Loading...
PC MINS 20120925 APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2012 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7-12 p.m, at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: Commissioner Lewis was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Community Development Director Pfost, and Senior Planner Schonborn APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their September 13th meeting the City Council denied an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a View Restoration Permit on Narcissa Drive, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision. Director Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence for agenda item No. 2 and one item of late correspondence for agenda item No. 3. Chairman Tetreault recognized several students from PV High School who were attending the meeting for class credit. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-aclenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Coastal Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review fCase NO. ZON2012- 00141): 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Director Rojas noted this item was before the Commission at their last meeting at which time the Commission approved the proposed new home. Before the Commission is the Resolution that memorializes the Commission's decision. The Commission approved the Resolution as presented, 5-1, with Vice Chairman Emenhiser dissenting since he voted to not approve the project as presented at the last meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Crestrid-ge Senior Housing Draft Environmental Imi)act review scoping meeting (Case No. ZON2012-00067 and SUB2012-00001):Crestridge Road Senior Planner Schonborn began by introducing Jennifer Haddow from Rincon Consulting, who was instrumental in helping with drafting the document before the Commission. He briefly described the proposed project as well as the necessary entitlements for the project. He explained the draft EIR is currently being circulated and the entitlements and merits of the project will be considered at a future meeting. He touched on the purpose of the CEQA analysis involved with the project. He also discussed the purpose of the public comments meeting, noting where the City currently is in the process, Mr. Schonborn noted issues identified as less than significant in the Initial Study, and noted issues identified as potentially significant and analyzed in the draft E,IR, as discussed in the staff report, Commissioner Leon asked staff how they considered the extensive grading required for this project to be mitigatable. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that there will be a designated haul route that the contractor must follow. In addition, staff had to take into consideration that this is almost a ten acre site, primarily hillside, and the main function of the grading is to lower the height of the site which will then reduce the height of the buildings. The trucks going down Hawthorne Boulevard would be a short-term impact. He estimated 144 truck trips daily during the short term phase for the excavation and grading of the property. He explained that was looked at in comparison to the level of services at each of the key intersections. He stated that even 144 truck trips per day did not result in a level of service that would be deemed to be a significant impact. Commissioner Tomblin stated he did not see any discussion in the staff report in terms of outdoor lighting. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the outdoor lighting was found to have a less than significant impact, and additional measures can be incorporated in terms of Planning Commission Minutes September 25,2012 Page 2 requiring the lights be spread down towards the site. The plans do not call for any tall light standards and the lights are proposed to be low-voltage, low-lying that are more ambient to the site. Commissioner Tomblin stated he would like to see a more detailed discussion about the outdoor lighting at the site. Commissioner Nelson noted that on either side of this proposed project are developments of similar nature. He asked staff if there is anything unique about this proposed project that was not considered for Belmont or Mirandela. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that there is nothing unique to this project when comparing it to Belmont or Mirandela. Chairman Tetreault referred to correspondence received from the Native American Heritage Commission and their concern with possible encounter with native american artifacts during the construction phase. He asked staff what will occur if that does happen. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that typically the Native American Heritage Commission or the specific Native American group will have a protocol on how to handle artifacts found at construction sites. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Sunshine stated she was very pleased that the writer of this draft EIR is recommending a mid-block crossing. She referred to a map showing a north-south cut-across trail route and explained the city's General Plan says the trails are to be arterial in nature and the trail alignments should avoid being along roadsides. She stated only half of the 3,000 feet of Crestridge Road needs to be modified when the roadway is reconstructed. She showed the trail and explained the different entities that maintain the trail. She felt staff was presenting to the Commission the prelims to shut down non-motorized circulation at a future date. Chairman Tetreault asked Sunshine to clarify how the project before the Commission affects the trails. Sunshine explained the project was in the middle of the trail and will cause a blockage of the trail. Chairman Tetreault asked Sunshine what it is she is concerned about that she felt should be reviewed and dealt with in the final E I R. Sunshine pointed out the area where the consultant is recommending the mid block crossing. She also pointed out this development proposal does not include the trail that connects the nature preserve to Crestridge Road, Planning Commission Minutes September 25,2012 Page 3 Commissioner Gerstner asked staff to display a map showing the trail and the mid block crossing discussed by Sunshine, Senior Planner Schonborn displayed the map, explaining there currently are trails on the preserve property and the idea is to connect Crestridge to the hillside via a trail through this development. He pointed out the proposed connection and the dedicated easements on the property. He noted that the trails that traverse the preserve are not equestrian trails and the connection proposed is for pedestrian use. He pointed out on the map the areas that are dedicated to equestrian, Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if trucks traveling down Crenshaw Boulevard was an option to help take some of the pressure off of Hawthorne Boulevard. Director Rojas answered that Crenshaw Boulevard has been determined not appropriate for trucks, noting even Mirandela had to use Hawthorne Boulevard. Commissioner Nelson commented that he and the Vice Chairman went through the building of Terranea and their cement trucks, and even with 20,000 cubic yards of cement being delivered there did not appear to be any difficulties using Hawthorne Boulevard. Commissioner Leon requested that when a traffic analysis is performed they analyze what will happen if there are times during the day that trucks should not be using Highridge or Crestridge Roads, as well as some type of reasonable nighttime restriction. He requested this be included in the final EIR. He also requested alternatives be looked at that will reduce the amount of grading, including a balanced site. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that there were some assumptions made when preparing the draft EIR, including the assumption that there will be a five-day work week starting at 8:15 a.m. and ending at 4::15 p.m. Commissioner Leon understood, but suggested mitigation measures to avoid truck trips when school is starting in the morning and ending in the afternoon. Chairman Tetreault stated he is interested in the mid-block crossing mentioned by Sunshine and how that could be included, or at least have her comments addressed, Chairman Tetreault reminded the public that the public comment period for the draft EIR is open until October 8. 3. General Plan Update — Revisions to the General Plan Land Use Map pertaining to the Hazard Land Use boundary Senior Planner Pfost presented the staff report, giving a brief background on the subject and recapping what was discussed at the previous meeting on this item. He stated that Planning Commission Minutes September 25,2012 Page 4 at the August meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to move forward with option No. 2, which was to follow the city geologist's recommendations and to change the hazard designation to hillside for those hillside areas. He stated option No. 2 removes the hazard boundary over 600 properties and meets the intent and purpose of the General Plan by accurately reflecting what the General Plan's purpose of the hazard boundary line was, and it also removes the stigma of the hazard designation of these properties. He noted that while the Commission directed staff to move ahead with option No, 2, concern was expressed in regards to impacts to property owners as a result in seeing an increase in the hazard boundary line on their property. The Commission directed staff to come back at this meeting and continued the public hearing so that the Commission could look at what those impacts are and how those impacts would be addressed. He explained that currently these properties contain an extreme slope and are governed under the Extreme Slope section of the Code, which permits certain minor accessory structures to be placed on an extreme slope. By moving the hazard designation boundary line over the extreme slopes will result in not allowing those minor accessory structures in the same area. He explained staff is proposing to create a new open space hillside district in the Zoning Code to implement the hillside section of the General Plan, explaining the uses and developments that would be permitted. He went through examples of different situations on how this proposed change affects existing properties, as detailed in the staff report. He noted staff is looking for policy direction to move forward and this will all come back to the Planning Commission in greater detail as individual changes. He also noted that a public hearing notice will be sent to all of the affected property owners explaining the proposed changes. Commissioner Leon noted that the General Plan, by its very nature, is general and there will always be a number of specific situations which don't fit the intended logic for setting up the open space hazard. The variance process is made to deal with these types of situations, and questioned why staff would propose to eliminate the variance process in the open space hazard zones. He felt there would be a number of specific lots where putting some type of small structure on the extreme slope would make sense, however there would now be no process to allow it. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the original General Plan calls these areas hazard areas and does not allow a variance to put structures in those areas. Staff was attempting to stick with the same conceptual idea, which is in hazard areas variances are not allowed. He noted that these areas are protected not only because they are extreme slopes, but for a variety of reasons such as topography or landform and drainage issues. He pointed out there will still be the interpretation procedure process available in which this line can be moved. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. John Wessel explained that when he bought his home he was informed it may be in a hazard zone. He hired a geologist to evaluate the property and the geologist felt the hazard zone on the property had been improperly designed on his property. The city Planning Commission Minutes September 25,2012 Page 5 geologist's current report seems to coincide with what his geologist had reported to him years ago. He also stated he agreed with option No. 2 as he liked to keep things consistent with the General Plan. Don Ferrara (6301 Via Ciega) stated he has no concerns with the current staff recommendations. Sunshine stated she supports the idea of changing the line where there are actual geologic hazards. She cautioned the Commission to be very careful when increasing the areas that could potentially be developed, Robert Fisher explained his house is in the open space hazard area, however he noted that the map appears to have been drawn even before the streets in his neighborhood were graded. He explained the actual topography in the area has changed dramatically since 1958 when the map was drawn. He commended staff, the city geologist, and the Planning Commission for taking the time to redraw the map to match the current topography. Adi Hattenberq stated he has a vacant lot at 8 Golden Spur Lane, and the entire lot falls under the hazard zone. He stated there are various flat areas on the lot that he felt could be built on. He felt that with all of the new rules he might be sifting on a piece of dirt that can never be developed. He would like to have the opportunity to present geology to the City to show the lot can be built on. Chairman Tetreault asked Mr. Hattenberg if the proposed redrawing will impact the property. Mr. Hattenberg answered that there really is no shift on his property. Commissioner Leon asked if keeping the possible 100 foot optional movement of the line would help on his property. Mr. Hattenberg answered that it could make a difference, but at least he would have a shot at being able to develop. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Hattenberg if he had a chance to read option Nos. 2 and 4, and if so did he have a preference between the two. Mr. Hattenberg stated he had read both options and he would have preferred option No. 4. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson asked staff how many lots may have the same problem as Mr, Hattenberg. Planning Commission Minutes September 25,2012 Page 5 Director Rojas clarified that Mr. Hattenberg currently has OH designation on almost his entire lot. Staff is proposing to take some of the designation off of the lot. With the current code the owner would only be able to develop the portion of the lot that is outside of the OH designation, Under option No. 2, the land use designation would be changed to a Hillside and the line would be adjusted thereby giving the owner a bit more space on the lot that could potentially be developed. Commissioner Nelson felt it was very important that people have the right to develop their land and this process should not take that away from them in any way. Chairman Tetreault noted that there are over 600 properties that will benefit from this exercise and approximately 374 properties will have the line moved which will result in a reduction of useable land on their property. He asked staff if there has ever been an instance in this City where a property owner received permits to build in an area which turned out to be a hazardous area, and should not have built there if the line had been properly drawn. He reviewed option No. 3 and stated he was in favor of this option, as it will adjust the line on properties where it is beneficial but not adjust the line on those 374 properties which will result in a reduction of buildable land. He asked staff how such a map would look. Deputy Director Pfost explained that by doing so the map would be very jagged and irregular. There would be areas where the hazard line would abruptly stop squarely at a property line, which will be quite awkward. He explained that staff prefers option Nos. 1 and 2 as staff feels these options actually implement what the General Plan envisioned when it was first developed. He noted this is a General Plan update, and felt options 1 and 2 update the General Plan. Commissioner Gerstner moved to accept staff's recommendation to move forward with option No. 2 and direct staff to begin the process of notification of the residents affected, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff how property owners such as Mr. Hattenberg can contact staff if they disagree with the geologist's recommendations on the placement of the hazard line. Deputy Director Prost explained that these residents will receive a public hearing notice for a future Planning