Loading...
PC MINS 20150526 Approved June ?fp CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 26, 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. Chairman Nelson noted that he would like to adjourn this evening's meeting in memory of fallen comrades that are remembered on Memorial Day. He also noted that on Saturday night's evening news, the news broadcast closed in Rancho Palos Verdes at the moving Vietnam War Memorial at Green Hills. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner James led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, and Chairman Nelson. Vice Chairman Tomblin arrived during agenda item No. 3. Absent: Commissioner Leon was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Public Works Director Michael Throne, and Senior Administrative Analyst Allan Kaufman. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas stated there were no City Council items to report and no items of late correspondence to distribute. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of April 28, 2015 Commissioner James noted corrections to pages 5 and 15 of the minutes. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner James. Approved without objection. 2. Minutes of May 12, 2015 Director Rojas noted a typo on page 1 of the minutes. Commissioner Cruikshank moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner James. Approved without objection. 3. General Plan Consistency Finding for the Capital Improvement Program Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, explaining this item is before the Commission each year as there is a state law that requires cities to determine their CIP is consistent with the their General Plan. He stated staff has reviewed the CIP and believes it is consistent with the General Plan, noting this CIP is essentially the same as last year's CIP. He noted the Public Works Director is available to answer any questions regarding specific projects listed in the CIP and Allan Kaufman from the Finance Department is available to answer any questions regarding funding of the projects. Commissioner Emenhiser noted he had questions about the fiber optic cabling in public buildings, as well as questions in regards to the Western Avenue traffic improvement, the Hawthorne Boulevard right-of-way beautification, the sewer replacement project at Malaga Cove, the corporate storage yard relocation, the utility undergrounding at 25th Street and at Terranea Way, and the arterial rehabilitation at Crenshaw Boulevard and Indian Peak Road. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he did not have questions about specific projects listed in the CIP, but rather questioned how the State mandated 36 percent water reduction would affect these projects. He also questioned if the water from the dewatering wells could be used or recycled in the City in any way. Commissioner James stated that it was his understanding that it was not the Planning Commission's job to either approve or disapprove any of the projects listed in the CIP but rather to make a determination as to whether or not they were consistent with the General Plan. Therefore he had no comments on that issue. He did question if the City's plan to install security cameras on Palos Verdes Drive South was something that should be part of this list. Commissioner Gerstner agreed with Commissioner James' comments. Chairman Nelson questioned what impact Assembly Bill 485 concerning storm water will have on this CIP if it passes the Senate. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2015 Page 2 Director Throne responded to Commissioner Emenhiser's question about the arterial rehabilitation at Crenshaw Boulevard and Indian Peak Road, explaining it would be only that portion of the roadway that is in Rancho Palos Verdes. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned the reasoning and the cost to install fiber optic cable at Ladera Linda and Abalone Cove. Director Throne explained this project is scheduled for fiscal year 17-18 and therefore there is plenty of time for the City to decide to move forward with the project or if there is alternative technology that could employed. Commissioner Emenhiser felt that spending this amount of money, especially at Ladera Linda so a City staff member who goes intermittently to Ladera Linda has internet connectivity, is not a good way to spend the City's money. Chairman Nelson added that next year when the CIP comes before the City he would like to find out the basis for the cost estimate for this project. Chairman Nelson noted that Vice Chairman Tomblin had arrived and taken his seat at the dais. Director Throne responded to Commissioner Emenhiser's question regarding the Western Avenue Traffic Improvement Plan. He briefly explained the project, noting the project is eligible for Measure R funding, and the City is actively working toward receiving the City's share of this funding. He clarified that this project is not connected with the Western Avenue Vision Plan that was recently before the Commission. Commissioner Emenhiser asked for a summary of the Hawthorne Boulevard beautification project. Director Throne explained this is a development of a plan to beautify Hawthorne Boulevard, and goes along with the arterial walls master plan that is currently being developed. Chairman Nelson referred to the sewer replacement project and asked Director Throne how this was a City project and not under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Department or Public Works Department. Director Throne explained that if a sewer line is determined to have less than the appropriate capacity for its use, the City is obligated to increase its capacity. If the sewer line has adequate capacity and needs to be maintained, the consolidated maintenance district of Los Angeles takes care of it. He explained that the two projects in the report are placeholders for Public Works to do an in-depth capacity analysis, and if it is determined the capacity is adequate, these projects will disappear. Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 3 Chairman Nelson asked Director Throne the rationale behind the relocation of the City's storage area. Director Throne answered that the rationale in relocating the corporation yard is that it occupies approximately three acres of prime property that is surrounded by Upper Point Vicente Park, and may not be the best location for the corporation yard. He noted, however, that to move the yard will be a very expensive proposition as there is very little, if any, available property in the City that can serve the same purpose of the current yard. Commissioner Emenhiser encouraged the City Council to consider moving this project to the funded list, noting this is a beautiful piece of property and the maintenance yard currently is an eyesore. Chairman Nelson noted Commissioner Emenhiser's next question had to do with utility undergrounding. Commissioner Emenhiser added that this project has been on the list for quite some time and pointed out the older wood poles that are holding up the lines where all the power to Terranea Resort comes from. He felt this project should be moved to the funded category, as there could be safety issues involved if the poles were to fail. Director Throne explained that the stability and safety of utility poles is something that Edison handles and the underground portion is something the City would have to initiate. He recalled that there is a proposed project to underground utilities at Terranea way that is a smaller project that is not on the CIP as it does not reach the financial threshold. He also noted that at some point this year the Public Works Department will be bringing an underground conversion plan to the City Council to look at prioritizing the undergrounding of some of the major lines in the City. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff about the mandatory 36 percent cut in water usage and what the City will be doing on their end. He questioned if this water reduction will affect any of the CIP projects and asked if the City will be allowing more things to happen such as the use of grey water. Director Throne explained the Governor has placed into law a 25 percent state wide reduction in water consumption through the beginning of next year. What that means for the City is that, based on consumption from last year, the State determined the City needs to be in a 36 percent zone of reduction in order to participate in the state wide achievement of the 25 percent reduction. He explained that last year, as part of the Governor's request of a voluntary 20 percent water reduction, the City cut the water consumption to the parks and public building by about 20 percent. This year, with Council's approval, all of the irrigation controllers will be changed as well as the public toilets and urinals to be more water conserving and efficient. He explained that because of the water reduction, the project to landscape the median on Palos Verdes Drive West has to be modified. In terms of maintenance, he explained that as plants Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 4 that have died or are not doing well are replaced they are replaced with drought tolerant landscape. In terms of permitting, he explained that he and Director Rojas worked together to bring a report to the City Council requesting a reduction in fees for those who want to relandscape their yard or change out their plumbing fixtures to conserve water, which the Council approved. Director Rojas discussed the question of the use of grey water, noting the California Plumbing Code addresses grey water and allows the usage for landscaping with certain conditions and restrictions, and staff is giving this information to residents when requested. He also pointed out that no City permits or approvals are required to replace their lawns with artificial turf. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff about the feasibility of re-using water that is captured by the dewatering wells. Director Throne explained that the water drawn out of the water is directly discharged into the Pacific Ocean, and if the City were to re-use that water for something else it would be considered water supply and new regulations are triggered. He explained that in that situation the City would not only pay the cost to extract water, but it would also pay the cost to treat that water to a certain level that it can be reused in a non-potable fashion. He noted a study done that showed that treating the dewatering well water to bring it to the standards required by the State to irrigate would cost three to five times the cost of purchasing water from California Water Service. Commissioner James asked why the security cameras to be placed on Palos Verdes Drive South was not on this list. Director Throne answered this project does not reach the financial threshold to be included in the Capital Improvement Plan. He stated the financial threshold is $100,000. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to find the 2015 Capital Improvement Plan is consistent with the General Plan, with the exception of the fiber optic cabling project, not including the Abalone Cove Sewer Lift Stations, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he did not feel this particular project was consistent with the General Plan, as he felt it was not financially viable, and asked staff if they had some direction or rationale he might apply to this. Director Rojas stated staff felt the entire 2015 CIP was consistent with the General Plan and did not have any direction he could offer. He noted the General Plan has a number of goals and policies and that the Commission would need to identify a goal or policy that this project might be contrary to or problematic with. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2015 Page 5 Commissioner James understood Commissioner Emenhiser's position, however he could see no reason to divide the project in half, as he could not see how a fiber optic cable half way was justifiable. Commissioner Emenhiser felt it was justifiable to run the fiber optic cable to the lift stations at Abalone Cove, however why a part-time staff member at Ladera Linda needs an $800,000 fiber optic cable run so they can get better internet speeds was his concern. He added that decisions made by the Planning Commission are not things that have to be defended to staff, and he felt this item is being held to a different standard that in the past. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff to clarify why the fiber optic cable is needed at the lift station. Director Throne explained that the current communication setup with the Abalone Cove sewer lift station has a dial-up modem that calls the answering service to say that something may be wrong. He explained that there is no telemetry at the site and staff is not able to monitor or control pumps from any location other than physically going to the site. He stated if there is any problem with the lift station where they may overflow, they are in a very sensitive area that drains readily to the ocean. He also explained that this lift station is one that the City is completely financially and legally responsible for maintaining. He stated that he is very uncomfortable about getting a phone call that there is an alarm on the system and nobody has any idea how long it has been running. He stated fiber optic cabling is very reliable and does not rely on radio signals. Commissioner Gerstner felt that there may be other options rather than fiber optic cabling, however he understood the safety aspect and felt that because of the safety aspect he felt that it was consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed that there is a safety issue in regards to the pump station, however he did not think this communication was required at Ladera Linda to make sure part time staff have access to high-speed internet. Commissioner James agreed with Commissioner Emenhiser that the cost may be out of whack with what this city should be spending to achieve this goal. However, if the Planning Commission is going to get into the business of deciding which projects are too much money, which is something that he assumed the Finance Committee has or is already doing, then he would have to go through this list with much more detail than he has already done. He thought the Planning Commission's duty was to decide if the CIP was consistent with the General Plan, and once that has been determined, the fact that the cost of a project may appear to be too high is not what the Planning Commission should be deciding. With that, he stated he would have to disagree with the motion. Commissioner Emenhiser appreciated Commissioner James' comments, noting that he made those same comments last year during this item. However, he finds himself a year later in a situation where he feels the point needs to be made a bit more directly. Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 6 Vice Chairman Tomblin asked staff if there was a way of taking the cost of this project out and stating the cost is to be determined. Director Rojas responded that it is not in the Planning Commission's purview to get involved in the costs of the CIP project. However, if the Commission's concerns with the project are fiscal, there are General Plan policies about being fiscally prudent. Therefore, the Commission could say they don't believe this project is consistent with the General Plan because it is not fiscally prudent. Chairman Nelson stated there is a pumping station on the corner of Nantasket Drive and Seacove Drive, and he thought there was a way of communicating from that pumping station directly to their emergency preparedness group, and asked how they did that and why the City couldn't do the same thing. Director Throne stated that he understood the concerns of the Commission, and explained that this project will not be actively worked on by the Public Works Department until the funding is approved. He explained that the City Council has essentially put a place holder on the money for a point three years out in the future and when we get closer to that time more research and investigation and a determination will be made as to the validity of the cost estimate and whether or not technology as significantly changed. He also noted the City Council always has the opportunity and the authority at any time to move forward, move backwards, change the scope, or cancel any project. Chairman Nelson felt the Commission was urging staff to look at alternatives for this project, and the Commission has a responsibility to the General Plan for fiscal responsibility and they are calling this item out. The motion failed (3-3) with Commissioners James and Gerstner and Vice Chairman Tomblin dissenting. Commissioner James asked Mr. Kaufman of the Finance Department if this particular item was reviewed by the Finance Committee. Mr. Kaufman answered that the fiber optic cabling issue has not been before the Finance Committee. Commissioner James asked that he report to the Finance Committee that there are a number of Commissioners that are very concerned with this issue, and that this is exactly the type of discussion that should be happening at the Finance Committee level. Mr. Kaufman responded that he will bring the Commission's concerns to the Finance Committee. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2015 Page 7 Commissioner Emenhiser reiterated that he had this very same conversation last year at the public hearing, as well as a private conversation with the staff members afterwards, and he is just trying to be a lookout and stay on top of a project that he does not feel is fiscally thought out. Commissioner James moved to make a finding that the entirety of the CIP is consistent with the General Plan, coupled with a strong recommendation from the Planning Commission that the City Council consider rejecting the fiber optic cabling project, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. Commissioner Cruikshank was reluctant to reject the entire idea of fiber optic cabling, especially in light of Director Throne's comments. He felt the issue should be addressed, however addressing it with this amount of money seems exorbitant. He felt that sending that message may be more important, and would prefer not to reject the entire item. Commissioner James moved to amend the motion so that instead of recommending that the Commission reject the project, staff be directed to recommend that the City Council direct staff to come back with a more cost efficient option to achieve the same goal, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. The motion was approved and PC Resolution 2015-10 was adopted, (6-0). Commissioner Emenhiser stated he voted to support the motion because the Commission's charge is to see whether or not the CIP is consistent with the General Plan. He did not think the fiber optic cabling for Ladera Linda is not consistent with financial prudence nor common sense. NEW BUSINESS 4. General Plan status update Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, explaining the Commission will receive the entire updated General Plan next week for review on June 23rd. He stated that the copy will only highlight the changes that have not been previously approved by the Commission. If the Commission approves this final version, that will be the version that will be used for CEQA review and presentation to the City Council. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that the Commission has been commenting on this for over four years, and asked if all of the comments will be highlighted, or only the recent comments by this Commission. Director Rojas explained that since the Commission has been reviewing and approving revised versions all along, only the most recent comments will be highlighted in this version. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2015 Page 8 Commissioner Gerstner pointed out that the City Council and the public will look at this new version and question what is different between this version and the current General Plan. He stated that if he is going to vote on this new version he would like to see all of the differences between the existing General Plan and the new proposed General Plan. Chairman Nelson felt that the consensus of the Commission was that they wanted to see the old versus the new General Plan, especially for the new members of the Planning Commission that were not involved in approval of the previous changes. Director Rojas agreed that staff would provide the Commission with a strike-out version of the General Plan that shows all changes made to the current version of the General Plan. 5. Crestridge Senior Housing landscape plan update Director Rojas explained that after the two retaining walls were built at the Crestridge Senior Housing project on Crestridge Road, the Commission raised questions about the landscaping of said walls, and that the Commission requested to see the landscape plan for the walls before it is approved. He noted that staff has been waiting quite some time for the landscape plans to be reviewed by the Fire Department and what is now before the Commission are two sheets of the plan showing the shrubs and trees for that specific part of the project. He displayed a plan showing trees and vegetation along Crestridge Road, and reminded the Commission that a past concern had been that the trees planted not block the city view of the neighboring residences above. He also explained staff will ensure the developer installs plants that will cover the walls at the front of the project, and that the vegetation be planted immediately. He stated the City's landscape consultant is currently looking at the plan and will give staff input on what is the best type of vegetation that can go in those walls. Vice Chairman Tomblin recalled his concerns when this project was before the Commission that no retaining walls be approved and built along Crestridge Road, and was assured there would be no retaining walls in the area and it would be a natural grade. Because the retaining wall was ultimately approved, he was worried that going through the process there may be new issues, such as water issues that could hamper the landscaping of the walls. He stated that he would like to see at least an elevation of the area to see what the proposed plants in the walls will look like and some sort of a timeline of the plant growth. Commissioner Gerstner agreed that the Commission needs to see what is going to be planted, noting there were no conditions relative to the walls and felt the Commission should apply conditions relative to the walls. He realized that may not be in the Commission's purview but it was his desire. Director Rojas agreed this was not in the Commission's purview and the landscape plan is not in the Commission's purview, and that this was an informational item only. He noted that the Vice Chairman's concerns are also his concerns and noted that staffs Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 9 approval of the walls was predicated on the fact that they would be hidden by landscaping. Vice Chairman Tomblin understood the Commission has no purview over the landscaping, however he suggested that prior to issuing of the final approval of the landscape plan, the developer submit to staff an elevation plan depicting the plants and a timeline when those plants will be at their full capacity. He would then like staff to submit those elevations to the Commission. Commissioner Gertsner agreed. Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to direct staff that, prior to the issuance of a final approval of the landscape plan, that staff come back to the Commission with a full elevation showing the walls will be fully covered with landscape materials, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. The motion was approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on June 9, 2015 Because there was nothing scheduled on the pre-agenda for the June 9th meeting, Commissioner Emenhiser suggested the meeting be cancelled, and the Commission unanimously agreed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. to June 23, 2015, in memory of those who were remembered on Memorial Day. Planning Commission Minutes May 26,2015 Page 10