Loading...
PC MINS 20150428 Approved May 2F CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nelson at 7:02 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner James led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Leon, and Chairman Nelson. Vice Chairman Tomblin arrived during item No. 3. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Caraveo APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their April 21st meeting, the City Council approved the proposed lot split on Crest Road. The City Council also heard the appeal of the Fence/Wall Permit on Sprucegrove Drive and continued the item to July to allow staff to work with both parties to try to achieve a uniform look for the fence/wall. Director Rojas noted there is a new process to obtain the Planning Commission agenda electronically and that there will be another Leadership Academy this summer and invited Commissioners to participate. In addition, the Director distributed two letters of late correspondence for agenda item No. 2 and three letters related to agenda item No. 3. Chairman Nelson reported on his attendance at the CHOA meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Outdoor lighting (Case No. ZON2014-00320) Commissioner Gerstner noted that staff was recommending continuing this item to the May 12th meeting to give Commissioners Gerstner and Leon an opportunity to review proposed amendments to the ordinance. Commissioner Gerstner explained that he and Commissioner Leon had not had the chance to discuss a date they would like the item to be continued to, but he suggested that it be a later date. He suggested continuing the item to the June 23rd meeting. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue this item to the June 23, 2015 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation (Case No. ZON2014-00493): 5287 Rolling Ridge Road Commissioner Gerstner recused himself from this item, as he's an immediate neighbor, and he left the dais. Assistant Planner Caraveo presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the height variation. He stated there was a comment letter submitted to the city from a neighbor in regards to bulk and mass, and explained that staff feels the proposed design offers relief from the potential impacts that could be caused by a two-story residence of this size. He noted the second story addition is set back from the front of the house and the proposed remodeled house will be located on the existing building pad. He also noted that the residence is not easily visible from neighboring properties, and staff did not feel the bulk and mass of the structure height and overall size of the residence would negatively impact the neighbor's visual character and would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He also explained that the homes in the neighborhood range in size from 3,173 square feet to 8,297 square feet, and the resulting structure size of this proposed project would be 4,411 square feet. He stated staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if the trail mentioned in the correspondence was a proposed trail or an existing trail. Assistant Planner Caraveo answered that it is a proposed trail and there currently is no plan for where the trail will be placed. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 2 Lara Shea (applicant) explained this will be a Spanish-colonial style home on two levels. She stated that she didn't want the home to take over the entire lot, as they also want a nice yard. She felt their proposed home will fit nicely into the neighborhood and asked that the Commission approve the project. Bill Gerstner stated that he is speaking on behalf of himself as a neighbor and asked the Commission not take what he says as anything more than what a neighbor would say and not what a Planning Commissioner might say. He stated that the neighborhood has transitioned over the years, and he felt that a two-story home was compatible with the current neighborhood. He also did not object to the bulk and mass of the home. He noted that on the plans there are no dimensions shown relative to how tall the house is. He explained that the elevations are shown, but the plan does not dimension all of the lines on the house. Because the conditions of approval refer to approval per the plans, he felt it should be clear where those points are in the drawings. Additionally, the conditions of approval refer to the elevations of the house and some numbers that purport to be above mean sea level. However, he knew that they are not actually above mean sea level there as he has had some surveys done on his property that are 150 to 200 feet different from the elevations shown on these plans. Therefore, he explained that he had no objections to the size or bulk and mass of the house, but was concerned that the City has documented what is actually being approved. He stated that he is very pleased that there has been discussion on undergrounding the utility lines. He understood that the owners are not required to do so, but he would like to ensure that everything that is being undergrounded, and encouraged the Commission to add that as a condition of approval. Director Rojas stated staff can add a condition of approval that requires the applicant to put the necessary elevation call-outs on the plans before the plans go into plan check. With regards to undergrounding the utilities, he explained there is a code requirement that all utility lines be underground for new buildings, and that additions to single family residences