Loading...
PC MINS 20080826 Approved October 9, 0 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:10 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tetreault led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: Tomblin was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as modified to hear items 2, 3, 1, and 4 COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the August 19, 2008 City Council meeting the Council denied an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a View Restoration Permit on Crest Road. They also denied an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a Height Variation on Rolling Ridge Road. .Director Rojas distributed 26 items of correspondence for Agenda item No. 2. Commissioner Knight reported that he had received two emails regarding Agenda Item No. 2, and forwarded these emails to staff. - Chairman Perestam noted that he also received two emails for this agenda item. Vice Chairman Lewis reported that he met with the applicant for Agenda Item No. 1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Grading and Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2008-00091) Director Rojas explained that staff met with the applicant and the applicant has submitted a letter requesting a continuance. He explained that with the recent CVS acquisition of Longs Drug Stores there are issues still being resolved regarding the business transactions and the applicant felt that he would not be able to answer many of the questions being asked by the public and staff at this time. Therefore, the applicant has requested a 30 day continuance of the public hearing. Therefore, staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to October 14, 2008. He noted that he does have 14 requests to speak, and even though the item may be continued, the speakers may still wish to speak at this time. Andrew Huanq, 28424 Lomo Drive, stated that he is opposed to the proposed development. He stated that in reviewing the environmental documents he found three flaws that should be brought to the Commission's attention. He felt that the traffic analysis presented by the applicant is inaccurate, as it did not include the direct competition of customers with 7-11. Therefore, the number stated overstates the amount of traffic and therefore bias the results in favor of the CVS development. Secondly, as a result of this overstatement, he felt that staff has erroneously filled out the related check list in regards to impact to traffic, noise, and air. Thus, the current mitigation and Environmental Study is inaccurate. Thirdly, he felt the cost of clean up of the site and the liability was over stated. Because underground tanks should be in compliance with State codes, there should not be any problems with spills and leaks, and if there are minor spills the clean-up should be minimal. He felt the report overstated the liability of clean-up in favor of the applicant. Based upon those three considerations, he recommended the Planning Commission deny this application. John Freeman asked that the Planning Commission base their decision for this project on the General Plan. He felt the issue is how this project fits in terms of zoning and the .General Plan. He read excerpts of the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan. Joan Davidson did not think the CVS project fit into the proposed site, as the store will be quite large on a fairly small lot. She didn't think the traffic study took into account any of the heavy school traffic that occurs. She didn't think the proposed project should be allowed in a residential neighborhood. Connie Semos did not think approval of this project would be in the public's best interest. She felt that the founding fathers of the City envisioned a residential community of neighborhoods with a commercial center clustered in designated areas. Planning Commission Minutes August 26,2008 Page 2 She felt that any commercial development at the subject site will contribute to the congestion at the corner and to the incidental commercial development of residential neighborhoods. She did not think the corner was unsuitable for residential use, though it may take a little effort and creativity to make it happen. As an example, she suggested building bed, board, and care units on the property. She felt that a positive recommendation to the City Council would be accommodating the needs of one Rancho Palos Verdes family to the detriment of the neighborhood. Bill Semos, 6512 Monero Drive, felt the real issue before the Planning Commission is the zoning issue. He stated that the property is zone residential and should remain so. He felt that rezoning the property to commercial will affect the surrounding neighbors by the reduction of property values, increased congestion, and possible increased urban blight. Kathy Tyndall stated that the proposed building is too big. She was also concerned with the fact that liquor will be sold at the CVS store. Shao Hu stated that he bought his property here because of the residential neighborhoods and the fact that the commercial uses are concentrated in one location at the shopping center. William Parker, 28018 Santona Drive, stated that he is not in favor of the proposed zone change. He was concerned that there will be too many pharmacies in a small area, and that some will end up closing, and questioned what will happen then. Chad Hagel requested that if any of the public speakers have raised questions with the Planning Commissioners, he would appreciate that the Commissioners let him know either through this public forum or through staff as soon as possible to give him time to formulate responses at the next meeting. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Hagel if he could expand on the reason for the continuance request. Mr. Hagel explained that based upon the communications received from the public after the announcement of the Longs acquisition by CVS, it was his feeling that everyone deserves to have their questions answered. Given the nature of the acquisition, there .was not the ability to have a representative from CVS attend this public hearing to respond to the questions regarding the planning operations of the two facilities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to the October 14, 2008 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Knight stated that Mr. Huang raised issues regarding the environmental studies that he would like the applicant to respond to at the October 14th meeting. Planning Commission Minutes August 26,2008 Page 3 The motion to continue the public hearing to October 14, 2008 was approved, (6- 0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00218): 28926 Doverridge Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the height variation. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight noted that a new balcony was proposed and felt that it was creating a viewing area that is not currently present on the property. He felt that this balcony looks directly down into the neighbor's back yard. He questioned why staff was not concerned with privacy issues from this balcony. Director Rojas explained that staff's position was that, given the terracing of the houses on the street, one already looks down on the neighboring house from the applicant's property, and that this new feature would not add any more visibility to the neighboring property than there already is. Commissioner Knight felt that the balcony is an added element not currently in place on the applicant's residence. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Mary Deley (applicant) explained that currently they can look out their dining room window onto her neighbor's yard. She explained that the proposed second story balcony is actually set back from the property line. Commissioner Knight asked the applicants if they had shown the plans to the neighbor and if the neighbor had any comments about the proposed balcony. Ms. Deley answered that the neighbors have seen the plans and have been very supportive. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to approve the height variation as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that there is a corrected Resolution which shows there is 33 percent lot coverage rather than 39 percent lot coverage. Commissioner Knight stated that he still has a concern with the privacy issues to the neighbor and that he could not support the motion. Planning Commission Minutes August 26,2008 Page 4 Chairman Perestam noted that he also has privacy concerns from the balcony, however he did not think it was enough of a concern to vote against the project. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he was going to vote in favor of approval of the project based upon the applicant's representation that they have had an open discussion with the neighbor and the neighbor has seen the balcony element and voiced no opposition to it. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-29 thereby conditionally approving the height variation as presented by staff was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 1. Green Building Program Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report explaining that at the June meeting the Planning Commission had directed staff to prepare proposed code language for incentives for voluntary green building programs, establish application procedures, prepare code language for renewable energy systems, revise the code language for lot coverage, and revise the definition of landscaping to include permeable artificial landscaping. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if everything being proposed is voluntary or if anything is required. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that there are two components to the process. She explained that there is the voluntary green building program which includes the incentives, and there is also additional requirements proposed to be incorporated into Title 15 of the Municipal Code requiring people to do certain things for future photovoltaic installation and to incorporate air quality measures into their plans for Building and Safety plan check. She also noted that staff is proposing to amend sections of the Development Code, which includes lot coverage and artificial landscaping. Director Rojas added that the suggested changes to the Building Code are not within the Planning Commission's purview and were included in the staff report for informational purposes. These items will be presented to the City Council along with the amendments that are within the Commission's purview. Commissioner Knight added that the items on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report are building code changes that are not before the Planning Commission, but are additional information. The items listed on pages 4 through 9 contain the proposed language that is before the Planning Commission for review. Planning Commission Minutes August 26,2008 Page 5 Commissioner Tetreault referred to page 8 of the staff report, and noted that this is to apply to all zoning districts within the City. He noted the language that roof mounted equipment will not cause significant view impairment from adjacent properties. He explained his concern with the inconsistencies in the code regarding view impairment in regards to condominium projects and apartment buildings. He felt that the proposed language which states the equipment will not cause significant view impairment for all zoning districts was going further and further into the inconsistencies. He stated that at some point these inconsistencies have to be cleaned up and he would like to be able to work with staff and the City Council to do this. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed, adding that there are different standards in the various zoning districts in regards to significant view impairment, and that this language seemed to apply across the board. He did not think that this proposed language matches what is applied throughout the various zoning districts, and therefore adds to the dilemma that that Planning Commission has faced lately in terms what is the exact standard used in regards to a view impairment situation. Director Rojas agreed, however he explained that this language addresses items such as solar panels, and that it is very rare for this type of feature to have a significant view impact on adjacent properties. He also added that the Planning Commission, when approving a project, can always add a condition that no roof mounted equipment is to be allowed. Chairman Perestam referred to the section regarding lot coverage, and recalled recommendations from the Residential Standards Committee that there was to be a re- assessment of pervious versus impervious surfaces. He asked how this part of staff's recommendations fit into the recommendations of the Residential Standards Committee. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the Green Building Ordinance would likely be reviewed and potentially adopted before the changes to the Development Code goes before the City Council. Chairman Perestam was concerned that this definition would be adopted, and then down the road the Planning Commission and City Council will look at another definition for pervious versus impervious surfaces. He asked if it would be possible to look at the recommendations from the Residential Standards Committee and include those recommendations with this information. Director Rojas felt that could be done, however the recommendation from the Residential Standards Committee basically only added that courtyards not be counted in lot coverage. Commissioner Gerstner cautioned that the City Council may have questions about the Residential Standards Committee's suggestions, and would not want to put this Green Program at risk because of any questions about the Committee's recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes August 26,2008 Page 6 Commissioner Knight suggested wording on page 3 of the staff report that says "minimum of four hours of sunlight available per day year round." He also referred to page 6, number 3 and added "any additional supporting documentation." He also questioned the wording on page 7(a)(1)( ii). Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the wording in that section will be changed to match the wording further down on that page. Commissioner Knight stated suggested that, as part of this program, staff keep an inventory of the certified green buildings that are built in the City. Commissioner Gerstner noted that, while not in the Planning Commissioner purview, putting conduit in boxes for plumbing for future use is not a good idea, as it generally doesn't work and will be a waste of conduit. He could see no benefit for such a requirement. Commissioner Knight disagreed, noting that if the conduit is already in place, installation of a solar system is much less expensive Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he too had a few comments about areas not in the Planning Commission's purview, however he felt it would be more appropriate to contact the City Council with these concerns. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Linda Herman, representing the League of Women Voters of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, stated that the League is very please with the efforts being made by the City to establish a residential green program. She explained some of the programs the League has been involved with in regards to green programs. She stated that, while not familiar with the Build It Green Program, she would like to extend the League's support to the Planning Commission to move this program forward. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt staff's recommendations as modified, and to return with the appropriate Resolution, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of September 9, 2008 Director Rojas stated that the Resolution for the Green Building Program will be added to the September 9t" Agenda. He also explained that there is a project facing a deadline that will be added to the Agenda before the Marymount College item. Planning Commission Minutes August 26,2008 Page 7 The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the Pre-Agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 26,2008 Page 8