Loading...
PC MINS 20100914 Approved September 28, 2010 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: Commissioner Lewis was absent. Commissioners Leon and Tetreault were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Deputy Director Mihranian, Associate Planner Mikhail, Assistant City Attorney Snow, and Abe Lieder (representing Rincon). APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their September 21st meeting the City Council is scheduled to affirm the Coastal Commission's approval of the Coastal Specific Plan amendment related to the Nantasket project. Director Rojas distributed 37 items of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 2. Commissioner Knight reported that he had a conversation with an individual in regards to agenda item No. 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items)• None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00147)• 27513 Longhill Drive Director Rojas noted that this item was continued from the June 8t" meeting and that the Chairman was not present at that meeting. He asked Chairman Gerstner if he had reviewed the tape of the meeting or the minutes. Chairman Gerstner responded that he has watched the tape of the meeting and felt he could participate in this hearing. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and how this proposal differs from the proposal originally before the Commission in June. She stated that if the applicant has addressed the concerns of the Planning Commission staff has prepared a Resolution of approval. Staff has also prepared a Resolution of denial as this is the final decision deadline meeting for the project. Martin Chao (applicant) presented a rendering of the changes made to the project since the last Planning Commission meeting. He reviewed the changes made to the project, noting the size of the residence has been reduced by taking out one bedroom. He also noted that he has met all of the requirements in terms of setbacks and hoped that the Planning Commission would approve the project as currently designed. Louise Chao (applicant) reiterated that they have tried very hard to address the concerns of the Planning Commission. She stated that the house will be set back further in the front than required by Code, and there will be more landscaping in the front than there currently is. She explained she has lived in her home for twenty years and this major remodel is being done, in part, to address many of the issues that have come up over the years. She stated that they have worked hard to make the house blend into the neighborhood and have great neighborhood support with this new design. Anita Kowatsch stated she lives across the street from the applicant and stated that she finds this remodel request a very positive step for this neighborhood. She felt this will benefit not only the neighborhood, but the City as well. Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to approve the project as conditioned in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Knight explained that at the last meeting he had concerns regarding the scale of the house. He appreciated everything the applicant has done to try to accommodate the Commission's concerns, but was still concerned that this house will be more than twice the size of the next largest in the neighborhood. He therefore felt the house still needed some redesign to reduce the bulk, mass, and scale. Planning Commission Minutes September 14,2010 Page 2 The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2010 thereby approving the project as conditioned in the staff report was approved, (3-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. NEW BUSINESS 2. Opportunity to receive public comments on the draft EIR for the proposed Annenberg project at Lower Pt. Vicente (Case No. ZON2009-00442) Deputy Director Mihranian presented the staff report and began by giving a brief background of the proposed project and the Annenberg's involvement with the project. He also highlighted the components of the project, including the structures, parking expansion, landscaping improvements, and drainage improvements. He explained the planning entitlements that are necessary for this project, which include a Conditional Use Permit Revision B to Conditional Use Permit 200, a Grading Permit, and a Coastal Development Permit. He explained that tonight staff is asking the Commission and the public to provide staff with comments on the draft EIR, noting that anyone not wanting to give verbal comments can submit written comments to staff no later than 5:30 p.m. on September 15. Abe Lieder (representing Rincon) explained the purposes of CEQA and the environmental review process. He stated that the City is currently receiving comments on the draft EIR and all comments will be responded to in writing in the final EIR. He explained the Initial Study and the issues identified as less than significant in the Initial Study, as well as the issues that were analyzed in the draft EIR. Deputy Director Mihranian presented an estimated timeline in regards to the steps that follow once the comment period for the draft EIR has closed, emphasizing that this is an estimate. He reiterated that the purpose of tonight's hearing is for the public and the Planning Commission to provide staff with comments in regards to the draft EIR, and those comments will