are exempted from this requirement. He stated that as far as imposing a condition of approval to require undergrounding at this property, that will be up to the applicant as to whether or not they want to agree to such a condition, since it is not required. Ralph Allman (5335 Rolling Ridge Road) expressed his support for the proposed project. Joel Hollingsworth stated he will be the building contractor on this project. He explained that the applicants are actively pursuing undergrounding the utilities, however it does require an easement and they have yet to get one of the neighbors to sign for the easement. Therefore, he did not think the Commission can put a condition on their approval to underground the utilities if they are unable to get the required easements. Carol Kennedy stated she lives across the canyon from the proposed project. She felt that this project is very respectful of the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 3 Lara Shea (in rebuttal) explained she and SCE are trying to get an easement, and she was fairly convinced she will be able to secure easements from everyone involved. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser asked how the Commission can, in this type of situation, encourage undergrounding the utilities without making it a request that could prohibit construction. Director Rojas answered that to achieve that goal it was best not to require undergrounding as a condition of approval, otherwise the Commission will have to craft a very complicated condition that exempts the requirement if certain circumstances arise. Commissioner James moved to adopt staff's recommendation to approve the project. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he would second the motion with a friendly amendment to add a condition of approval stating the applicant is encouraged to place the utilities underground. Commissioner James stated he would not accept the friendly amendment. Commissioner Emenhiser withdrew his friendly amendment and seconded Commissioner James' motion. Commissioner Leon asked Commissioner James if he felt there should be an amendment to require the applicant to include elevations on the plans. Commissioner James asked staff their opinion. Director Rojas stated the Commission could add a condition that requires plans submitted to Building and Safety plan check have the appropriate correct elevation call- outs included on the plans. Commissioner James accepted the Director's statement as an amendment to his motion, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion to approve the project with the added condition of approval was approved by the Commission, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2015-07 (5-0) with Commissioner Gerstner recused. Commissioner Gerstner returned to the dais. 3. Western Avenue Guideline Plan (Tentative) Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 4 Director Rojas explained this is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to participate in some advanced planning for a project that looks out to the future. He explained that the City has heard from residents for quite awhile that not much focus is paid to the City's Western Avenue area. As a result, the City was able to take advantage of some grants to look at improving Western Avenue which resulted in the City developing the Western Avenue Vision Plan in 2013. He explained the City was able to secure an additional grant to move on to step two, which is developing uniform guidelines for the commercial corridor. He stated these guidelines will help shape the look of both the public and private portions of Western Avenue. He explained that the City of Los Angeles is working with Rancho Palos Verdes as a partner in this grant and the idea is to develop a uniform set of guidelines to help guide future improvements in this area. With that, he explained the City is working with a nationally known consulting firm that has done this type of work for many cities. He introduced the consultant, Gaurav Srivastava. Gaurav Srivastava stated that for the past six months he has been working with staff from Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Los Angeles on developing draft guidelines for Western Avenue. He stated he would like to share with the Commission and get their feedback on what has been done to date, the overview and outline of the design implementation guidelines, and a summary of the public feedback. He stated his goal is to have a final set of guidelines by the end of June. He explained that this project is funded by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Sustainability Program, and gave a brief presentation on this program. Mr. Srivastava stated that the two key recommendations from the Vision Plan were to evolve the corridor into a complete street which is usable by everyone and provides safe access and experience for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders and to update the nature of the development along the corridor. He explained that while developing the Vision Plan it emerged that desirable streets are streets that have development sitting on the street edge and having a direct relationship with pedestrians and the public realm. Mr. Srivastava explained that a steering committee is in place and is comprised of agency representatives from Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles, Caltrans, SCAG, and residential and business property owner stakeholders. He also noted that there was a public workshop held in March. Mr. Srivastava described