Loading...
PC MINS 20120828 Approved September 25 CITY OF RANCHO PALLS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Nelson, Tomblin, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: Commissioner Lewis and Vice Chairman Emenhiser were excused Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Deputy Community Development Director Pfost. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented, COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their August 21 st meeting the City Council adopted a policy that the City will continue to abide by the Brown Act requirements that were recently suspended for three years by the State. Director Rojas distributed eight items of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1, General Plan Update — Revision to the General Plan Land Use Map pertaining to the hazard land use bounds!1 Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, giving a brief overview of what a General Plan is and the various elements of the General Plan. He explained that one of the main elements is the Natural Environment Element, and discussed this element and how the hazard land use designation was created and why there is this designation in the General Plan. He noted the geotechnical factors sub-category and the various sections of that sub-category, and briefly discussed the hazard area section within the General Plan. He noted that the General Plan was adopted in 1975 and has not been updated since. Therefore, there is quite a bit of text in the document that is out of date as well as the General Plan Land Use Map. He explained that the City Geologist was tasked with looking at all of the Hazard designations in the City, how they affect property, and used the criteria outlined in the General Plan as well as a variety of other resources to develop a set of maps with a more accurate display of the hazard areas in the city. City staff then transferred this updated information onto the General Plan Land Use Map. As a result, approximately 1,000 City properties have been affected by the proposed changes, and of those 1,000 approximately 660 properties are seeing a reduced or eliminated hazard zone on their property and approximately 374 properties will see an increase in the hazard designation on their property. He explained staff has notified approximately 1,400 property owners of this process and of tonight's public hearing. With that, Mr. Pfost discussed the five options proposed by staff in regards to the revised open space hazard designations, as discussed in the staff report., and noting the positive and negative aspects of each option. He explained that tonight the Commission should not be looking at the exact details of where the lines on the map are being moved, as that will happen at a later date. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff the net acreage of Open Space Hazard in the new analysis done by the City Geologist. Deputy Director Pfost did not know the answer to that question, but staff would be able to find that information for the Commission. Commissioner Nelson felt the Zoning Code is satisfactorily restrictive, and asked staff how many applications staff has received in the last year to build over extreme slopes. Deputy Director Pfost estimated six applications over the past year. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Jeanne Lacombe (Rolling Hills Riviera HOA) felt that this process may cause problems for property owners in the future. She noted that with this process many homes in the Eastview area will see a decrease in the open space hazard areas on their property. She discussed some of the problems that have been experienced by homeowners in the Eastview area because of the Open Space Hazard designations. She recommended the Planning Commission adopt recommendation No. 4 in the staff report, with the second best option being option No. 2. She felt the worst option would be option No. 5, which is to do nothing. Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2012 Page 2 Richard Hess (26529 Mazur Drive) stated the changes would increase the so-called hazard area behind his home. He did not think any of the options presented by staff were satisfactory or reasonable. He also felt the whole basis for this was incorrect. He felt calling these areas hazardous is a misnomer, and he noted he is a licensed structural engineer and has been dealing with this type of work since the 1960s. He did not think the extreme slope of 35% was applicable in many cases, including the back of his house. He noted it is a steep slope but there is no possibility of movement because of the bedrock on the slope. He felt the 35% is a purely arbitrary number and has no applicability where he lives. He questioned the meaning of the word hazardous, as there is no basis for the use of the word, Therefore, he felt the entire report is erroneous and felt the City is just asking for many lawsuits. He felt the City should remove the hazardous and extreme slope designations from the plan, as there are enough restrictions already in place. