Loading...
PC MINS 20170425 Approved 5/9/17Aitk CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 25, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:07 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Cruikshank led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Deputy Director Kim, Associate Planner Seeraty, Public Works Deputy Director Jules, and Assistant City Attorney Gerli. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Tomblin reported that the City Council appointed Vice Chairman Cruikshank as the new Chairman of the Planning Commission. Director Mihranian reported that at their April 18th meeting, the City Council approved the Settlement Agreement with the Vista Verde Condominium HOA and the next day Noel Weiss, on behalf of Sharon Loveys, withdrew an appeal of the Commission's approval of a columbarium wall, water feature, stairway, and additional internments at Vista Del Ponte and Inspiration Slope areas. He reported that the City Council denied an appeal and upheld the Commission's approval of a Fence/Wall Permit on Cartier Drive; approved the time extension to the Conditional Large Animal Permit for the Ride-To-Fly Program; and initiated Code Amendment proceedings to amend the Development Code so that the replacement of arterial fences and walls comply with a future Master Plan and directed the Commission to develop a Master Arterial Fences and Walls Plan for the Council's future consideration. Lastly, the Director reported that on April 24, 2017 the Traffic Safety Committee reviewed the draft Traffic Analysis for the General Plan Update project and will consider its recommended changes at its May 22nd meeting. Director Mihranian reported that late correspondence for Agenda Item Nos. 3, 5 and 6 was distributed, and that revised Resolutions for Agenda Item Nos. 4 and 5 were distributed, which included wordsmith and grammar corrections to certain findings and conditions. Commissioner Emenhiser nominated Commissioner James as the Vice Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner James was selected as Vice Chairman, (7-0). COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE(regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the April 11, 2017 Minutes Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Bradley abstaining since he was absent from the meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Appeal of View Preservation Notice of Decision (Case No. ZON2016-00015): RPV Estates HOA Director Mihranian presented the staff report, giving a brief history and background of the View Preservation case and reported that the applicant and the appellant are close to finalizing a resolution, and noted that both parties are requesting this continuance. He felt that Staff will be able to come before the Commission in June with resolution and conditions that memorialize the agreement between the parties. He noted there are no public speakers at this time. Vice Chairman James moved seconded by Commissioner Leon to approve Staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing to June 13, 2017. Approved, (7-0). 3. Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2015-00230): 5837 Crest Rd Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 2 Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report. She gave a brief history of the application and the issues that have been brought to Staff's and the Commission's attention during this process. She noted that two status reports have been brought to the Commission, and several meetings between Cal Water staff and the adjacent property owners have been held over the past year. She explained it had been Staff's intention to bring a revised environmental document to the Planning Commission at this meeting, however Cal Water required additional time to obtain the necessary authorizations and budgetary approvals within their organization to proceed with obtaining the conceptual information requested by City Staff. She noted that even though a continuance is being requested, some additional information has been provided by Cal Water. She noted a draft Conceptual Site Plan was recently submitted by Cal Water, and indicated that that the neighbors as well as City Staff have not had adequate time to review this draft plan, and that Staff is in the process of organizing a meeting to review these plans with Cal Water Staff and the neighbors. She stated Staff is recommending the Planning Commission direct the applicant to submit the required information by May 22, 2017 to finalize the proposed site plan and continue the public hearing to September 12, 2017. Commissioner Leon asked Staff if Cal Water has to wait until September to do any additional planting and fence installation on the property. Associate Planner Seeraty did not believe there was any reason for Cal Water to wait until September to do such work. Director Mihranian added that the current CUP does not specify whether or not those types of improvements are allowed, therefore Staff has been communicating to the Applicant and the neighbors that these types of improvements should not be done until both parties can come to some sort of agreement as to what type of planting should be done and where, and what type of fence should be erected and where. Commissioner Leon hoped that this type of mitigation work could get started before agreeing to new terms of the CUP, and the information coming back to the Commission in September. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed, stating that the sooner this can move forward the better. Commissioner Tomblin agreed, and asked Staff if the Commission could deny the request for continuance and hear the item at this meeting. Director Mihranian stated that the continuance is a recommendation by Staff. He pointed out, however, that if the Commission takes action this evening the neighbors' concerns won't necessarily be addressed, the Applicant's initial request to install the above-ground diesel tank would not be approved, and Staff would have to come back with a Resolution memorializing this decision. The Director did not feel that the neighbors and Applicant have had an opportunity to completely address the issues that has caused this application Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 3 to be continued for as long as it has. He stated that Staff would recommend the Commission not take action tonight, and allow Staff to continue to meet with both parties and build some sort of consensus that addresses the issues. Chairman Cruikshank noted a comment in the staff report that there was work taking place at the site during early morning hours, and asked if that work was still taking place. Associate Planner Seeraty answered that it was her understanding that there are emergencies that take place at night, which results in activity at the site. Chairman Cruikshank asked how an emergency is defined. Associate Planner Seeraty indicated that the Applicant might better be better suited to define an emergency, but noted her understanding was an emergency was any work that is not planned as part of their job list. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Brett Ommen (representing Cal Water) stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Leon asked if there are any unplanned activities taking place at the site that could wait until the next working day to take place. Mr. Ommen explained that all routine and planned work is done during normal operating hours. What is constituted as an emergency would be any leaks reported that are causing property damage, damage to the roadway, or causing possible flooding. These situations would be considered an emergency and would be dealt with immediately including after hours. Commissioner Leon asked if there is a regular after-hours staff. Mr. Ommen answered that there is an on-call supervisor. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Ommen if he could give him some sort of sense of, out of 365 days in a year, how many nights there might be an emergency activity. Mr. Ommen answered that was a very difficult question to answer, explaining there could be three or four leaks in one day and then they might go several weeks without any emergency calls. Commissioner Bradley asked if this site is the only site on the Peninsula that is available for spoils storage during emergencies. Mr. Ommen explained that for the four cities on the Peninsula, this site is the maintenance yard. The other properties on the Peninsula contain pump stations or a reservoir site. Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 4 Commissioner Tomblin noted this project has been on the Planning Commission's agenda several times, and questioned why a conceptual draft plan is just now being submitted, and questioned why it took three months to get a draft conceptual plan. Randy Risner (legal counsel representing Cal Water) explained that Cal Water is a very large organization with a certain level of bureaucracy. He stated the local officer here has to send the request for approval of budget funds in order to do a job like this. He didn't think Mr. Ommen wanted to submit a plan to the City that he didn't have some sort of budgetary approval on from the main office, which is in San Jose. Commissioner Emenhiser realized there is history at this site, how Cal Water was there basically before the neighborhood and the neighborhood grew up around the site. He stated that he understood that Cal Water has an important mission to protect our water resources, and appreciated this. He stated that there have been some recent changes on the site, and the neighbors have a legitimate interest in peace and quiet in their neighborhood. He encouraged Cal Water to pay attention to the neighbors, work with the City, and work rapidly to get these issues resolved. Chairman Cruikshank asked Mr. Ommen if he has considered hiring a landscape architect to help with the plans on site. Mr. Ommen explained they have hired a landscaper to identify the species on the site, and what species would grow well and blend in with the natural surroundings. Chairman Cruikshank asked if they were working with an arborist. Mr. Ommen answered that they are working with an arborist. Joe DeVenuto(5822 Scotwood Drive)explained that the neighbors have been addressing the issues at the Cal Water site since November 2015, and the neighbors have been dealing with the issues in regards to the trees and landscaping since March 2015. He stated that he appreciated the Planning Commission's desire to get the issues resolved, and he wanted to make sure the issues were resolved in a way that are equitable to all parties involved. He explained that for over