Loading...
PC MINS 20170124 Approved 2/14/1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 24, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:04 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 Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Commissioner Bradley was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Senior Planner Kim, Associate Planner Silva, Associate Planner Seeraty, Assistant Planner Lugo, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at their January 17, 2017 meeting the City Council approved a Use Agreement to allow certain improvements within a City easement in regards to a Commission approved new residence at 29425 Palos Verdes Drive East. The City Council also approved a new part-time code enforcement position, and reviewed a staff proposed citywide noise ordinance. Director Mihranian distributed late correspondence for agenda item numbers 5, 6, 7, and 8. He provided the Commission with the 700 Forms that are to be returned to the City Clerk, and informed the Commission that the January 31St City Council staff report on Green Hills annual compliance review is now available on the City's website. Commissioner Nelson reported that he attended the January 23rd Traffic Safety Commission meeting which included an agenda item on the Palos Verdes Drive South traffic study. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Noel Weiss stated he recently reviewed maps of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum and the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. He felt the Commission needs to have a special hearing to review the Conditional Use Permit in general. He noted the terminology in the Master Plan is inconsistent with the terminology that is mandated under State law, which creates an ambiguity, and that a hearing to review the CUP would be beneficial to everyone, including Green Hills. Bernadette Sabath questioned why the City Council didn't want the Planning Commission to hear the Green Hills CUP compliance review. She felt those who know the most about Green Hills should be conducting the compliance review. April Sandell stated she was here to support the speakers in regards to Green Hills. She agreed that terminology is very important for consistency. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of November 29, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Leon. 2. Approval of December 13, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. 3. Approval of the January 10, 2017 Minutes Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The consent calendar was approved, (6-0). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. View Restoration Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00013): 6520 and 30523 Palos Verdes Drive East Director Mihranian presented the staff report, explaining the applicant and the foliage owner have worked out an agreement and have requested to withdraw the item. However, because this was a noticed public hearing the item was required to be agendized. Staff is asking that the Planning Commission receive and file the view applicant's withdrawal request. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 2 Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. April Sandell stated she knew the applicant many years ago and was happy that this item could be settled. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to receive and file the staff report, seconded by Commissioner James. Approved, (6-0). 5. Appeal of Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016-00322): 27501 Western Avenue Director Mihranian reminded the Commission that there was late correspondence on this item that was provided to the Commission in their packets. Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the item before the Commission is an appeal of the Director's approval of a combination wall, water feature, and stairway. She stated the item was continued with direction from the Commission that the applicant provide information related to the number of ground internments, the number of niches, clarification of the area of the proposal, and to provide an updated aerial. She stated the applicant is requesting a continuance to the February 28th meeting so they can continue to compile the information requested by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nelson stated that in reading the City Council staff report for the Green Hills annual review, it was clear to him that the Planning Commission would no longer be involved with decisions at Green Hills. Therefore, he questioned if the Commission would even be hearing this appeal, and asked staff their opinion. Senior Planner Kim explained this appeal is a separate application and independent from the annual compliance review being heard by the City Council. Therefore, this appeal will be heard by the Planning Commission and once a decision is rendered by the Commission it is subject to an appeal to the City Council. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked staff if Green Hills had the ability to continue building what was approved by the Director's decision during the appeal process. Director Mihranian answered that Green Hills does not have the ability to proceed with the construction during the appeal process. Until a final decision has been rendered and all appeal processes have been exhausted, Green Hills cannot submit plans to Building and Safety or commence construction. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Noel Weiss referred to the staff report and the use of the term "burial area". He stated there is no such thing as a "burial area" and this is an example of the ambiguity he discussed earlier. He stated this makes it very difficult for the staff, Commission, and Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 3 Council to measure compliance with the CUP when using terminology that is incorrect, vague, and ambiguous. He stated the correct term is interment. He asked that staff clarify what type of interments are being proposed. He felt that until this was clear and proper terminology was used there was no way for the Director, Commission, or Council to rule on this application. Sharon Loveys stated currently visitors walk up the slope, and questioned why a stairway was necessary. She felt this was just another way for people to have access to the rooftop when Green Hills applies for rooftop burials. Nick Resich stated he is Green Hills Park operations manager. He noted he recently met with City staff and representatives from Rolling Riviera HOA and Peninsula Verde HOA to collaborate on steps to be taken to address potential impacts to the neighbors. He stated Green Hills shared with the neighbors steps they had taken over the past year to curtail noise and other disruptions. Green Hills is also working to provide immediate auditory and visual relief by continuing to talk to both the City and surrounding neighbors about potential options for a barrier and foliage along the north and south property lines. Additionally, Green Hills is continuing to work to gather additional information requested by the Planning Commission. He explained that, in order to be fully prepared to respond to all questions and concerns Green Hills has asked for a continuation of this public hearing to February 28th Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Resich if he had any other comments regarding the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Resich explained that the Green Hills team does things collaboratively, and that the team is trying to do the right thing. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if they had any comments or feedback from the neighborhood meeting. Director Mihranian stated that both he and Senior Planner Kim hosted the meeting, inviting the two neighboring HOAs and the Green Hills staff to come to City Hall to sit down at a table together and begin discussing some of the issues. He stated it was a very productive 2-1/2 hour meeting, and a lot of information was exchanged in an attempt to try to start resolving some of the issues. He briefly reviewed some of these issues, as discussed in the staff report. Commissioner Nelson noted that if one Googles "satellite images"there are many satellite assets that will give one not only measurements of the density at Green Hills but also some very dramatic images of both mausoleums in question. Commissioner Emenhiser moved staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing to February 28, 2017, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (6-0). Commissioner James noted he will not be in attendance at the February 28th meeting. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 4 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Appeal of Fence Wall Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00475): 30931 Cartier Drive Director Mihranian noted there is late correspondence associated with this item, and asked the Commission to indicate whether or not they had visited the site. All Commissioners indicated they had visited the site. Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report, explaining staff had previously determined the applicant would need a Fence/Wall Permit for the proposed wall on the property, and the applicant submitted and had a Fence/Wall Permit approved by staff. He reviewed the appellant's six issues which form the basis for the appeal. He noted that issues 1 through 3 are civil issues, which are not in the City's nor the Planning Commission's purview. He reviewed the required findings to grant a Fence/Wall Permit, noting that staff was able to make all of the required findings. He stated staff was recommending the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's approval of the Fence/Wall Permit. Director Mihranian briefly explained when a Fence/Wall Permit is needed and the process staff goes through when reviewing such an application. He stated that the findings for the Permit are based solely on views and whether there is foliage on the property that can create a significant view impairment. He stated that the issues being raised in the appeal are not germane to the findings that are necessary to be made in order to approve the Fence/VVall Permit. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Matthew Kadowaki (applicant) gave a brief background regarding the background of the area and the wall. He stated that in building the new wall he obtained the required permit from the City. He noted that a trench was dug before obtaining the permit, however the trench was filled in under the supervision of a professional soils engineer. He stated he has followed all procedures from the City and received the approval from the Director. He felt that the allegations for the appeal are irrelevant to the permit. He also noted that the appellant has made these allegations without presenting any evidence to support the claim. He felt that the appellant's accusations and lies are harassment. He asked that the Planning Commission deny the appeal. Chandru Sujan (appellant) stated he presented evidence to show that the permit was issued under false pretenses and should be revoked, as outlined in the Municipal Code. He discussed the survey obtained by the applicant and pointed out what he felt were inconsistencies in the survey. He felt that a grading permit for this work should have been required by the City, as he felt that more than 3 feet of earth was cut and a major water channel was altered. He asked that the Commission revoke the Fence/Wall Permit. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 5 Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked staff if the excavation work done for the wall met the threshold where a grading or other permit would be required. Director Mihranian answered that digging trenches for foundations does not constitute grading. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked what remedy the appellant would have if, in the future, the wall failed and caused damage to the appellant's property. Director Mihranian answered that it would be a civil matter between the two neighbors. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if the applicant provided a properly stamped survey to staff. Associate Planner Silva displayed a copy of the signed stamp that was on the survey provided by the applicant. Chairman Tomblin referred to the appellant's appeal issues specifically that the wall has resulted in civic code violations. He asked if staff has concluded that the wall will now comply with City codes. Director Mihranian stated that staff was able to make that finding. He stated that, as proposed, the wall is in compliance with the Development Code and the General Plan. Chairman Tomblin re-opened the public hearing to allow for rebuttal. Matthew Kadowaki stated he had nothing new to add, however asked that if the appellant introduces something new he would like the opportunity to comment. Chandru Sujan requested the Commission consider stated that the information presented to staff on which the permit is based is incorrect and fraudulent, and therefore the permit should be revoked. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson moved to adopt staff's recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision, seconded by Commissioner James. The motion was approved, and PC Resolution 2017-02 was adopted, (6-0). 7. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00395 : 2 West Pomegranate Assistant Planner Lugo presented the staff report, giving a brief history and description of the Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit and the requested amendments to the Permit as discussed in the staff report. She noted that for the past five years staff has Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 6 received no complaints related to the Pony Club. Staff has also visited the site and found the facility to be very well maintained. She noted that staff has a concern that the proposed increased hours of operation and the arena lighting may impact the surrounding area with regards to the brightness of the lights and the potential noise that may be generated by the extended operating hours. She explained that to address these concerns staff is requiring the proposed lights be shielded, the lighting be directed away from residential properties, and limit the brightness to a maximum of 75 lumens per light bulb, and recommend that the Commission require a six-month review from the date of the City Council's review, at which time the conditions of approval and/or operations may be modified. Commissioner Leon stated that in early 2000 he was a Commissioner for the Pony Club and was responsible for drafting the first application for a CUP. He stated he is no longer associated with the Pony Club and has no conflict of interest. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff what the current hours of operation are for the Pony Club. Assistant Planner Lugo stated the current hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Commissioner Emenhiser noted that staff has suggested mitigation measures for the proposed lights, and asked if staff had received any concerns from the neighbors regarding the lights. Assistant Planner Lugo replied that it was her understanding the applicant has met with the neighbors and discussed the lighting and its potential impacts. Staff was informed by the applicant that the neighbors were satisfied with the proposed mitigation measures. She also noted that staff only received one public comment, which was in support of the Pony Club's request. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked how many houses are in the 500 foot notification radius. Assistant Planner Lugo displayed an aerial photo and estimated 15 to 20 properties were noticed. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated the staff report restricts the lights to 75 lumens, however the applicant refers to 75 watts. He stated there is a huge difference between the two, and asked staff if the lights were being measured by lumens or watts. Director Mihranian answered that staff measures lighting by lumens and proposed to restrict the lighting to 75 lumens per bulb. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if the site affects the landslide with outdoor watering, or if it is in a potential area of influence in regards to the landslide. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 7 Director Mihranian answered that the site is within the active landslide area, however, how this site contributes to the landslide he could not say. Commissioner Leon asked staff to clarify who would hear the six-month review. Director Mihranian explained that Condition No. 16 requires the six-month review be heard by the Planning Commission, and the Commission would then forward a recommendation to the City Council. He explained the Planning Commission is functioning in an advisory role in this case. Commissioner Leon explained that the riding arena was at one time a hole that collected water. On the advice of a local geologist that hole was filled in and capped so that it would no longer collect water and contribute to the landslide. He stated that water now drains to the street and is collected down below. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if the lighting was to be temporary to test the effect of the lighting. Assistant Planner Lugo answered that the lights have already been installed without approval. The applicant was asked to immediate cease use of the lights, which they did. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if the lights shown in the photos in the staff report are the lights that are being proposed. He noted that there are no hoods or shields on these lights. Assistant Planner Lugo replied that these are the lights being proposed. She noted that the lights are now hooded or shielded as the bulbs are tucked back quite a ways into the fixtures. Chairman Tomblin asked if a study was done in reference to the path of light created by these lights. Director Mihranian answered that staff did not require a photometric plan. He explained that when staff was at the site and looked at the number of lights, the size of the light fixtures, and where the spread would be, staff felt that asking this non-profit organization to prepare such a plan may be a cost burden to them. He also pointed out that there is a six-month review where the lighting can be monitored. Chairman Tomblin asked if the lights are incandescent or LED lights. Director Mihranian answered that in looking at the photo it did not appear the bulb is an LED bulb, but rather a fluorescent light. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if staff specified the hours the lights can be on. Director Mihranian stated that the lights can be on until 8 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 8 Director Mihranian stated that there is one item of late correspondence for this item, which is a letter in support of the project. He also asked if the Commissioners had visited the site. All Commissioners except the Vice Chairman had visited the site. Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted that he was unable to get into the area, as he did not have the gate code. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Marilyn Bacon stated the lights are not LED, but rather fluorescent. She explained that LED lights were originally installed, not knowing how bright they would be. She felt this was what caused the complaint from the neighbor. After speaking with the neighbors, she installed the fluorescent lighting as well as the hoods on the fixtures. She stated that currently there are 75 watt bulbs installed. She stated her lighting study was informal, explaining in the evening they would go up and adjust the lights and then go to the different houses in the neighborhood to see if there was any impact. She stated all of the neighbors are satisfied with the way the lights are currently adjusted. She stated the lights are on timers and will go off automatically. She also explained that the Pony Club needs the extended hours, especially in the winter when there is so little daylight. She stated they would like the opportunity to properly exercise and care for the horses in the daylight or under the lights when it is safe. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Ms. Bacon what the purpose of the lights would be. Ms. Bacon answered that the lights are in the riding arena to allow the horses to be exercised. Commissioner Leon asked if the light timer was the type that, once the light is turned on it only stays on for a short period of time, they goes off. Therefore it is only on when someone is using the area. Ms. Bacon responded that was correct. She also noted that the shields were placed on the lights after the complaint was made, as well as changing the lights from LED to fluorescent. She also stated that after the complaint was received they redirected the lights downward. Commissioner Leon noted that in looking on line he found that a light of 700 to 800 lumens is equivalent to a 75 watt light. Chairman Tomblin asked if anyone went down to Palos Verdes Drive South to see if the lights were visible from that area. Ms. Bacon answered that they went down to the Peppertree gate and the lights were not at all visible. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 9 Chairman Tomblin asked if 75 watts was adequate. Ms. Bacon stated that they are happy to have lights and would like to have more, but was not going to press her luck. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if they can change the condition from lumens to watts. Director Mihranian stated that staff can modify condition No. 14(G) to say approximately 800 lumens. He stated staff will be able to monitor the lighting. He also suggested adding language that LED lights be prohibited. Commissioner James noted there are currently two lights per pole, and did not feel what the Commission was being asked to approve was very clear. He asked Ms. Bacon if it was her intention to maintain two lights per pole. Ms. Bacon answered that they are asking for two lights per pole, each light being 75 watts or 800 lumens. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson introduced the members of the audience involved in the Pony Club. Chairman Tomblin re-opened the public hearing. Ms. Bacon asked, if this application is approved, what they have to do for the six-month review. Director Mihranian explained that staff will conduct a six-month review to ensure the Pony Club is in compliance with their conditions of approval. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Burrows stated that the hours of operation of the lighting is not expressly called out in the conditions of approval, and recommended in the motion the Planning Commission consider adding hours of operation for the lighting. Director Mihranian stated that, based on the discussions, he has some amendments to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to accept staff's recommendations, with the modifications that the lights are approved at 800 lumens or 75 watts whichever is higher, that the six-month review be performed by the Director unless the Director recommends the review be brought to the Planning Commission, and the hours of lighting be from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 10 Director Mihranian suggested that condition No. 14(G) be modified to read, the installation of four, 10-foot tall light poles with two light fixtures each to illuminate the two existing corrals. Each light bulb shall not exceed approximately 800 lumens or 75 watts, whichever is greater per light bulb. The light source shall be shielded and not directed toward or result in direct illumination of a parcel, a property, or properties other than the existing two corrals. All lighting shall comply with the outdoor lighting for non-residential use standards under Section 17.56.