be included in the final EIR. Commissioner Knight asked staff if there would be any overlapping that may happen with the PVIC parking project and this project. Deputy Director Mihranian explained that these are truly two independent projects. He stated that the PVIC parking project is slated to begin in early October with an estimated completion date in March 2011. In looking at the timeline for the Annenberg project, there will not be any overlap in terms of construction at the site if the project is approved. Commissioner Knight asked if there will be overlap in terms of project area. Deputy Director Mihranian answered that there will be a small amount of soil removed from the upper portion of the property to accommodate the need for fill on the lower part of the property. Planning Commission Minutes September 14,2010 Page 3 Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff how long this site has been zoned Open Space Recreation. Director Rojas answered that the current zoning has been in place since the original zoning map was created. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff how seriously the Upper Point Vicente site was looked at as an alternative in the draft EIR. Mr. Lieder explained that the alternative section of the EIR compares the environmental impacts in the area of study and the alternate area. He noted it is more of a study of environmental impacts as opposed to policy or the availability of the alternate site. Deputy Director Mihranian added there is a summary table, Table 6-2, which identifies the pros and cons to each of the topic areas studied in the EIR for each of the alternatives. Vice Chairman Tomblin noted that this property is zoned Open Space Passive Recreation, and asked why the City would not require a change of use for the property to accommodate this proposed project versus a modification of a current Conditional Use Permit. Director Rojas explained that when the Vision Plan was prepared and taken to the City Council, the City Council determined the proposed use to be consistent with the Zoning Map and authorized this project to move forward. Staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning on the property. Therefore, there is no need to require a zone change for this project. He further explained that the City's open space zoning district allows for buildings on park land as long as they do not cover more than 10 percent of the area. He noted that in the case of the Annenberg project the proposed buildings cover 4 percent of the property, making it consistent with the zoning. He added that in October there will be a public hearing before the Planning Commission that will discuss the zoning code and the applications before the City. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Melanie Lundquist stated she is in very strong support of the project as presented. Being involved in real estate development, she felt she was fairly qualified to assess something that is responsible versus something that is not responsible. She also has fairly good knowledge of the Annenberg Foundation and how they proceed. She felt this project is being done with the utmost responsibility and consideration to the community. She felt this project will benefit this community, especially the children. Cassie Jones discussed her concerns with the traffic. She felt that the draft EIRs traffic mitigations in the area are already needed. She pointed out that many more projects than the ones in the draft EIR are either known or zoned for, specifically the Planning Commission Minutes September 14,2010 Page 4 development in the Portuguese Bend area. She noted the report cites 31 homes in zone 2 that are expected, however the number is really known to be 47. Secondly, she felt the goals and ideals of this project not only benefit the immediate community but the larger state and national picture as well. She felt the location is excellent and appropriate to the intended use of the property. She stated that the educational component to reach children and change the future is the key. Caryl Schwartz felt the Annenberg project is a wonderful gift to the community, and felt it would be short-sighted to not work with the Foundation, as they are giving the community the opportunity to allow the children to be educated on animals and conservation. She stated she supports the project as presented. Linda Retz stated that open space is very important to her, and felt safe to say that it is important to the Annenberg Foundation as well. She stated she is strongly in favor of the Annenberg project in the proposed location. She stated she could not imagine a lower profile as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. She felt that the Annenberg Foundation is paying meticulous attention to environmental details in designing the project and will do the same implementing it. She noted that she recently attended the Traffic Safety Commission hearing and it appeared that the residents of the City are truly excited at the prospect of having improvements made at deficient intersections, and this would be funded in part by the Annenberg Foundation. Finally, she noted the on-going education that the project will provide on the importance of preserving the natural habitat. Sandra Jaffe felt that in talking about the environment, the most undesirable thing to do would