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Hess if it was his contention that the City should not have a blanket restriction on building on slopes greater than 35 percent and that they should be buildable to the extent they can be shown to be structurally competent and the structure put on them is acceptable. Mr. Hess did not think the City has to have these regulations put into place to prevent building in these areas. Jer[y Rodin stated he was representing a single client with property in the City. He asked if the property owners will have any non-conforming rights in terms of pre-existing structures if this overlay zone is put onto the property. He also asked if the property taxes will be affected with such a change. He asked if a test study has been done to see what the affects are. He asked what the actual result to development will be and would it kill any developmental ability of a structure of a future residence, or will there be some options. Chairman Tetreault asked staff the affect on property owners on having open space hazard designations over developed portions of their property when they wish to further develop their property or if they have a loss on the property and wish to redevelop after the loss. Director Rojas answered that if there is currently a house on the property partially or entirely in the open space hazard district, it can be rebuilt. What staff is proposing is to match the OH line to the existing slope line. It was his understanding that when the city geologist reviewed these areas he did not encounter a situation where he would move a structure into the open space hazard area. Chairman Tetreault noted Mr. Rodin's other question was in regards to property taxes and asked staff to comment. Deputy Director Pfost explained that staff contacted the County Assessor's Office and the State Appraiser's Office and posed these scenarios. They did not believe that these Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2012 Page 3 proposed changes would affect people's property taxes, since the proposed change is changing the boundary to reflect a hillside that is non-developable. He noted there may be an advantage to those property owners where the line is moved and allows more development on a property. Ken DeLpng referred to option No. 2 indicating there is an opportunity to degrade people's property and there are basic property rights issues. It appeared to him there would be opportunity for legal mischief. He felt that selecting option No. 4 is a much better solution than trying to enact legislation that defines all of the properties and puts them all under a blanket where people will have less of an opportunity to contest the use of their land. Therefore, to protect people's property use, he was in favor of option No. 4. Adel Salehpour asked if a property has already had the silhouettes and plans approved would that approval be grandfathered in and would there be entitlements if the expansion of the hazard zoning affects the property. He also noted that changing the zoning could affect the people who have homes in these areas with insurance, as there may be increases in their insurance or possible cancellations. In looking at the property in regards to the city geologist's proposed recommendations, Director Rojas noted the open space hazard area on this particular property will be increased. He explained that staff would not approve any development on an extreme slope, and the city geologist is only matching the extreme slope in his recommendations. Therefore, in theory, this change should not affect what was approved unless a Variance was approved to build a structure on the extreme slope. However, he noted that he will have to look at the details of what was approved on this lot. Chairman Tetreault asked staff if they had any comment on the homeowner's insurance issues mentioned by Mr. Salehpour. He noted, however, that insurance would be a matter for insurance companies and how they want to rate parcels and set premiums. Deputy Director Pfost stated staff has not looked into homeowner's insurance issues, Director Rojas displayed Google Maps with this particular property, and noted the silhouette can be seen. He indicated the silhouette appears to be located close to the street and this most likely won't be affected by the proposed change to the hazard area on this property. Chairman Tetreault asked staff if certain approvals and entitlements were granted by the City on this property, and with the proposed changes part of the structure may now be within the expanded open space hazard area, how would this affect the entitlements. Director Rojas answered that if the entitlements are granted and the property owner pursues the project, the project is grandfathered in. However, if it lapsed because permits were not issued in a timely manner, then it could affect the project. He pointed Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2012 Page 4 out that the General Plan amendments are still at least a year away from being adopted by the City Council. Commissioner Tomblin felt that this particular property would be a good test parcel for staff and the city geologist to test the effectiveness of the proposed changes and to ensure that the lot has not been down-zoned. Jeff Koehler explained that the open space hazard line currently goes right through his home. He felt that staff's attempt to move that line back to where he thought the correct position on the slope behind him was fair. On the other hand, if his property has a hazard zone on it, when there truly is no hazard, it may be difficult to sell. He supported option No. 4, and felt the term hazard is misguided. John McCowan (2064 Galerita Drive) discussed his property as well as that of two of his neighbors. He stated he was in favor of option No. 4. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff to discuss their opinions in regards to option No. 4 versus option No. 2. Deputy Director Pfost explained that as he mentioned in describing the background of the General Plan and why the hazard designation was created, it is staff's belief that option No. 2 would be more restrictive and therefore more consistent with the General Plan and more consistent with what the purpose of the hazard designation is in that a property owner would not be able to apply for a Variance for certain development activity in that area. By implementing option No. 4, applicants would be able to apply for a Variance to do certain things on the extreme slope. Option No. 4 opens the door for development activity in areas he did not believe the General Plan intended. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there are any differences between an open space hazard designation and an open space hillside designation. Deputy Director Pfost explained that in the initial report staff had identified that they would want to keep it the same as the hazard designation, so it is mainly just a terminology change. After looking at it in more detail and looking at what extreme slopes permit that open space hazard does not, staff determined it is the permitting of some minor accessory structures that is the difference. Therefore, the Planning Commission might want to consider moving forward with allowing minor accessory structures as a use and development in open space hillside, which would allow a property owner the same option that they currently have. This would allow some of the accessory structure an extreme slope would permit, but it would still have the restriction of being a use and development one cannot vary from. Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2012 Page 5 Commissioner Gerstner noted that there is currently a procedure for a homeowner to request a change to the open space hazard line and asked if that procedure would still exist if the designation was changed to open space hillside. Deputy Director Pfost answered that staff's intent would be to keep that procedure. Chairman Tetreault noted that what the City has today has been in existence for 37 years, and through this current process a good number of people have recently come to learn there is this designation that may affect their property. The changes being suggested are to make the designations become a little closer to the reality of the physical situation that are on these properties. He noted that for whatever reason, 37 years ago when these lines were drawn they were not accurately done. What is now being done is an effort to make it more accurate and to be in conformance with the General Plan and the City's intent with the General Plan. The city geologist has determined that 666 properties are improperly inhibited in some way, without Justification, from certain types of development. Having gone this far, he felt the city has to address at least those 666 and it would be unfair to do anything less than that. However, there are 374 properties that would not benefit from these changes. He noted that option No. 3 gives the benefit to the 666 property owners and doesn't take anything away from the 374 property owners. He stated he was leaning towards option No. 3 at this point, as it seems to cause the least amount of harm. He felt option No. 4 appeared to be a somewhat significant change to the General Plan and possibly a bit more than staff envisioned when starting this assignment. He asked staff if option No. 4 would result in a big change in the generalphilosophy of how the City was put together with the General Plan. Deputy Director Pfost answered that it is staff's opinion that yes, option No, 4 would result in a significant change. He noted that he had earlier explained the purpose of the hazard designation and how we got the hazard designation through a series of maps and discussions in the General Plan. He explained that the General Plan notes extreme slope designations are not only important for what at that time was determined a safety issue, but also for land form and appearance, and the General Plan was trying to keep all of that. Option No. 4 would change all of that by removing the hazard designation from the General Plan. Commissioner Nelson commented that the current General Plan was adopted in 1975 and the City has changed drastically since that time. The Planning Commission has a responsibility to represent the citizens and tonight five of the seven citizens speaking supported option No. 4. The Planning Commission has a responsibility to listen to the citizens and a responsibility to protect what the General Plan says. He believed the existing code prohibition for development adequately protects the slopes from development. Commissioner Nelson moved to adopt option No. 4 as presented, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2012 Page 6 Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if the Planning Commission adopts option No, 4, would this then be a recommendation to the City Council or will it come back to the Planning Commission for further review, Deputy Director Pfost explained the next steps would be to move forward with notifying the property owners that the Open Space Hazard designation will be removed and a formal General Plan amendment will take place to remove the Open Space Hazard designation, which will come to the Planning Commission. All of these recommendations on the General Plan update will be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. Commissioner Gerstner understood Commissioner Nelson's comments that five of the seven speakers support option No. 4. However, he explained that over the many years he has been on the Planning Commission he has had many conversations and read many letters from residents questioning why anybody would do anything to change the General Plan. In addition, staff represented that the General Plan was being updated to make it consistent with the City as it is now, but there was no intent to change the General Plan. He felt open space hazard is a big part of the original General Plan and by completely eliminating the hazard designation, a significant change will be taking place. He acknowledged that the city would then be relying on the zoning code to accomplish the same thing, however the zoning code is not the overriding document for the City, and is something that can be changed with a lot less effort than the General Plan, Therefore, at some point in the future, it may not protect the City. He felt that being more consistent to the original General Plan was more