the role and purpose of the guidelines, what the guidelines will do, and what these guidelines will not do. He also noted that the guidelines are organized in two main sections, that being guidelines for private development and guidelines for public right-of-way, and he briefly described the differences. He then discussed the three alternatives that have been included in the document, explaining these alternatives look at ways to address some of the goals and objectives of this exercise. He reviewed Option A, which is potential street improvements with no bikeway; Option B, an option providing street improvements with a bikeway; and Option C, a hybrid approach. Mr. Srivastava presented a summary of public feedback from the workshop that was held in March. These comments were organized into the categories of bikes lanes, traffic, and the urban design of the street. He noted that pedestrian safety was an overwhelming concern of the public. Mr. Srivastava then discussed the Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 5 next steps, giving a timeline of when this package will be presented to the City of Los Angeles, as well as the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council. Commissioner Emenhiser was happy to see there was no discussion on the elimination of a lane of traffic, that there was no discussion on the light rail, and that there was more involvement from the City of Los Angeles. In discussing proposed bike lanes, he noted that Western Avenue is actually quite hilly, and questioned if anyone would really use the bike lanes. Mr. Srivastava explained that there is an existing bike loop around the peninsula, and on the eastern end of that loop there is a disconnect. One of the reasons in proposing this bike lane was to complete that loop and provide bicyclists commercial amenities along the route they currently do not have. However, he agreed that until someone does a more detailed analysis on the amount of potential riders on the street, he did not think a decision should be made. Commissioner Leon felt it was important to remember that Western Avenue is a thoroughfare and if lane sizes are reduced, the cars will travel more slowly. He also noted that the current plan shows parking along Western Avenue which does not exist today. He suggested that parking not be included and to make an attempt wherever possible to reduce the entrances onto Western Avenue. With respect to bike lanes, he felt it was absolutely necessary to separate the bike lane from the traffic lanes in order to maintain Western Avenue as a thoroughfare. He suggested the possibility of having a two-way bike path on one side of the street, which would save eight feet for the street. Lastly, he stated he was ambivalent on the idea of moving the setbacks to the street, as he felt it was the current popular streetscape design that may change in fifteen years. Commissioner Gerstner questioned the process and what would happen if there are inconsistencies between Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Los Angeles on what is desired for the area. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the City is trying to maintain the three options that are shown to try to avoid any potential problem of inconsistencies. She also stated that the two cities are working very closely together throughout this process. Commissioner Gerstner asked if there was any analysis of a hybrid scheme in that there may only be parking on one side of the street or bicycle lanes on only one side of the street. Mr. Srivastava explained that this was not studied, noting the reason was because they are constrained by the presence of the median, which they did not want to move. If the median stays there is only so much space to do anything on either side. He acknowledged this was an interesting point, and they could consider eliminating or relocating the median. He noted that street parking is a service provided to the retail businesses and the input received from business owners was that they valued the street Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2015 Page 6 parking. However, as one goes further north on Western Avenue the value of that street parking diminishes dramatically. Commissioner Cruikshank stated views are a very important consideration, and did not see any graphics regarding how the sixty-foot maximum building height, or how the building being pushed up closer to the street would affect views from Western Avenue. Mr. Srivastava answered there are three specific plans on the Rancho Palos Verdes side of the street that currently determine development on Western Avenue, and each of those specific plans have a unique way of addressing building envelopes and heights, and nothing that this guideline will change the way building heights are currently calculated. Associate Planner Mikhail added that any new proposed commercial building would still have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process, and views would be looked at during that process. She explained that the Guidelines are proposing to reduce the current setbacks on Western Avenue to give more abilities to the developer to building their property within the Guidelines. Commissioner James explained that when he looks at a project like this he tries to look at the big picture and put the minutia somewhere down the line. He noted that Mr. Srivastava had stated in his report that traffic analysis is outside of the scope of the assignment and that the idea is to be volume neutral in regards to