be to pave over undeveloped land. She questioned why this project is located in a low population area when it would be much more beneficial to put it in a high population area where people wouldn't have to use the extra gas to reach the location. She stated she would like to see this issue put on the ballot to allow all residents to vote on, as this is public land owned by every citizen in the City. Dina Garbis stated she is an animal behaviorist and dog trainer and his been a consultant to the project from the beginning, and is very passionately in favor of the project. She stated that this project will enhance this community in so many ways. She noted that the mission of the Annenberg project dovetails with the mission of PVIC, to provide educational opportunity. She stated that the buildings will not block any public scenic views, the dark sky compliant lighting will reduce the amount of ambient lighting that is already at the site, and the landscape and drainage plans will actually improve the drainage and water runoff. Barbara Sattler stated she was grateful that the draft EIR contains multiple alternatives to the project and was happy to see that the downsized alternative was selected as the preferred alternative. However, she found some aspects of the draft EIR to be very disappointing. She was puzzled as to how consistency was found in regards to the open space designation and a 52,000 square foot building. She did not think this was consistent with what public perception of what open space is supposed to be. She also Planning Commission Minutes September 14,2010 Page 5 questioned what percentage of hardscape around the project site counts towards intrusions of open space. She noted the comment in the draft EIR that the Municipal Code has no setbacks in the Open Space designation, but she felt that was because there was never the anticipation of structures in the Open Space land. She commented that the EIR states the project is compatible with recreation use on the site, however she felt that veterinary care and animal shelters are not recreational uses and therefore that use of the property is not in compliance with the governing land use codes for the site. Further, the project as proposed is not compatible with the Vision Plan itself, as the proposed building is more than three times larger than the building in the Vision Plan. She felt the building dominates the site as well as the existing Interpretive Center. Therefore, she did not think the draft EIR demonstrates that this proposed project is consistent with current land use designations that apply to the property. She was disappointed that the alternative plans are not more flushed out, as there is no details given or site plans shown. Therefore, it is impossible to evaluate impacts on adjacent properties, especially those adjacent to preserve land. Jane Nicklas felt that this proposed project is a great project and will benefit the City. She particularly noted the benefits of the improved drainage on the site, as well as the numerous public trails that will be at the site. Vic Quirarte was supportive of the project and liked the idea of being able to have visitors tour PVIC and then go to the Annenberg building to learn about terrestrial animals. He did not support relocation of the project. He noted that draft EIR states that the fauna at the site will be indigenous to the area, which is important to the site. In regards to open space, he noted that up until a few months ago the entire area was covered in weeds, and he has pictures showing this. Pam Crane expressed her support for the project and felt that the Annenberg Foundation has gone to great lengths to ensure that all of the community environmental issues have been addressed, especially in regards to traffic and the water quality mitigations. She felt that the building will be unobtrusive and blend into the natural environment and landscape. She felt this is a perfect site in the way it will dovetail into the use of PVIC. Renee Ferio explained that she values the views in this area and as a realtor she understands the economic consequences of losing views. As a result of attending past meetings, she was confident that the Annenberg Foundation staff is committed to creatively solving whatever criticism comes their way in terms of the project, as well as hearing all of the concerns of the community. She also very much supported the use of native plants in the area. Valerie Blitz stated she was against the Annenberg project in regards to the animal aspect of the project. She would be more supportive of a garden that people could walk through so that people could more appreciate the area. She questioned what constitutes passive versus recreational use, and wondered if any lawsuits have been Planning commission Minutes September 14,2010 Page 6 filed in this regards. She did not feel the Annenberg Foundation has been responsive to the community, noting that letters she has written have never received a response. Lenee Bilski referred to the biological section of the draft EIR, section 4.2, and noted that only the birds are discussed and asked why the terrestrial wildlife is not included. She asked what impact this project will have on the animals already at the site. She asked what impact the proposed construction will have on the neighboring homes as far as