Loading...
PC MINS 20150623 Approved July 28, 201 7111. pp CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nelson at 7:03 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Leon, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Nelson. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Caraveo. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas stated there were no items from the June 16th City Council meeting to report and that at the upcoming June 30th meeting the City Council will consider a change to the method the City processes City Tree Review Permits. Director Rojas distributed six items of late correspondence and an updated map, all related to agenda item No. 5. Chairman Nelson reported on his attendance at the recent Traffic Safety Committee meeting and clarified the status of the Western Avenue Corridor Guidelines plan, as he did not feel the Option D presented to the Traffic Safety Committee was the one the Planning Commission agreed upon and voted for. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of May 26, 2015 Minutes Commissioner Cruikshank moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Leon abstaining since he was absent from the May 26th meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Outdoor Lighting (Case No. ZON2014-00320): City Chairman Nelson noted staffs recommendation was to continue this item to the July 28, 2015 meeting. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the item to the July 28, 2015 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved without objection. 3. Appeal of Grading Permit(Case No. ZON2013-00526): 29073 Palos Verdes Drive East Chairman Nelson noted that staffs recommendation on this item was also to continue the item to the July 28th meeting. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the item to the July 28, 2015 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2015-00112): 26231 Silver Spur Road Commissioner Emenhiser recused himself from this item and left the dais. Commissioner Gerstner noted he lives within 500 feet of this application and therefore he also recused himself and left the dais. Assistant Planner Caraveo presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the property and the proposed project. He noted that has received one public comment regarding the proposed project, which was from a member of the church, who noted that the plans have been reviewed and the church has no concerns with the project. He stated that staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Cruikshank noted the equipment area and the width of the cable tray and the below-grade equipment. He noted the plans say there is 36 inches of clearance and wanted to confirm the required clearance, as this appears to be an ADA path of travel. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2015 Page 2 Director Rojas agreed the plans indicate there is 36 inches of clearance, and suggested the applicant can clarify the clearance for the Commission. Commissioner Leon noted that dimensions, etc., are typically reviewed by Building and Safety, and asked if this plan had been reviewed by Building and Safety. Director Rojas answered that the plans have not yet been reviewed by Building and Safety, but will be if the Commission approves this plan. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Franklin Orozco (representing Sprint) explained that the area Commissioner Cruikshank was referring to is not an ADA pathway, as it is not in the front of the church. He also noted that what is existing at the site was built according to the plans that were reviewed and approved by Building and Safety several years ago. He also noted that Sprint was not aware that the contractor for the previous antennas had not called the City for a final inspection, and only found out about it when they applied for this current request. He stated he has read the conditions of approval, and is in agreement with these conditions. Chairman Nelson stated that the Commission has heard before the dangers of being close to a cell phone antenna in terms of Electro Magnetic Interference (EMI). In looking at this plan it appears that these will broadcast above head level, and therefore there wouldn't be any danger of exposure to the congregation or people who may just be lingering outside the building. Mr. Orozco stated that was correct, noting that there is a wall built around the antennas and there is also an extension that comes out from the church, and the space where the antennas are located is not accessible. Commissioner Cruikshank noted that the front of the church may not be the only place where he ADA access is, as Mr. Orozco implied, but rather the ADA access has more nuances than that. He asked Mr. Orozco if he had anyone confirm that the ADA path of travel is not part of that lower walkway. Mr. Orozco answered that he had not, however that will be clarified through the Building and Safety plan check process. He added that he will highlight this issue with the architect and the engineer. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the project as conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. The project was approved and PC Resolution 2015-11 was adopted, (5-0). Commissioner Emenhiser and Commissioner Gerstner returned to the dais. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 3 5. Final draft General Plan document and Land Use Map Director Rojas explained that what is before the Commission is the entirety of all of the updates that have occurred and been previously approved by the Planning Commission. He stated that staff is looking for the Planning Commission's final affirmation on these changes before the entire packet is combined with the CEQA document and distributed to the public for the 30 day circulation. He noted that this meeting is not the final opportunity to make any additional changes to the text, as the entirety of the Draft General Plan document be back before the Commission on July 28th. He also noted on July 28th the Commission will be asked to move the document forward to the City Council. Senior Planner Kim gave a brief overview of the seven mandatory elements required to be part of a General Plan. She stated the Commission has had fifty nine meetings on the General Plan update since 2002, going over not only this text but also the land use changes proposed to date. In 2013 the Planning Commission approved a draft version of the update, and the changes staff has made from that date to present are based on updated census information, updated fiscal information, updated names, status on projects, and City Council actions within the past two years. In addition, a climate change section has been added as well as references to graphics. She stated these have all been marked with comment boxes in this draft General Plan. She briefly outlined six additional proposed minor modifications to the document, as well as corrections to the figures corresponding with the text distributed as part of the late correspondence. Commissioner Emenhiser referred to Map 14 and asked staff for clarification. Senior Planner Kim explained that the man-made structure focus points on the map match the 1975 General Plan. She stated that what was changed to match the 1978 Coastal Specific Plan were the views in the coastal zone, represented by red fans. She stated the red arrows are part of the 1975 General Plan. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to explain and clarify vistas. Senior Planner Kim explained that vistas are defined in the visual resources element, and are general areas where there is a view of a single element, such as the lighthouse. She added that these vistas could be viewed while walking, driving, or standing, and that the red arrows in the graphic are showing that in the general direction of the arrow there is a view of something. She explained that the Coastal Specific Map is a more detailed map, and for simplicity, rather than trying to make this General Plan graphic as specific as the Coastal Specific Plan map, staff made a reference to the Coastal Specific Plan map to look at the details. Director Rojas added that the General Plan Figure 4 is not what staff is going to rely upon when looking at view corridors, but rather a more detailed map in the Coastal Specific Plan. He also pointed out a notation on the General Plan Figure 4 that makes reference to the Coastal Specific Plan map for determining view corridors. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2015 Page 4 Senior Planner Kim continued with the staff report, noting some last minute updates to the General Plan Land Use Map. She stated the map includes all twenty-one City Council adopted land use changes since 1975, as well as all Planning Commission approved draft land use changes to date. She highlighted the minor changes made by staff. Chairman Nelson noted that at this time he would open the meeting to public comments, however there were no members of the public in the audience. Commissioner Leon referred to the Fire Hazard Map, and noted that he had looked at the County map, and the County does not have the entire City designated as it is in the Fire Hazard Map. Director Rojas stated that the entire City, with the exception of a small area, is under the Very High Fire Severity Hazard Zone, which was adopted by the City Council. He stated that staff will look into this to see why the County has a different map. Chairman Nelson questioned how a neighborhood can be in a high fire designation when compared to an area such as the preserve. Commissioner Gerstner added that this has a big impact on the City because it allows those outside the City to control the City in ways they otherwise might not be able to. Commissioner Leon noted the correspondence from Ms. Bilski and the grammatical errors that she pointed out in the draft document. He asked if those items had been addressed. Senior Planner Kim answered that these errors have not been addressed in this draft document because this draft was distributed before Ms. Bilski's comments were received. She noted that in the late correspondence distributed to the Commission, staffs responses are indicated in red and staff will be making most of Ms. Bilsky's recommended changes. Commissioner Cruikshank referred to page C-6 and the discussion of the traffic and circulation, and asked staff if the information was accurate and up to date. Senior Planner Kim answered that this information was updated based on the Traffic Committee's recommendations in 2010. Commissioner Cruikshank referred to the Fiscal Element, F-10, and asked staff why a list of all the taxes was taken and referred to as other, rather than listing out all of the taxes that the residents are paying. Senior Planner Kim answered there was no particular reason, and that staff can very easily add the list back into the document. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2015 Page 5 Commissioner Cruikshank stated that if removing the list was to make the document shorter, he would rather the tax list be added back into the document. Commissioner Emenhiser suggested added "taking into account the issues of traffic safety" in VR-9, policy 2. He would repeat that in items 2 and 12. He felt this language was necessary as the arrows in the document depicting where people would be looking at the views are emanating from places where people should be looking at lights, cross traffic, and people pulling out of Point Vicente, Wayfarers Chapel and Terranea as opposed to looking at Catalina Island. Commissioner Emenhiser referred to N-8 and asked if the discussion is on vehicle noise, construction noise, or noise in general. Senior Planner Kim responded that the discussion is on noise in general. Commissioner Emenhiser also noted that the document refers to the State when discussing enforcement of noise, and asked if the County should be added. Senior Planner Kim agreed, adding that the purpose of putting State agencies in, was because there are State regulations for noise emissions from vehicles in general. Commissioner Emenhiser referred to N-9 and asked if this discussion was based on a noise survey. Senior Planner Kim responded that it was written in response to a noise study. Commissioner Emenhiser reviewed the section regarding measures to reduce potential traffic noise impacts (N-10) and noted that Palos Verdes Drive South between Hawthorne Boulevard and Portuguese Bend was not listed, and asked staff why it was not listed. He asked if it was possible to add that section of Palos Verdes Drive South to the list of streets. Chairman Nelson agreed. Senior Planner Kim answered it could be added, but pointed out this list was based on a previous traffic analysis done by an outside consultant. Commissioner James pointed out that he lives just off of Palos Verdes Drive South closer to Trump National, and the noise level is no different in that area. Therefore, if something is going to be amended for Palos Verdes Drive South it should be amended for the entire street and not one section. Commissioner Emenhiser suggested adding the entire Palos Verdes Drive South to the City border to the streets listed. Senior Planner Kim responded that staff can make that change. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2015 Page 6 Commissioner Emenhiser referred to page N-13 and suggested either eliminating the reference to the California Highway Patrol, as he did not think they patrol the streets in the City, or say California Highway Patrol and Los Angeles County Sheriff. Senior Planner Kim stated the language would be modified. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that in the Fiscal Element in 1975 there was a statement that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is a low tax, low expense City. Four years ago that statement disappeared when then Deputy Director Pfost presented a draft of the Fiscal Element. He explained that he and the Planning Commission agreed that the language should be put back into the Element. However, in looking at the current version, he noted that the language has once again been eliminated. Senior Planner Kim acknowledged that she could not find that language in the original Fiscal Element, and the only thing she could find that was even remotely similar was under the Goals section No. 1, a statement about holding taxes and assessments to a minimum. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he will look for the language he recalled seeing and send the original wording to staff via email. Vice Chairman Tomblin referred to Figure 16 of the Visual Resource Element and the red designation on Western Avenue and Hawthorne Boulevard. He noted that there is no definition of what major restoration means for that designated area. Senior Planner Kim explained that this language will not affect a property owner's ability to restore or rebuild their existing structure, nor will it change the current zoning development guidelines. She added that the city can attempt to restore views that are obstructed by foliage because of Prop M. She stated that the Element is merely saying that these are areas that the City may want to restore to look as nice as possible. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked that language be added to VR-7 to clarify the intent. Vice Chairman Tomblin then referred to N-12 and N-13, and discussed what he felt was an increase in low flying planes and helicopters over the City. Senior Planner Kim suggested adding language that the City has representatives who attend the LAX Noise Roundtable. Commissioner Leon stated that the Circulation Element has Crest Road going through Rolling Hills, and noted that residents cannot circulate through Rolling Hills. He felt the map should somehow denote that Crest Road is not really a through street for the general public. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2015 Page 7 Commissioner Leon thanked staff for their hard work on this document, but stated, as he had in the past that he felt the document is over-long and includes a lot of rhetorical data. He felt that this is a document that has taken too long to update and in the end is not particularly useful. However, he stated he wants this to be finished and will therefore reluctantly vote in favor of the document. Commissioner Gerstner felt that this document moves the City forward, and agreed that there is a lot of extra information in the document. However, he also felt that there was even more frivolous information in the original document. He felt this document is a step in the right direction, is in favor of progress, and felt this is progress. Commissioner Cruikshank referred to C-55 and suggested that everything be rounded to two digits when referring to acres. He also suggested replacing "man" with "people" in a paragraph on that same page. On page LU-6 he noted a figure of 389.66 in the Table, yet in the verbiage