traffic. However, when he looks at this, these are the most important questions to him. He explained that it makes a huge difference to him, looking twenty-five years down the road, whether there will be the same traffic patterns seen today, whether there will be a lot more cars, or whether there is some way to make the traffic move quicker or lessen the volume of traffic on Western Avenue. He asked if there is someone who is looking at these issues, since they are not in Mr. Srivastava's scope. Mr. Srivastava responded that Cal Trans will be looking at these issues, but is not doing so at this time. He recognized how important these issues are to everyone involved. He stated that Cal Trans has offered to do a follow-up traffic study to determine the long term impacts for the Guidelines as well as new development along the corridor to see what improvements would need to be made from a traffic standpoint. Commissioner James stated he would trade all of this, including the money spent on grants, to improve the traffic flow on Western Avenue. Director Rojas acknowledged that there is a traffic problem on Western Avenue, and in 2007 there was a study done and a report came out on what can be done to relieve some of the problems. Currently, the Public Works Department is working on obtaining funding to implement those measures. Commissioner Emenhiser felt that parking along the street makes a lot of sense if there is direct access to a business. However, as currently configured, parking on the street Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2015 Page 7 doesn't help if one is trying to get into Sprouts or The Terraces. He felt that allowing parking on one side of the street or a bike lane on one side of the street is a way to save some room and make it easier to move with a hybrid plan. Chairman Nelson asked if the Ponte Vista development was part of, or taken into consideration, when these Guidelines were developed. Mr. Sirvastava answered that Ponte Vista or any other new development was not part of this study. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Glenn Cornell stated he lives in Rolling Hills Riviera, which runs adjacent to Western Avenue. He stated he attended the public workshop in March, and appreciated Mr. Sirvastava's comment that the public comments were diverse and there was no real consensus on any of the three options. He felt this was because nobody supported any of the three options and people are looking for something other than these three options. He felt that people objected to the buildings being so close to the sidewalk. He noted that Western Avenue is a state highway and very few people are interested in walking along it because of the noise and the traffic. He did not feel that the comments submitted by the public at the public presentation were reflected in tonight's presentation, and felt that the consultant was determined to take this concept that might fit into a small village street and make it work along Western Avenue. In addition, he was concerned that a number of the options involved the median strip, and the City would be giving up some median strip for a very questionable benefit. He also discussed the addition of trees and landscaping, and had stated at the earlier meeting that he would like to see some type of funding set aside for the maintenance of the vegetation. Barbara Sattler felt the draft plan and the graphics were very confusing, as the phrasing of a strong street wall lead her to believe there will be a tunnel effect of 42-foot tall buildings which she felt would exasperate noise along Western Avenue. She felt that if this were to be considered a full CEQA evaluation would be needed in regards to the impacts to the community. If the setbacks are to be reduced, she would prefer to see the heights limited to single story. She stated that if there were a situation like that then she liked what was being presented. She felt the parking configurations were very good, and the improvements in pedestrians accents is very, very good. She stated she had concerns in the area of strip malls between The Terraces and Summerland where they were talking about the reversal of the orientation of the parking lot with the buildings. She felt this was a big mistake as that would create a back alley which will be dangerous at night and will be used as a shortcut to avoid traffic. She did not think street parking along Western Avenue was necessary except for the area in front of Peck Park and in front of the housing area in Lomita. She felt street parking was dangerous for bicyclists, it impedes the flow of traffic, and it obstructs the vision entering and leaving parking lots. She suggested using the area for bus turnouts so that busses would not impede traffic, and suggested the traffic lanes all be the minimum width of 11 Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2015 Page 8 feet to accommodate the large vehicles that use Western Avenue. She would therefore like to see a new alternative bike path plan that reflects that type of configuration and she would like to see the illustration reflect something of a single story structure. Chairman Nelson asked Ms. Sattler if she was still of the opinion, as stated in her letter, that Western Avenue is a highway in the middle of suburbia. Ms. Sattler stated that was still her opinion. Jeanne Lacombe stated she was speaking for John McCowan who was not able to attend the meeting. She read a letter from Mr. McCowan which stated he was a member of the Western Avenue Vision Committee