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. All lighting shall be set to a timer and turned off by 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Emenhiser accepted the language into his motion. Commissioner James questioned if the hours of lighting can be changed, since the notice stated 8:00 p.m. Director Mihranian answered that the Commission's decision is a recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, the hours of lighting can be changed, as this will still go to the City Council. Commissioner Nelson seconded the motion. Director Mihranian also suggested Condition No. 16 be modified to state the six month review shall be performed by the Community Development Director. If modifications to the conditions of approval are recommended at that time, the Planning Commission shall review the Director's recommendations and forward its recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Emenhiser accepted this amendment, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion was approved, thereby approving PC Resolution 2017-03. (6-0). 8. Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2015-00230): 5837 Crest Rd Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report, explaining the item is a status update of the Conditional Use Permit Revision. She gave a brief history, noting that during the public hearings many other issues were brought to the Commission's attention. She explained that Cal Water had submitted information to staff for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, however the information was not sufficient. She noted that because of certain legal issues, Cal Water was not able to supply some of the requested information. She stated staff is working with Cal Water and the adjacent neighbors to draft the environmental document with mitigation measures that should address the overall site operations, as well as the proposed diesel fuel tanks. She presented a revised draft timeline, noting staff will attempt to bring the item to the Commission on April 25, 2017. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if staff was requesting a site plan showing where all of the improvements and items will be taking place. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 11 Associate Planner Seeraty explained staff has a site plan for the fuel tank, but are also expecting a landscape plan with plantings and screenings. She stated that if the Commission would like a site plan showing where all improvement are taking place, they can request that. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Brett Ommen (Operations Manager for Cal Water) stated Cal Water would like to do everything it can to work with the surrounding residents and the City. He stated that many items have been completed while this application is going through the process. He stated that Cal Water has painted the reservoir lawn, worked with the contractors to attempt to limit trips into the field yard, and attempted to reduce the noise and the dust. He explained that Cal Water has had some reorganization, and appreciate the extra time to regroup and address the City's and neighbors' questions and concerns. Joe DeVenuto (HOA President) encouraged the Commission to accept staffs recommendation to defer any decisions to allow the residents, Cal Water, and staff to continue their discussions. He stated that if the Commission should decide to discuss the item tonight, the neighbors strongly oppose the installation of the diesel tank on the property. He also acknowledged the neighbors have no objection to Cal Water being in this location, and encouraged Cal Water to continue finding ways to shield its operations from the surrounding residents and to present a landscape plan to the City. Lastly, he stated the residents do not want to see any type of up-tempo in the operations at the site and do not want this facility turned into an industrial yard. Denise DeVenuto stated that only she, her husband, and another neighbor received the most recent letter from the applicant's attorney, and asked that this letter be disturbed to the other affected neighbors. She noted that three times the letter states that the level and intensity of work at the site is less than it was earlier. She felt that the level was being compared to when the CUP was first issued in 1992. She noted that some of the administrative functions have moved from this location, however, there was a huge uptick in activity in March and April in 2015. She stated this is an on-going situation that has been mitigated to some degree. However, there are still serious dust issues for the neighbors. Minas Yerelian felt that if a fuel tank is put above ground it is a target for terrorism. Regarding the CEQA, he did not think it was valid today as the State regulations are much more severe than those of thirteen years ago. He did not think Cal Water had a vested right at the site, as a CUP is a privilege and not a right. Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Ommen to return to the podium. He suggested Cal Water look into ways to tarp or cover areas of the property and to get screening in place as soon as possible. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 12 Director Mihranian referred to the revised draft timeline, and asked Mr. Ommen if he felt Cal Water would be able to meet these deadlines. Mr. Ommen answered that he felt Cal Water could meet these deadlines. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner James moved to adopt staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing to April 25, 2017, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 9. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on February 14, 2017 Director Mihranian reviewed the items on the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 13