below the figure is reflected at 399.49. He felt the number should match and suggested rounding off that number. He then referred to the top of the page of LU-40 felt that the added "in the future" was redundant and could be taken out. On page C-8 second to last paragraph he suggested a modification to "tunnel system that transfers water." In referring to the maps, Commissioner Cruikshank felt the new San Ramon pipe could be added to Figure 6. Commissioner James agreed with Commission Leon's comment that this document is much too long, is overly bureaucratic, and has platitudes and generalities that he felt were valueless. He did not think the document was user friendly and any useful information in the document is very difficult to find. He felt that because there are so many generalities, the document can support almost any argument about anything. He felt it was very clear that this General Plan is designed to be a plan for the physical development of the City, and not meant to be a constitution for the entire running of the City. He stated there is precious little physical development left in the City and there is not the need for as long a document as has been prepared. He stated there are a lot of goals and policies with a lot of paragraphs and sentences that are not useful. He felt that the City very much needs a fixed procedure for amending this document in the future, and suggested fixed deadlines for compliance with the state law and secondly, in order to meet these deadlines he suggested dividing up the elements rather than trying to attack the entire General Plan at once. He realized his comments may not result in any changes made to the document currently before the Commission, however he felt it would be useful for the staff, the Planning Commission, and for the public if the City starts moving in some of these directions in the future. Commissioner Emenhiser felt this document is far from being perfect, however he felt it was far superior to the 1975 General Plan and congratulated the staff on bring this revision to the Commission so quickly over the past six months. Vice Chairman Tomblin agreed that there should be a way to update the General Plan in a more efficient way, especially with the small amount of land left in the City to be developed. He stated the General Plan is a very important document and anything that Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2015 Page 8 can be done to update it and streamline that process would be an important recommendation. Commissioner Emenhiser moved, assuming a good faith effort by staff to make the corrections and changes noted by the Commissioners, to approve this portion of the draft General Plan and forward the document to the City Council. Chairman Nelson asked if the motion includes the Land Use Element. Commissioner Emenhiser did not think the motion could include the portions that the Commission has not yet seen, but stated it does include the maps distributed by staff. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked if the General Plan should come back to the Commission before being forwarded to the City Council. Director Rojas stated that the motion should be amended, as the draft does need to come back to the Commission before going on to the City Council. He explained that staff will make all of the changes, including those to the Land Use Maps and Exhibits, then circulate the Negative Declaration, after which everything will come back to the Commission for final review and approval before being forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend his motion to tentatively approve the portion of the General Plan that has been discussed this evening with all of the edits and corrections that have been discussed, and that particular attention should be given to the revision and other elements that will be coming to the Commission at the next meeting. Seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. Commissioner Emenhiser explained that the purpose of his motion was that the Commission, unless there is a very good reason, will not revisit this portion of the General Plan at the next meeting. Commissioner Gerstner agreed. The motion was approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner James abstaining pending his meeting with staff in the next couple of weeks. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on July 28, 2015 Director Rojas noted that the pre-agenda for the July 28th meeting was provided to the Commission because there are no items on the July 14th meeting, and a vote will be needed to cancel the July 14th meeting. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to cancel the July 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved without objection. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2015 Page 9 Director Rojas reviewed the pre-agenda for the July 28th meeting and the Commission and the Director felt that the agenda was quite full. Director Rojas felt the item on outdoor lighting could be moved to the August meeting. There was discussion on the view restoration case, noting that these types of cases are very involved and time consuming. However, Chairman Nelson felt it was very important that this item be heard. With that, Director Rojas suggested keeping the view restoration item on this agenda and continuing the General Plan item to the first meeting in August. Commissioner James noted he will be absent from the first meeting in August, and in some ways because he did not participate in the drafting of much of the General Plan, it may simplify things. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2015 Page 10