and he urged the Planning Commission to vote no on all three options. He felt it would be cost prohibitive to require businesses to relocate their storefronts to the sidewalk, and that these guidelines might guarantee that these businesses don't remodel at all or move out of the area. He felt a better design guideline was needed to improve Western Avenue working with the current location of the businesses. Jeanne Lacombe stated she was personally against all three options and the Rolling Hills Riviera HOA is also against all three options. She stated she was also on the Western Avenue Vision Committee and she quit because she felt she had a lone voice of reason that was being unheard. She explained that while on the Committee she asked what type of budget parameters were involved, and was told there was no budget. She felt it was irresponsible to develop a plan without a scope of budget or thought of financial impact it has on the government budget or that of private businesses and property owners. She questioned why there was no option to leave all of the current businesses and parking lots where they are currently located and just improve what exists. She felt it was because the consultant, who has never been to Rancho Palos Verdes or San Pedro, tried to transform Western Avenue into a destination. She stated Western Avenue is not a destination, but rather a local place for people to shop, dine, and use local services. She asked that the Commission look at options that keep the open aesthetics that Western Avenue currently has because that is what best represents Rancho Palos Verdes. Finally, she commented that in speaking to the Rancho Palos Verdes Chamber of Commerce, she discovered that the Chamber of Commerce promotes only four businesses on Western Avenue, yet they promote 71 businesses in Torrance. She felt that we need to get the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes to patronize the shops on Western Avenue, and we need to improve what is there in order to make that happen. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Ms. Lacombe if she were to present an Option 4, what would it look like. Ms. Lacombe felt it was important to have guidelines for things that can be done now, such as improve the medians and improve the facades of the current businesses in their current locations. She felt that if guidelines could be developed then the city could go out and get grant money and help these business owners improve the aesthetics of Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 9 their businesses. She did not think it was necessary to build a tunnel along Western Avenue to attract people to the City. Chairman Nelson asked Ms. Lacombe her comments on bicycles along Western Avenue. Ms. Lacombe stated bike lanes have recently been added to Westmont Avenue and she never sees anyone using them and did not think the bike lanes would be utilized. Chairman Nelson asked staff about some type of budget. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that staff did ask the consultant to give a very preliminary outlook of the costs associated with these types of improvements. She stated there is a very baseline estimate included in the report and is in no way set in stone. She also noted that it does not include the preparation of plans, traffic studies, and construction costs. Pete Lacombe felt that when you start discussing the details of something then you have already accepted the premise. He stated he does not accept the premise of this. He stated that when you envision Rancho Palos Verdes you see open spaces, vistas, ocean views, Mediterranean architecture, split rail fences, and a lot of greenery. When he envisions San Pedro he envisions a seaport, fishing boats, and a nautical theme and Western Avenue is the glue that binds these two cities. He questioned what the vision committee saw when looking at Western Avenue, possibly Santa Monica or Main Street Disney. He stated Western Avenue is a thoroughfare and not a destination. He encouraged the Planning Commission to conclude, just because time and money was spent and a plan was made, that they must choose from one of the above. He stated it was acceptable to say no to a bad idea. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Lacombe what he would like to see along Western Avenue. Mr. Lacombe felt there was a lot you can do with what is existing on Western Avenue. He stated that when things are set back from the street you get a feeling of openness, and from many points on Western Avenue you can see the hillside and the port. He stated that this question never really came up during the public meetings, and it should have. Peggy DiLeva stated she lives on Pontevedra Drive and her back bank goes down and abuts Western Avenue. She referred back to the last Commission meeting and the item that had to do with cleaning up some zoning issues in her neighborhood and how it had nothing to do with the vision plan. However, she noted in the guidelines that there is mention of revisions to existing zoning codes. She questioned how the City was going to handle these properties where there are weeds on the hillside and maybe the elderly residents can't afford to improve that area of their property. She was very concerned Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2015 Page 10 about the existing traffic on Western Avenue, and knew it would be worse once Ponte Vista is developed. Cacey Jennings stated she lives on Galerita Drive and does not currently support any phase of the