twenty years the neighbors had an agreement with Cal Water to maintain the views so that the neighbors who have a direct line of sight to the ocean could see the ocean. However, in 2013 something materially changed at the Cal Water site, and as a result the trees that were surrounding the property and hiding the unsightliness of the yard were removed. Since that time they have had to fight with Cal Water to get some landscaping reinstalled on the south side of the reservoir, however the eastern side of the area has not been addressed. He stated that whatever landscaping is done actually addresses the neighborhoods' concerns. He stated that the neighbors had heard that in one of the draft proposals there was a 16 foot tall redwood fence, which he stated was not acceptable to the neighbors. He explained that the neighbors are asking that the landscaping be reinstalled, and he has sent multiple requests and photos to Cal Water. In regards to the emergency operations at the site, the main issues of concern is the late night dumping of spoils and the noise of the trucks Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 5 that are doing the work. He stated the neighbors are asking that this late night dumping not be allowed, and noted there is a commercial facility in Torrance where the spoils can be dumped. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. DeVenuto if he felt the situation at the site is getting better or worse. Mr. DeVenuto answered that its better in some ways since 2015, however he noted there was an agreement that landscaping will be coordinated with the neighbors. Some trees and bushes have been removed, and there is again an unsightly view into the operations at the yard. He stated the delivering of the spoils has not changed. He noted that Cal Water has been trying to work with the neighbors, but it is taking an inordinate amount of time. Commissioner Leon asked if there was any kind of a regularly scheduled meeting with Cal Water and the City to discuss the issues. Mr. DeVenuto answered that from February through April of last year there were monthly meetings, which were very beneficial and productive. However, since that time there have not been regular meetings, but with the anticipation that plans and the CUP update would be forthcoming, he indicated that future meetings are anticipated. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. DeVenuto if he has had a chance to look at the latest plan submitted by Cal Water. Mr. DeVenuto replied that he has looked at the plan and felt there were some things on the plan that are not correct. He did not understand where fencing and vegetation were proposed to be placed. He noted that he had hoped that before the next Planning Commission meeting there would be the opportunity to meet with Cal Water and Planning Staff to understand and clarify the plans. Commissioner Tomblin noted Staff's proposed timeline in the staff report, and asked Mr. DeVenuto if he agreed with this proposed timeline. Mr. DeVenuto stated he could agree to this timeline, however if the landscaping were put on more of a fast track and separated from other work, it would be more amenable and would help facilitate many of the issues the neighborhood is experiencing. Then the other issues could be addressed as part of the CUP update. Denise DeVenuto stated that she, as well as many of the other neighbors, remain opposed to having the fuel tank at the site. She felt that the conflict over the fuel tank is an impetus for Cal Water to make light the situation they caused by removing foliage on the site. She also noted that Cal Water, without any notice or warning, has removed several trees on the property that has opened up a clear view of the yard to the neighbors who live on Scotwood. Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 6 David Hanna (5840 Scotwood Drive) disagreed with the stated hours of operation at Cal Water, noting he has documentation of work starting as early as 5:00 a.m. and ending as late as 9:00 p.m. He stated work is continuous on Saturdays and Sundays as well. He noted his property is adjacent to Cal Water, and it is noisy, disruptive, and dusty. He understood Cal Water's responsibilities, but felt the way they are operating is a nuisance to the neighborhood. He too has looked at the new site plan, and stated it was so confusing he had no idea what was being proposed. Commissioner Tomblin noted the suggestion to separate the landscaping and the operational issues, and asked Staff to comment. Director Mihranian noted the assertion that there is a CUP violation on the property, and explained that Staff has not made that determination. Staff does feel the existing Conditional Use Permit does not adequately address the operations that are occurring on the site, which is why Staff has expanded the hearing to address all operations currently occurring on the property. He felt the landscaping concerns could be addressed up front and separately in the next few weeks, and felt once an agreement was reached the landscaping could begin and would be memorialized in the conditions of approval brought forth to the Commission. He noted a meeting is scheduled for May 11 th to resume the conversations between Cal Water, Staff, and the neighbors, and if at that meeting there is some sort of a consensus on the landscaping, Staff