rodents and reptiles in the area. She asked what safety or mitigation measures are planned to keep gophers, snakes, and other rodents from going to Oceanfront Estates home sites, especially during construction. She then referenced the section on circulation and parking, Section 2.4.4 on page 2-35. She felt this section is misleading where it states that the construction of the project will result in a total of 197 on-site parking spaces. She felt it would be clearer by stating that there would be 66 new public spaces and 27 employee spaces. PVIC currently has 66 spaces, although there are Commission approved plans to expand the parking lot. She noted the current PVIC parking expansion plan has not been built or funded. She stated there is no traffic analysis for increased traffic on Western Avenue, and asked it be added. She also noted there is no mention of tour buses nor is there mention of non-vehicular traffic, such as pedestrian, equestrian, and bicyclist. As far as the four new traffic signals recommended, she did not feel they were desirable or financially feasible for the City. In regards to the alternatives, she noted that the "Reconfigured Alternate" that would bring the structure closer to Palos Verdes Drive was rejected, and questioned why it would increase the potential to block views if the project would be the same as the currently planned elevation above sea level. Referring to corrections and clarifications, page 2-8 refers to transfer from the Coast Guard. She questioned if the Deed and Program of Utilization have been recently reviewed by the Commission and the consultants. She noted the Program of Utilization does not prohibit recreational uses, but rather restrict structures. Ann Hugh stated she is very much in favor of the project. She felt this project can do immeasurable good in educating future generations. She questioned if there can be a temporary road made for the construction vehicles, as the exit from the site can be quite dangerous. She expressed concerns regarding the construction fencing and ways in which the natural wildlife can escape the area when need be. Rosemary Campbell stated she did not see her letter included in the packet, and therefore did not think her issues were specifically addressed. She noted that she lives adjacent to the property and was concerned how the grass roof top provides views into her and all of her neighbor's back yards, which was not addressed in the EIR. She was concerned with security and people being able to access her neighborhood, and felt that attendance will not double, as noted in the EIR, but most likely triple. She questioned the land use and the size of the building being 10 percent. She felt that only works if you include the lands that is associated with PVIC, and this project is not associated with PVIC. Therefore the project should be smaller. She stated that there is no ambient lighting at the site, so any lighting will be additional lighting. She was also concerned Planning Commission Minutes September 14,2010 Page 7 that there was no discussion in the draft EIR of how the bodies of dead animals will be disposed of. Sunshine stated that the term "terrestrial animals" apparently doesn't include horses in terms of education, for coastal access, or for circulation. She stated that this is the perfect site for the three corridors to come together and have access to a facility. She asked if the dry farm exhibit was going to consist of plastic plants or will it be an introduction of different plants that the previous wet farming operation used. Lori Jones stated that she moved to this community for open spaces and was against this proposed project. She felt this was a good project, but that this is not the correct spot for such a facility. Eva Cicoria stated that the draft EIR indicates that the project's impacts at three of the study area intersections would be significant and unavoidable. She questioned how impacted these intersections would become. Regarding visual character, the EIR acknowledges that the impact of the proposed project would be significant and unavoidable. She stated that residents have not seen other possibilities in terms of what could be placed at this proposed site that could be less impactful. Regarding the land use element, she did not agree with the draft EIRs statement that the proposed project is compatible with land use designations. She felt the words "active use" and "passive use" are used to fit whatever staff wants them to meet. She asked that be clarified. She felt that this project is too big for this location, and erecting this building at this time might preclude later possible uses that might be better suited to this site. Andrea Sala stated that she has been involved with this project from the beginning and this current project has come a long way from the original proposed project. She felt that this project will only enhance the site and make it better than it is. She supports the educational piece of the project. Hilly Kalita stated she strongly supports the proposed Annenberg project and the many aspects of the project. Howard Litnak (Annenberg Foundation/Applicant) emphasized that even if this project is approved, all of this land will still be public land. Regarding the Coast Guard area, he felt that in order to deal with potential overflow parking, in the long run the