revitalization plan as presented and does not support years of currently unsupported construction costs and activity that would interfere with daily lives and could drive out small business. She felt that relying on future grants to support the plan could cause delays in realizing the vision. She did not want increased traffic in the neighborhoods, nor would she appreciate increased non-resident parking in the neighborhoods, which she felt would occur to support the anticipated increased usage of the business district. She also felt that crime in the neighborhoods may increase in response to the increased foot traffic on Western Avenue. She felt the Western Avenue corridor could be improved with smaller and more fiscally responsible changes that will benefit the direct community and RPV as a whole. She felt that some elements of the plan, such as cohesive facades and cohesive landscaping and walkways along the corridor would definitely improve the area, and she would support something like that. Richard Wagoner stated he agrees with all of the public comments made before him. He also strongly disagreed with the idea that moving the businesses closer to the street is the only viable way to have a nice street, and if that were true then Pacific Avenue would be the commercial mecca of the entire area. He stated that the appeal of Rancho Palos Verdes as well as upper San Pedro and South Shores is the feeling of open space and views, not just of the ocean, Catalina Island, and city lights, but of open sky, trees, and mountains. He felt that the current plans throws everything Rancho Palos Verdes and upper San Pedro stands for out the window. He stated the plan creates a tunnel vision for Western Avenue and will look like no other area in Rancho Palos Verdes. He urged a no vote on all three proposals. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Wagoner what his Option 4 would look like. Mr. Wagoner answered that he would take update what is currently there, redo the medians, and make longer turn lanes. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he has heard almost universal praise for unified signage, improvements to the medians, and better landscaping along Western Avenue. He did not think anyone could envision having the current businesses moved up onto the street, and questioned if it was even financially viable. He did not think that people were opposed to moving the business to the street because they were not visionary enough, but rather because they like what they have now. He felt the consultant should realize that this current plan needs a fundamental revision. He stated that he heard that the bike lanes were not necessarily a bad idea, but not at the price of the drivers. He also noted that parking on the street did not seem to be a high priority, yet it was shown in all three options. Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2015 Page 11 Chairman Nelson noted that Vice Chairman Tomblin had arrived and taken his seat at the dais. Commissioner Gerstner explained that he has spent many years in planning, knows what planners are taught, and knows what is generally considered good planning practices and what is considered better planning practices. He referred to the comments that Western Avenue is a thoroughfare and it's not meant to be a destination. Given that, he stated that to the extent it's not a place people are going to go to, then people aren't going to go there. Western Avenue will support the local area and it will be a place where one will pass through, but it will not be a place that will generate increased revenue for the City. He felt that to the extent that you don't make Western Avenue a destination that's worthy of going to on its own merits, it will never be much more than what it is now. He felt that with the addition of the homes across from the cemetery, that population will have to go somewhere, and to the extent that something isn't done on Western Avenue, that population will go through the area and go spend their money down in San Pedro. He would rather it not be that way, and would rather this be something more than all of the other shopping centers in Torrance and Lomita. He would prefer it be someplace where he can park his car and go to several businesses and enjoy. He acknowledged that he doesn't live in this area, and would not want to impose this on those that do. However, if the City wants this area to be more than a place where people merely pass through, then something more will have to be done than just sprucing the area up. He felt the consultant was attempting to do just that. With regards to the specifics in the consultant's plans, Commissioner Gerstner discussed the proposed bike lanes and felt that because this area is on a slope the bike lanes most likely would not get a massive amount of use. He felt that if the bike lanes are to be added at the expense of anything else, then it might be a mistake. In regards to the proposed parking on the street, he explained that in other areas where this type of development has taken place, the areas without the street parking generally have not succeeded. He felt that if there is not some sort of street parking you will lose that quick foot traffic and the businesses will suffer. He stated that the alternative is that this area become more of a destination and try to keep everyone from heading to San Pedro and Torrance, and become more of a center for Rancho Palos Verdes. He stated that he enjoys the times he goes over there, but did not think it felt any different