important. Along those lines, he felt option No. 2 does a lot of the same thing as it changes the name of the hazard designation but still keeps all of the same requirements on the properties and keeps this designation in the General Plan and doesn't shift that responsibility to the zoning code. He would therefore be in support of option No. 2. Commissioner Leon expressed his concern with option No. 2 as to whether or not the city is capable at this point in time of creating all of the rules associated with this option and what the unintended consequences might be. He was also somewhat fearful of the unintended consequences of option No. 4 and moving from a zoning district to just the Development Code. He fully trusted today's Planning Commission and Planning Commissions in the future to be able to handle things in a pragmatic way as they come forward on a case by case basis. He had a problem with option No. 2 in terms of creating another section of the General Plan, as it seems that would only increase the complexity of city regulations. Chairman Tetreault compared option No. 2 to being legislation while option No. 4 to a constitutional amendment. He felt uncomfortable at a Planning Commission hearing, when he did not think it was the object of the entire exercise to make a sweeping change to this part of the General Plan, that the Commission to do so at this time. He questioned if this was the type of change the City Council wanted, and would prefer to have some direction from the City Council before considering such a change. He recalled that in the past the Commission has received direction from the City Council Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2012 Page 7 when they want to make a policy change which affects land use. He was therefore not in favor of adopting option No. 4. Commissioner Gerstner explained that option No. 2 seems like an option that is worth investigating and pursing. He understood there will be questions that will arise in that analysis. He was sensitive to respecting the comments made by the public speakers; noting their concerns with the term hazard and what it means on their property, concerns with level land on their property that is now designated as a hazard area and they are seeking a fix for that. In his opinion, that fix should not make any sweeping changes to the General Plan. He felt that option No. 2 has a potential to accomplish those goals. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments to direct staff to pursue and study option No. 2. Commissioner Nelson stated that five of the seven speakers were in favor of option No. 4 and it is incumbent on the Planning Commission to listen to the residents, He felt there will be 1,400 people who would be very happy with option No. 4. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if they felt option No. 2 was the most in line with the General Plan. Deputy Director Pfost stated that option No. 1 is the most in compliance with the General Plan because it doesn't change the designation. However, staff feels that option No. 2 is very much in line with the General Plan. The motion to adopt option No. 4 as presented failed, (2-3) with Commissioners Tomblin, Gerstner, and Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to September 25, 2012 and to direct staff to further pursue option No. 2 and present to the Planning Commission an outline or summary of what things would change and what impacts this option would have on addressing property owner's concerns, and how this would be accomplished, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Chairman Tetreault stated his concern with the motion is that option No. 2 negatively impacts 374 property owners whose development rights may be reduced. He stated he is in favor of option No. 3. Commissioner Gerstner shared the Chairman's concern and explained that he was seeking in option No. 2 in the separation of the zones and what is going to be done with open space hillsides finds a way to address that. He also thought it might be somewhat unfair to change the zone for those it benefits but have separate rules for those it doesn't. He felt that option No. 2 still offers some ways to address and solve those problems. Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2012 Page 8 Commissioner Leon asked Commissioner Gerstner if he would amend his motion to add language reflecting that. Commissioner Gerstner moved to amend his motion to add that in staff's analysis they seek to find a way to address those residents who it would appear are being negatively impacted by the new laws, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Chairman Tetreault re-opened the public hearing. Jeanne Lacombe stated she completely understands the Commission's concerns in regards to the negative impacts to some property owners, however she felt that if any other option is chosen other than option No. 4 the Commission is basically saying the residents of the Eastview area are second class citizens because they are saying they get stuck with open space hazard and the people directly across the canyon still don't have any open space hazard on their building property. She stated that is unfair to the Eastview area. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff to comment on Ms. Lacombe's statement. Deputy Director Pfost stated these changes are being proposed throughout the City, not just the Eastview area and there is no distinction between Eastview and the rest of the City. The motion to continue the public hearing to September 26th and for staff to further pursue option No. 2 was approved, (3-2) with Commissioner Nelson and Chairman Tetreault dissenting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 2. Pre-Aggenda for the meeting on September 11, 2012 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 28,2012 Page 9