can allow Cal Water to do the planting. Vice Chairman James discussed the comments made by the neighbors regarding their dissatisfaction with the progress and how they're having to continue to live with the noise and dust, noting that he would have thought that with the meeting and the efforts to get along with everyone, that some progress would have been made,. He referred to the timetable that Staff prepared, and stated that from now to September is quite a long time, and it didn't seem to him that Cal Water has really stepped up. He asked Staff if there was some way the Commission can require the information be completed and presented to the Planning Commission by June or July. Director Mihranian responded that it is not feasible because Staff has to prepare an updated environmental document that, per CEQA Guidelines, has to be circulated for public review. In addition Staff has to review the plans and the neighbors have requested at least 30 days to review the plans. Factoring that all into the calendar, he felt September 12th is a realistic date. He noted in the Staff report that it was being requested that all of the required information be submitted by May 22nd. He stated that after factoring all that needs to occur to submit the final information, Staff is going to request that deadline date be changed to June 22nd in order to meet the September 12th date. Vice Chairman James asked Staff if there was a way this timeline could be divided in two so that the landscaping can be addressed as a separate, faster issue. Director Mihranian explained that by June 22nd all of the discussions with the neighbors will have taken place, all of the final information will have been submitted to the City, and Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2017 Page 7 Staff will then be able to review this information and perhaps require landscaping to be installed sooner that September. Vice Chairman James asked if Staff can add an agenda item in July updating the Commission that this has indeed happened. Director Mihranian explained the Commission can continue this public hearing to a July date to get a status update from Staff. He suggested language stating the Planning Commission can direct the Applicant to submit the final required information for the Commission's future consideration by June 22, 2017, continue the public hearing to a July date for Staff to provide a status report for final consideration of the application at the September 12th meeting. Commissioner Leon asked Staff if they would be willing to host a monthly meeting with Cal Water and the neighbors to keep this issue moving forward. Director Mihranian suspected that they will be meeting more often than monthly, noting that between May and June they may be meeting on a weekly basis. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Risner back to the podium, and asked him if either he or Mr. Ommen were empowered to accept and bind Cal Water to the dates or whatever the Commission may decide. Mr. Risner stated he does have that authority. He added that the idea of starting the landscaping as soon as possible was a good one. His concern with doing that however, was that without having the Planning Commission's approval of the plan, will there be expensive consequences if something changes. Commissioner Nelson moved to accept Staff's recommendation as amended to state the required information for the Commission's future consideration be available by Thursday, June 22nd and that the Planning Commission be advised of the status on Tuesday, July 11th. Seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (7-0). NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016-00503): 30042 Via Borica Commissioner Tomblin disclosed that he is close friends with the Zak family. However, they have had no conversations about this item, and he felt he could act independently and without prejudice in hearing this item. All Commissioners except Commissioners Bradley and Emenhiser stated they had visited the site. Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 8 Deputy Director Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief presentation on the scope of the project, the need for the Height Variation and Site Plan Review, and noted that Staff was able to make the required findings in order to recommend approval of the project. With that, Staff was recommending approval of the proposed project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Brad Dudley (Applicant) stated he was available for questions. There being no questions, Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon moved staff's recommendation to approve the project as conditioned, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The project was approved, and P.C. Resolution 2017-13 was adopted, (7-0). 5. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2015-00328): 4803 Blackhorse Road Commissioner Leon and Chairman Cruikshank stated they had been to the property. Commissioners Bradley stated he had not visited the property. Commissioner Emenhiser was not able to visit the property, as he could not get past the gate. Commissioners James, Tomblin, and Nelson stated they could not get past the gate but looked at the property from a neighboring house. Deputy Director Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. She noted that houses to the west have a view over the subject property to the east, however these homes are approximately 25 feet higher than the subject property. She showed photos from the home at 4843 Blackhorse, who had concerns with view impairment. She noted the proposed project only impairs views of trees and does not impair any of the protected views of the city lights or mountains. Therefore, Staff determined that there was no view impairment as a result of the proposed project. She noted another concern was with the proposed skylights and the light that may shine through these skylights at night. To address this concern, Staff is recommending that the size of the skylights be cut in half to minimize potential night time lighting impacts. She noted the Applicant has agreed to this, and this condition of approval has been included. She stated Staff was able to make all of the required findings, including neighborhood compatibility, and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman James referred to the skylight on the plans, noting Staffs recommendation that the skylight be reduced by half. He asked Staff which half would be reduced. Deputy Director Kim explained that hasn't been specified yet, however noting that the condition is such where the Applicant must submit revised plans to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 9 Director on how the skylight will be reduced. She explained the idea was to reduce the amount of skylight coverage by half. Vice Chairman James understood the amount of skylight coverage was to be reduced, but he felt it would make a difference as to what side of the ridge the skylight would be located on. Commissioner Nelson asked Staff if there was another home in the neighborhood with a barn-like design similar to this. Deputy Director Kim answered there are no other homes within the twenty closest that share a similar barn-like architectural style, noting that within the twenty closest homes there is no predominant architectural style. She stated that within the twenty closest homes there are examples of Spanish, Mediterranean, and California Ranch style homes. As there is no predominant architectural style in the neighborhood, Staff did not feel this was out of character, especially given this house is at the end of the street and 25 feet lower in elevation from the other homes. She pointed out that the home is not visible to any of the neighboring properties. Commissioner Tomblin referred back to the skylight and asked to clarify where the proposed skylights were located. Deputy Director Kim pointed out three areas of skylights. Commissioner Tomblin asked Staff if they felt any type of tinting on the skylights would help alleviate some of the neighbor's issues. Director Mihranian did not feel tinting of the skylight would alter the nighttime effect of the skylight. Commissioner Tomblin asked Staff if they have gotten a sample of the roof showing proposed roof color. Director Mihranian felt it was too early in the process to get those samples, as these types of samples are usually provided before the Building Permits are issued. He noted, however, that roof color is not a condition of approval for this project. Commissioner Bradley noted this is proposed to be a 30% larger structure than the average within the neighborhood, and would become the second largest structure in the neighborhood. He asked if Staff was concerned it would be significantly larger than the average home in the immediate neighborhood. Deputy Director Kim explained Staff was able to make this finding for a combination of reasons. She explained that for neighborhood compatibility Staff not only looks at the structure size, but how the house is designed on the property and the topography of the site as well. Since this lot is located 25 feet lower than the surrounding properties, it is Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 10 not near the street, and the unique shape of the lot, Staff did not find the house to be incompatible with the neighborhood. She noted this same house on a different lot could have been found to be incompatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Cruikshank referred back to the skylight, and questioned what would happen if a subsequent owner came in and put in up-lighting below the skylight. Director Mihranian felt that if lighting was installed to up light the skylight, it would adversely affect the neighboring properties, as it would start to illuminate the nighttime sky. He felt adding a condition to address this, however, would be very difficult to enforce. In looking at the aerial photograph of the neighborhood, Chairman Cruikshank did not see many other houses in the neighborhood with skylights. He asked if that was correct. Director Mihranian answered that was correct, noting it is reflective of the time period in which these houses were built. Commissioner Emenhiser stated this lot is quite a bit larger than the average lot size in the neighborhood, and this should be taken into consideration when looking at a larger home. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. James DeRosa (Applicant) stated that Staff has addressed every argument he would have addressed in regards to support of this project. He referred to Slide 2 of his PowerPoint presentation which showed the proposed brown color of the roof. He noted the skylight will be a dark bronze color. He went to Slide 4 which showed their proposed reduction of the skylight. He explained the ridge skylight is over a hallway and it is difficult to be flexible with whether the skylight goes to one side or the other since it is almost the width of the hallway. In regards to neighborhood compatibility the lot size is three and one half times larger than most of the lots in the neighborhood. The house is not that much larger than the other houses in the neighborhood, and in comparison to the lot size, it is not that much larger. He stated there are skylights in the neighborhood, but they are much lower and most are a which dome style skylight, which he felt acts like a headlight. He stated he called several skylight companies and none make any type of film that can be added to prevent light from emitting from the skylight. Patsy Gloor (4843 Blackhorse Rd) indicated that she understood the proposed construction height is within the City's Guidelines, so she did not contest its legality. However, she did contend that since 1965 to the present she has seen only the small northern tip of the ridgeline, which has made it seem like there is no house. She will now see the entire roofline and the skylight above the ridgeline. She felt the skylight will give the appearance of a solar array, which she finds unattractive. She was also concerned that the artificial light coming up and out of the skylight will impact her view of the City lights. She noted the she was not contacted during the early neighborhood consultation, Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 11 and it was only after the flags were erected that she knew action was imminent. She stated she was concerned about the impact on her property values. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Staff if a public notice was mailed out for this project. Deputy Director Kim answered that a public notice was mailed out to properties in a 500 foot radius, including Ms. Gloor's property. Commissioner Bradley asked Ms. Gloor if the skylight were to be removed from the plan, would the new ridgeline still be objectionable to her. Ms. Gloor realized the property owners were proposing an addition that is within their legal rights to build this house. However, she did feel the skylight looks like solar arrays which are not very attractive. Commissioner Nelson reiterated Commissioner Bradley's question as to whether or not Ms. Gloor would still object to the structure if the skylights were taken out of the plan. Ms. Gloor felt it would be much nicer to just have the solid roof and not what looks like a solar array attached to it. She noted the other three skylights have been put on the far side of the roof so they will not be in her view. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. DeRosa to return to the podium and asked him if, architecturally, solar tubes could be used rather than skylights. Mr. DeRosa noted that solar tubes have a dome type shape and he felt would be more noticeable and unpleasant to view rather than the proposed skylight. Commissioner Nelson did not think there was any skylight that does not emit light at night, and asked Mr. DeRosa if he was aware of a skylight that did not emit light at night. Mr. DeRosa stated with all skylights one will see interior lights. However, the amount of light that is seen varies, as some skylights produce almost a beacon of light. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman James asked if there could be some sort of retractable device inside the house that could block off the night time illumination effect. Director Mihranian stated this is not something that has been proposed, but it is something the Commission could consider. He pointed out, however, that the use of a retractable at night would be difficult for Staff to enforce. Vice Chairman James asked if the skylights that face the Gloor property could be removed, keeping the skylights on the other side of the ridge. Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 12 Director Mihranian felt that putting the skylights on the other side of the ridge might make a difference to the Gloor property. Chairman Cruikshank reopened the public hearing. Commissioner James asked Mr. DeRosa to return to the podium, and asked him if he felt the skylights could be placed on the other side of the ridge, with no skylights on the Gloor side of the ridge. Mr. DeRosa stated the owners would be amenable to putting the skylights on the one side of the ridge, as long as they could keep the eight-foot length. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon noted that doing this may protect 4843 Blackhorse, however the skylight will then show to the property next door at 4349 Blackhorse. He wondered if doing this would be protecting one property at the expense of another. Commissioner James noted that the neighbor at 4349 Blackhorse did not contact Staff with objections. Commissioner Leon added that there are a number of other skylights on this side of the ridge, and the homeowner at 4843 Blackhorse commented that the other skylights were not a problem. Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, with the amendment that a condition be added in regards to the color of the roof, which is to be a lightweight brown or slate colored roof material, and that no skylights are permitted on the roof, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Tomblin explained that of the skylights proposed, one is in the master bathroom that has a large window that will allow quite a bit of light. In regards to the skylight in the hallways, he felt that hallways could be internally lit. Because of where this property is located, he felt the skylights would have too much of an impact on the neighboring properties. He also felt there were other opportunities to allow natural light into the residence. Commissioner James stated he would vote against this motion, explaining that he was not aware of any Ordinance or Code provision in the City where one could not have skylights. He felt that requiring the skylights be limited, modified, or moved was a better idea. Commissioner Bradley agreed with Commissioner James, noting that while he agreed the Commission might want to help look for a resolution for the neighbors, this was a bit overreaching for the Commission to do. Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 13 Commissioner Leon stated he was not against skylights, however he was against skylights when they significantly impact another person's property. He felt it was the purview of the Planning Commission to work on the externals and not the internals. In this case, he felt that if the skylights were modified as discussed there would not be a significant impact to the neighbors. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Leon's statement. He did not think the Planning Commission should be designing these projects. He felt that the modifications agreed to by the Applicant are a good idea. Commissioner Nelson did not think skylights should be put up against a city light view. Chairman Cruikshank noted the Commission does tell Applicants how to design their projects when they require opaque glass or some other similar modification to the project. He was not sure how asking for modifications on skylights was any different. The motion was approved, and P.C. Resolution 2017-14 was adopted, (4-3), with Commissioners Leon and Bradley, and Vice Chairman James dissenting. NEW BUSINESS 6. Review of the Draft 2017 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Public Works Deputy Director Jules presented the staff report, explaining the proposed draft of the 2017Capital Improvement Program. She stated this was an opportunity for the Planning Commission to preview the list of projects and provide comments to Staff, and this item will return to the Commission on May 9th in order for the Commission to make a General Plan consistency determination. She explained the staff report has project summary sheets created by Staff, as well as a spread sheet which lists all of the proposed projects for the year and the current proposed budget and future outlying years. She referred to page 2 of the staff report, which identifies the proposed capital projects and the continuation of existing projects. Chairman Cruikshank felt it was important for the Commission to look at these projects as how they will affect the community from a planning perspective. Even though he is an engineer, he did not think it was in the Commission's purview to get into engineering details. Commissioner Bradley referred to the work sheets, and noted the numbers don't correspond with the spread sheet. Deputy Director Jules was aware of that, noting this is a new software program created by Staff and that is a glitch in the program that is being worked out by Staff. Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 14 Commissioner Bradley referred to the revenue sources on the worksheets and asked Staff where this was coming from. Deputy Director Jules explained that Staff does project their revenue sources and has a good idea of the amount of projected revenues. Deputy Director Jules began with the ACLAD Sewer System Rate Study and Telemetry, briefly explaining the project. The Commission had general questions about the project and its funding. Deputy Director Jules discussed the PVIC Parking Lot Lighting Project, explaining the origination of the project at the upper dirt lot and briefly described the project details. She noted this is a proposal that would mirror the design and installation of the lighting at the lower parking lot. Commissioners Emenhiser and Tomblin noted their concern with lighting and the problems that have resulted in improper lighting. They hoped that this project would adhere to all current city standards. Commissioner Leon expressed his concern with the proposed budget cost of the item, as did Commissioner James. Chairman Cruikshank felt it would be nice to know how Staff came up with the assumptions and estimates on costs. He also felt the more information the Commission can get on the actual projects in the future will be helpful. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Miss Jordan stated that she had some questions on the technology being proposed as part of the ACLAD project, noting that the City should be on the forefront of technology. She questioned if the City was collaborating with the City or County of Los Angeles, and noted the County may have money available for funding projects. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Deputy Director Jules discussed the Palos Verdes Drive West Beautification Project, and Chairman Tomblin asked if this project should be combined with the arterial walls and fences master plan previously discussed by the City Council, so that there is a developed and aesthetic uniformity that includes sidewalks and residential walls. Director Mihranian stated that the arterial fences and walls master plan addresses the fencing that is tied to the existing tracts. Chairman Cruikshank felt that anywhere landscaping and improvements can be done for beautification without the need for walls would be beneficial. Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 15 Commissioner Emenhiser was in support of any projects that can be done along the City's arterials that will beautify the City. Deputy Director Jules discussed the Crenshaw Boulevard Arterial Road Rehab project. Commissioner Tomblin discussed the parking problems in the area of Crest Road and Crenshaw Boulevard, and asked if these types of plans will address these parking issues. Deputy Director Jules stated that the Public Works Department was aware of the parking issues in the neighborhood, and has been working with the Sheriff's Department on enforcement as well as addressing the issues with some temporary measures. Vice Chairman James asked if the Crenshaw Boulevard project was being done in conjunction with the cities of Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates. Deputy Director Jules stated that the project is not being done in conjunction with the other two cities. She explained that Staff coordinates with the neighboring cities when it comes to the capital projects. She stated that, in terms of Crenshaw Boulevard, there is no project that she is aware of that Rolling Hills Estates is implementing within the next year that would be coordinated with this proposed resurfacing project. Deputy Director Jules then went through the remaining projects on the spreadsheet, briefly explaining their scope, cost, and their funding sources. Commissioner Emenhiser briefly asked for clarification on some of the projects, asking for a bit more description on some projects as well as possible photos. He also suggested providing a map of the City and pinpointing where the projects will be located in the document to be more user friendly. Per the Planning Commission rules, Commissioner Nelson moved to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (4-3) with Commissioners Emenhiser, Bradley, and Vice Chairman James dissenting. Commissioner Nelson noted that Deputy Director Jules did not present the capital improvement program that is on the spreadsheet, as she did not discuss several lines on the spreadsheet. Commissioner Leon commented on the dewatering wells, noting that ACLAD has quite a history on the wells in the area. Deputy Director Jules agreed, noting that Staff now has a different approach in siting the wells. Commissioner Leon did not feel that most of the general public was aware of all of the license plate cameras in the City, what is being reported, and what is being done with the Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 16 data. He felt the new cameras need to be done in a very transparent way and felt having this program as a single line item in the CIP program was burying the issue. Commissioner Tomblin commented on the Ladera Linda Community Center Master Plan and Civic Center Master Plan, stating that as a Planning Commissioner he could not endorse these items in the CIP until the City Council makes a decision on going forward with the projects. He agreed with Commissioner Leon's comments in regards to the cameras, however acknowledged that the cameras are doing a good job in helping with crime. Vice Chairman James indicated that he felt that the cameras have been extremely successful in helping with crime in the City and that the program is one that should continue to be supported. Chairman Cruikshank asked if the cameras can piggyback with the ALPR system, and has the City thought about putting the cameras in the public right-of-way rather than on the backs of the HOAs so that it benefits the entire community and not just the HOA. Deputy Director Jules was aware of discussions where the City may try to help the HOAs procure the cameras and placement of the cameras. She stated the right-of-way is an option and Public Works would assist HOAs in obtaining Encroachment Permits if needed. Chairman Cruikshank noted there is quite a bit of work going on in the City, and asked who coordinates all of that activity and when does the City say enough is enough, as there is too much going on. Deputy Director Jules explained that the Public Works Department coordinates all work in the public right-of-way through their permit process, noting there is a combination of CIP projects and permit related projects, which are usually utilities. She noted the Public Works Department does not have any control as to when the utility companies schedule their work, but can condition their work to restrict their working hours. Commissioner Nelson moved to receive and file the report, with comments from the Commission, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on May 9, 2017 The pre-agenda was approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 17 The meeting was adjourned at 11:18 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 25,2017 Page 18