or better than a lot of the places he can go in Torrance. Commissioner James did not feel the thoroughfare works well as a thoroughfare as it currently exists, and that is one of the problems. However, he wasn't sure this vision plan is targeting what the problem is. He felt that what is needed is to focus more on the traffic problems before talking about what to build around that traffic. He questioned if one doesn't know what the traffic will be like tomorrow or ten years from now, how one can decide the right way to construct the lanes or parking in the future. He would rather force Cal Trans to get serious about looking at the traffic issues on Western Avenue. In regards to the proposed bike lanes, he felt that should be kept as an option. He felt the focus should be on where we are going to start, and he favored starting with a traffic Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2015 Page 12 analysis and improving the traffic flow rather than just keeping it the same and accepting it. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he was on the steering committee and noted he drives Western Avenue very frequently. He acknowledged that the traffic on Western Avenue is terrible, there does not appear to be any traffic signal timing, and there does not appear to be any coordination between the two cities and Cal Trans. However, he stated that this is not what is being addressed tonight but rather what is being discussed is putting together guidelines for all of the inconsistencies between both sides of the street. He felt that the public comments were fairly consistent in that they were not happy with the proposed building design. He stated that if that element can be removed, there are so many other elements in the guidelines that can be looked at and commented on that haven't even been discussed, which he felt was unfortunate. He explained that at the two meetings he attended there were several local residents and business owners who were very engaged in the project and the consultant was very interested in what the public had to say. In regards to the guidelines, he felt that the Commission might start by suggesting the recommendation to put the buildings at the sidewalk be removed and then look at all of the other guidelines, which could be simple things that may not be too difficult to accomplish. He felt that there was a lot the City could do with these guidelines to help future business owners make their businesses look nice and attract more customers. Commissioner Leon felt there was plenty of room for consistent street furniture and the choices that are within this plan seem like they would work, and he would definitely be in favor of some of these. In regards to bike lanes, he felt that going to an asymmetric design and minimizing that, and having wider lanes and eliminating parking from the street would benefit Western Avenue as a thoroughfare. He felt that Western Avenue should be a thoroughfare first. He was not in favor of street side buildings which he felt would give Western Avenue a tunnel effect. He stated that he was not in favor of any of the three presented options. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated he too was on the steering committee, and explained this plan would put on this area an overlay which both cities would have to conform to an agreed upon set of building or development criteria that would dictate what goes on along the Western Avenue corridor. He explained that right now the city of Los Angeles can do just about whatever they want in terms of buildings and designs. An overlay would require that any new development that comes forward would have to comply with the overlay laws. Therefore, he felt this process was very important, and the City should take this opportunity to control their destiny along Western Avenue. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to not recommend Options A, B, or C, but rather request Option D, which would include the following components: 1) Seize the current unique opportunity to work with the City of Los Angeles and Cal Trans to improve the Western Avenue corridor; 2) Designate Western Avenue as a thoroughfare first; 3) The first duty should be to ease the traffic for vehicles; 4) Embark on a short-term plan to improve the signage, landscaping in the medians, Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 13 and find ways to fund that; and 5) Include a longer term vision for the future of the corridor. Seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff what voting for an Option D, which currently does not exist, would do to the timeline and schedule. Director Rojas answered that this plan is scheduled to go to the City Council on June 2nd, and that staff would present the Planning Commission's recommendations on that plan. Associate Planner Mikhail added that staff will have to check with the consultant to see if adding an Option D is feasible within their current contract. Chairman Nelson stated that six out of the eight speakers asked that the Commission not vote for any of the three options, and as a result this is what the Commission is trying to reflect in their proposed Option D. Commissioner Cruikshank stated what he heard was the objection to the building envelope and the tunnel effect, however he did not think that everyone was adamantly opposed to all three choices in terms of the traffic lane options. Having worked on various planning documents, he felt Option D was going to be fairly difficult for the consultant to craft the right