proposal is to make this area a true parking lot and not a dirt lot as it is now. Regarding the size of the building, he acknowledged that the proposed building was smaller at the time of the Vision Plan. The main reason the building has grown in size is because at the time of the vision plan, it was not realized that there was a 16 foot height limit from existing grade. Once this was discovered, along with the potential impacts on view lines, the building was redesigned. This pushed the building down as well as out, which is why the building size grew. He noted that 11,000 square feet of this building is devoted to underground parking and there are only 66 surface parking spaces in the new parking plan devoted to the Annenberg project. In terms of trails and the approach to the site, he explained that one of the important issues of the City Council was the fact that the Planning Commission Minutes September 14,2010 Page 8 site should become more publicly accessible, and that has very much been a guideline in the thought process for this project. He explained that the animal component is only roughly 5 percent of the square footage of the building, and the bulk of what will be done with the building will be for public access and public education. In discussing alternative sites, he explained that part of why he has come to believe in this site is because he can see a larger vision of education on the site that ties together aquatic, terrestrial, and domestic animals and human and animal relationships. That being the final speaker, Deputy Director Mihranian stated that staff would like to hear any Commissioner's comments regarding the draft EIR. Commissioner Knight began by clarifying that his comments and questions are strictly about asking for full disclosure in the EIR and have nothing to do with the merits of the project. He had the following comments and concerns: • He began by discuss the existing parking at PVIC, noting there are currently 66 spaces at the site. He also noted that Table 3-1 on page 3-3 shows the addition of 35 spaces to the existing 66 totaling 101 spaces for the future project. Yet under the Executive Summary on page ES1-3 it states that there are 102 existing parking spaces currently at PVIC available to serve the project. He explained that under CEQA a project is not allowed to defer mitigation to a probable future project, and asked that be clarified. • Concern with the safety of the left turn lane onto Palos Verdes Drive South when exiting PVIC. • The staff report states that the Department of Toxic and Substance Control reviewed and approved a work plan prepared for the proposed project to address potential impacts related to the on-site lead. He asked where this is discussed in the draft EIR. He also noted that the Executive Summary page ES-4 states that the project is located outside of any lead contamination. He asked if the lead contamination map (Figure 11) shows an overlap of the project site with the area of concern and the capped area that has deed restrictions from 2006. • The grading engineer for the PVIC parking project requested expansion of the PVIC project grading to include areas of this project. He wanted to be sure we understand who has the responsibility of lead contamination and that it is not being shifted from this project to the PVIC parking expansion project. He also questioned why there will be no mitigations of notification of the Department of Toxic and Substance Control or monitoring for potential lead, or a DTSC work plan. • Page ES-17 should include more than just pesticides and herbicides in terms of the Integrated Pest Management Plan. It should be consistent with Title 17, Chapter 40 where the natural overlay control district also prohibits fertilizer nutrients from entering drainage leading to the ocean. • He noted that the Figure 4.2-2 map arrow shows this project is at the Coast Guard property, and should be corrected. • In regards to the wildlife corridor, the analysis is limited to the existing site. He stated that existing habitat on the site is not a determination of whether or not the site could be an important wildlife corridor, noting that the fact that the Pacific Ocean Planning Commission Minutes September 14,2010 Page 9 is on one side or that there has been human activity such as farming, or that there are no nests on site should not preclude a functional wildlife corridor. • He stated that the RPV NCCP document specifies conservation or restoration for corridor linkage in disturbed areas. He felt that a discussion of consistency with the NCCP should include referrals to NCCP Section 3/1, Figure 2-4 of the RPV NCCP, the February 12, 1999 letter from Fish and Wildlife and Fish and Game to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a letter from Patrick Mock dated October 5, 1998, General Plan Policy 8, and Coastal Specific Play Sub region 2 Policy 2. • He disagreed with the Rincon biological study's mischaracterization of the coastal sage scrub located north of the site in the Oceanfront Estates open space as "residual CSS" since it is revegetated CSS habitat. He noted there are more than 30 acres of pristine CSS restoration. He asked that the disclosure of possible conflicts with established policies and mapping in the NCCP showing a linkage planning area running through this area be reviewed. • He felt