Grading Permit No. 1485 - Revision "A", subject to conditions. The architect has brought the model and also has some visual representations of the Conference Center's appearance before the berm is installed, with the berm, and with landscaping on the berm. Don McDougald, a representative from the Salvation Army (the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 7 applicant) and Thomas Hause, the architect representing the applicant were present but, since there were no speakers against the project, they did not speak. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to approve Staff's recommendation to approve the project, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck. Approved (6-0). Recess There was a recess from 8:15 P.M. to 8:25 P.M. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 & 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS); City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Vice Chairman Mowlds made a motion to waive the reading of the Staff Report, seconded by Commissioner Ferraro. Approved (6-0). Section 17.58.010(A)(2) (Recycling Centers) Commissioner Whiteneck wondered if the requirement that recycling machines shall be located within 301 of the public entrance to the primary use on the site would be difficult to meet at some sites. Planning Administrator Petru explained that this was merely criteria for evaluating recycling centers and that a particular site would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. If the criteria could not be met the Planning Commission would have the latitude to modify this criteria. Senior Planner Rojas agreed that if a particular site did not meet the criteria, a Conditional Use Permit would be needed, otherwise, the review procedure would involve a Site Plan Review Application. Director Bernard added that the logic for the criteria to place the recycling machine within 301 of the entrance was because the consumer's focus would be on the entrance and the exit to the site where the recycling machine could be readily seen. He emphasized that this was not a mandatory standard, just criteria. Section 17.58.010(A)(7) [Recycling Centers] Commissioner Hayes asked why a water source was needed and Planning Administrator Petru replied that it would be needed for cleaning the bottles or cans brought to the center which often still have the residue of their contents. Section 17.58.010(A)(11) (Recycling Centers) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 8 Commissioner Hayes suggested that it would be more logical to establish the sound level at 65 dBA, which is the State maximum, rather than 60 dBA. She felt that it would be more practical to place a condition on a project if a stricter noise standard were necessary. Senior Planner Rojas agreed to make this change. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to approve the Sections reviewed by the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved (6-0). REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Pre -Agenda for the May 24, 1994, meeting. B. COMMISSION - NONE COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) - NONE ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Wang, to adjourn. Motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:35 P.M. to its next regular meeting on May 24, 1994. (AJD MINUTES DISK U3 - MINS 10) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 10, 1994 PAGE 9