document for the City. He noted the statement "ease traffic" in the motion is a great statement, but felt it would be beneficial to give more direction on the lane configuration and the bike lane configuration. He noted that the Commission has given no direction to the consultant. His concern was that this will become an issue that just goes back and forth, and felt there should be something more definitive from the Commission giving more direction. He agreed that Western Avenue should be a thoroughfare and traffic can be a nightmare, but he felt that some direction should be given. He felt this would be difficult to do without a traffic study, and a traffic study could change everything. He stated that if he were to choose one of the three options presented, he would choose Option B, as Option C would be very expensive. Commissioner Leon felt that Western Avenue should have a bike lane, and Option B is a non-starter in terms of configuration. He understood Option C is expensive, but felt it can be modified to lower the costs. More importantly, if Option C were modified to put a bike lane on one side and have no street parking for most of the area, that would be an option he could accept. Commissioner Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Cruikshank that moving the street curb back is not only expensive but it can be an extreme nightmare in executing when it's done in pieces. He stated that one does not want to have something that is really horrible for fifty years until it comes to fruition, as one would want something that has some beneficial impact now. He felt Option C reaches too far from a practical point of view, and would never get implemented in a way that it could be used. He stated that Option A is not much different than what is there now, as it does not solve the traffic problems, it does not include a bike lane, and does not really beautify the area. He Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2015 Page 14 stated he would lean towards Option B as a better solution to encourage things to happen. However, he understood what Commissioner Emenhiser was suggesting that Western Avenue be weighted more heavily as a thoroughfare, and that Option B could be modified to incorporate that suggestion. Commissioner James was not sure a motion was needed that the Commissioners agree on, as the public and the Commissioners have all given their opinions. He stated these suggestions have been recorded by staff and will be included in the meeting minutes, and these will be forwarded to the City Council for their review. He therefore suggested that there not be adoption of a motion, but rather all of these thoughts and suggestions be forwarded on to the City Council. He noted that he has heard very little from the businesses along Western Avenue, and was interested in what the business owners have to say. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that the problem for him was that each of the options are fatally flawed and he would defer to the people that live in the neighborhood as to what should be done along Western Avenue. He stated that what the Commission has heard from the public is that neither Option A, B, or C is going to work. He felt the motion was the Commission's attempt to give guidance to the City Council that the Commission did not think any of the three options are going to work. Vice Chairman Tomblin understood Commissioner Emenhiser's comments, but suggested that instead of voting on one option that the Commission take a straw vote on how many of the Commissioners would support A, B, or C which will give the City Council an idea of what the Commission might suggest without a definitive vote and give some direction to the City Council and the consultant. The motion was approved, (4-3) with Commissioners Gerstner, James, and Vice Chairman Tomblin dissenting. Commissioner James explained that he was not terribly against any of the specifics in the motion, he just felt that there were a lot of other things that should be addressed. He stated that he does not favor the idea of trying to bring buildings up close to the street. He also felt very strongly that before picking any of the options, more traffic information, particularly future traffic information, was needed. He would very strongly like to suggest to the City Council that a traffic study is where we should start. Commissioner Cruikshank agreed that the traffic study was very important, not just for Western Avenue, but for surrounding connecting streets. He stated that in the end, the street can be beautified, but if the traffic doesn't move anywhere, what is the point. He stated that regardless of what the Commission does in terms of design guidelines that will not affect the real problem, which is traffic and getting cars through the area. He hoped the City Council hears this message and pushes to get something done. Vice Chairman Tomblin felt it was very important the Commission specifies what they want. He stated that if he had made a motion it would have included the preference for Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 15 Option B without the building envelopes being to the street and that the motion would include an overlay plan for both the city of Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes. He explained the overlay would set the limits and the City would have more control. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on May 12, 2015 The pre-agenda was approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 28,2015 Page 16