that the draft EIR conclusions appear to be in conflict with Figure 4.2-3 of the California Natural Diversity Database Map which shows critical habitat for the Federal threatened C. Gnatcatcher running through the project site. • He noted on page ES-6, Mitigation AES-2 would allow solar panels to block up to 50 percent of the views from Palos Verdes Drive West. He asked how that percentage was determined. He felt this mitigation seems to conflict with what is in the Development Code. • Regarding Aesthetics on page 4.1-17, he noted that a view was taken from only one property. He would have thought the draft EIR would disclose that the CEQA threshold of significance was not consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. • He asked how this project is consistent with the Program of Utilization, noting that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PVIC parking project brought up the covenant to restrict use of property and required an analyses of impacts. He did not feel this was treated the same under the draft EIR. • He questioned the logic of the statement on page 4.2-25 that states that even though the Program of Utilization sets forth specific conditions as stated on page 4.6-8 that because it specifically does not limit other uses, it does not rule out the proposed structure. • He asked for a more comprehensive discussion of how this project meets the specific conditions articulated in the Program of Utilization, Quitclaim Deed Restriction, General Plan Map showing this site as "passive open space" and the statement from the State Natural Resources Agency which states that no property acquired or developed with assistance shall be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. • He asked what was the proposal for the ongoing operation of the proposed structure. What is the length of the license agreement? What impact will that agreement have on the public's current right to petition their government as to the use or operation in any area of this project? Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he continues to be concerned that the draft EIR Alternate sites were not fully considered and researched during this process. His other Planning Commission Minutes September 14,2010 Page 10 major concern was with the pressure that this project will have with added vehicle trips on what is already a dangerous intersection. He felt that if this project goes through, especially with the number of added buses that may start using this intersection, this intersection should be more fully studied. He was very interested to see the Traffic Safety Commission's recommendations on this topic. He did not think saying that the intersection is an unfunded capital improvement project will be good enough. Vice Chairman Tomblin explained that he was very sensitive and fully understood the situation of what the City Council may have done in terms of the Vision Plan, however he was uncomfortable in reference to the process of the use of the land. He noted the zoning is Open Space, passive recreational land and there have been two previous uses of the land with far less impact in terms of buildings that were turned down by the Council because they were considered too active or intrusive for this site. He wanted to know that legally, the City will be on solid footing in terms of a Conditional Use Permit revision versus a zone change. In terms of the discussion over restrictions of the operational use of this project, he was interested in seeing the operating agreement in terms of how the auditorium will be used for events. He also questioned the impact of the use of school buses in reference to the amount of visitors coming to the site. He did not see anything in the draft EIR that discussed the environmental impact of the school buses in terms of noise and pollution. Chairman Gerstner wanted to ensure that the City Attorney opine on the Quit Claim Deed. He also wanted to see an alternative to the solar panel impacts addressed in the draft EIR. Deputy Director Mihranian stated that staff has noted the public and Commission comments and they will be included in the final EIR. He noted the final EIR is tentatively scheduled to be released to the public around October 15th and a notice will be sent out to interested parties and listserve subscribers announcing the release of the final EIR. He added that a public notice will be sent out next week announcing the upcoming October 12th public hearing on the planning applications. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. General Plan Update— "Draft" Visual Resources Element Chairman Gerstner suggested that, since the three Commissioners on the subcommittee for the draft visual resources element are absent from this meeting, this item be continued. The Commission agreed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of July 27, 2010 Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (4-0) Planning Commission Minutes September 14,2010 Page 11 5. Minutes of August 10, 2010 Because of the lack of a quorum, the minutes for August 10, 2010 were continued to the September 28, 2010 meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of September 28, 2010 The Commission unanimously approved the pre-agenda as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Planning Commission Minutes September 14,2010 Page 12