Commission meeting, at which time the specific changes to their property will be discussed by the Commission. The resident can speak to staff about where the line is proposed to be moved and if they disagree with the area of relocation, staff can talk to the City Geologist to see if it is possible to adjust the line as currently recommended. The property owner can also speak to the Planning Commission during the public hearing to explain where he thinks the line should be located and the Planning Commission can make this decision. He noted that the Planning Commission's decision is draft until it goes to the City Council for adoption. Planning Commission Minutes September 25,2012 Page 7 Commissioner Nelson stated he could not support the motion, as he felt option No 4 was the better option. He felt that option No. 2 may create a workload that may spiral out of control. The motion to accept staff's recommendation to move forward with option No. 2 was not approved, (3-3) with Commissioners Leon, Nelson, and Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Commissioner Nelson moved to direct staff to follow option No. 4, specifically to move forward with eliminating the Hazard designation entirely from the slope areas and to rely on the existing Zoning Code prohibition of development on extreme slopes and hillside construction, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Gerstner explained that his problem with supporting this motion is that he doesn't believe this level of change to the General Plan is consistent with the Planning Commission's charge. He felt that completely eliminating the hazard designation from the General Plan is a very significant change to the General Plan and the Planning Commission was not charged with changing the General Plan, only recommending an update. He added that there are many people in the community who don't want to see the General Plan changed. He therefore has tried to be consistent in his views that the General Plan should be changed as little as possible, Vice Chairman Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Gerstner, adding that one of the advantages of option No. 2 was eliminating a property owner's concept of open space hazard and that option No. 4 maintains open space hazard areas. The motion to direct staff to follow option No. 4 failed, (2-4) with Commissioners Tomblin, Gerstner, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Commissioner Tomblin explained that he was comfortable with his vote to support option No. 2, as he felt there was room for revisions to the option as staff and the Planning Commission review it. He would therefore like to see staff continue to move forward with option No. 2. Commissioner Leon found two areas of difficulty with option No. 2, the first being that it increases the complexity of the Development Code. The other area of difficulty is that he felt option No. 2 takes away the ability for the Planning Commission to deal with any inconsistencies and any variances on a property. He stated he may be able to support option No. 2 if it would recognize a process for variances, Commissioner Gerstner felt that was absolutely still up for discussion and that decision is irrespective of other parts of option No. 2. Commissioner Gerstner moved to accept staff's recommendation to move forward with option No. 2, understanding that the table in the staff report that defines precisely the allowances that would be in this new open space hillside Planning Commission Minutes September 25,2012 Page 8 land use area needs to be discussed further, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser, Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved a friendly amendment to the motion that staff also investigate and report on options for appeal. Commissioner Gerstner supported and accepted the friendly amendment to his motion. Chairman Tetreault stated the Commission has been asked to update the General Plan. He felt that this process has been interesting and felt that it appears to be giving some property owners the opportunity to perhaps have their property rezoned without actually having to go through the process and paying for it. He felt that this process has been quite lengthy and has cost the City quite a bit of money and, by identifying 666 properties that should not have been so restricted in the past, it has given a lot of people in the City an opportunity to do things they may not do on their own, and is therefore quite a nice public service. His concern with this adjustment was that it is a negative for 374 property owners. Commissioner Leon asked staff to highlight the 374 properties on the map and include that in the staff report for the next hearing on this subject. He would like to see the new versus the old for these properties. Commissioner Gerstner's motion with the amendment that staff investigate and report on options for an appeal was approved, (4-2) with Commissioner Nelson and Chairman Tetreault dissenting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of August 14, 2012 Commissioner Gerstner noted a typo on page 10 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved without objection. 5. Minutes of Au-qust 28, 2012 Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson., Approved, (6-0-1) with Vice Chairman Emenhiser abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-agenda for the meeting on October 9, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes September 25,2012 Page 9 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 25,2012 Page 10