Loading...
PC MINS 20120626 Approved July 24, 2012 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7-08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Gerstner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault, Absent: Commissioners Lewis and Tomblin were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, and Associate Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their June 19th City Council meeting, Councilman Campbell suggested a future agenda item which would involve the Planning Commission reviewing the Annenberg project for lessons learned. Director Rojas distributed seven items of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 2. Commissioner Leon reported that he had recently gone through the view preservation process and had some suggestions on amendments to the process. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (reic jarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Revision to Grading Permit, Height Variation, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-002521: 30400 Diamonte Lane Vice Chairman Emenhiser disclosed that the property owners at 30400 Diamonte Lane had contributed to his campaign for City Council. However, he did not think that would bias his decision in this application. Director Rojas presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and noting that as part of the approval the applicant had indicated cut from the property would be deposited on an adjacent lot owned by the applicant. The applicant has recently approached the City asking that the cut not be deposited on their lot, but rather be exported from the site. Given the large amount of export, staff felt there would be significant truck trips in the neighborhood that were not discussed during the original public hearing. In order to give full public notice to the neighborhood, staff determined this was not a minor modification to the application and should go before the Planning Commission, He stated that with the feedback received from the Public Works Department, as discussed in the staff report, staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve modifications to the previous approval to allow for exportation of fill from the property. Commissioner Leon asked if the Public Works Department regulates the time of day that these type of truck can occur, such that they do not coincide with rush hour on Palos Verdes Drive East. Director Rojas did not think Public Works had any such regulation, noting that the Community Development Department regulates the construction hours. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon felt it was important to add a condition that the trucks be allowed to operate only during non-rush hour time periods on Palos Verdes Drive East. He felt 176 truck trips down Palos Verdes Drive East during rush hour would be onerous for the residents. Chairman Tetreault noted the peak hours of traffic might be in the morning when school is beginning, and in the afternoon when school lets out. Commissioner Leon was in favor of staff's recommendation with the added condition that truck traffic be limited during these two times of the day. Specifically, that the truck traffic be limited during the peak hour of traffic on Palos Verdes Drive East, Director Rojas felt that if this condition of approval were added, the Public Works Department should be able to incorporate the condition into their approval of the haul route. Planning Commission Minutes June 26,2012 Page 2 Chairman Tetreault noted there could be more than one peak hour during the day, such as a peak morning hour and a peak afternoon hour. Director Rojas suggested the condition be written to include the morning peak and the afternoon peak, Commissioner Leon moved to approve the revision as recommended by staff, with the added condition that the truck traffic avoid the peak hour or hours on Palos Verdes Drive as appropriate, seconded by Chairman Tetreault. The motion was approved and PC Resolution 2012-12 was approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Nelson dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Initial Study scoping meeting — Crestridge Senior Housing (Case No. ZON2012-000067 and SUB2012-00001): 5601 Crestridge Road Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, beginning with a very brief history of the property on Crestridge Road. He explained the scope of the proposed project and the necessary entitlements for the project. He noted the environmental process is currently underway, with a Notice of Preparation that has been issued. He explained the purpose of this scoping meeting to inform the public of the proposed project and the City's intent to complete an EIR and to obtain public and Commission comments regarding potential environmental issues of concerns associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project. He briefly reviewed the issues that will be addressed in the EIR and the process the City must go through in reviewing and distributing the EIR. Commissioner Nelson referred to pages 21 and 22 of the Initial Study, under geology and soils, and questioned if the checked boxes could be changed from "Potentially Significant" to "Less than Significant" in order for the text to be consistent with the boxes. Senior Planner Schonborn understood Commissioner Nelson's comments, noting that it may be more appropriate to change the checked boxes to "Potentially Significant unless Mitigation incorporated", and that mitigation being adherence to the Building Code. Commissioner Nelson referred to page 23 and the green house emissions. He asked if any consideration had been given to putting solar panels on this project as a mitigating feature. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that he was not aware if the applicant had considered solar panels or not. Planning Commission Minutes June 26,2012 Page 3 Commissioner Leon noted that there are quite a few senior housing and assisted living facilities on Crestridge Road has quite a few senior house and asked if the EIR will address the consistency of the project with the General Plan and whether, as a community, we want to have the Crestridge Road area become the senior area of the City. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that as part of the CEQA analysis there is a land use section which discusses the project will have a less than significant impact to the area, the zoning for the area is Institutional, and this is a conditionally permitted use. He also noted that along Crestridge Road there are several places of worship as well as the PV Art Center. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked staff to double check the calculations for open space, as he felt the open space on the property looked less than that when looking at the site plan. He also asked if there will be a preference for Rancho Palos Verdes residents in terms of admission to or purchase of units. Director Rojas explained that the City cannot exclude people from other communities, however if the project is approved, many residents in the City will be aware of the project and inform family or friends, Chairman Tetreault was concerned that the comment period was ending so quickly, noting that this meeting will be televised after the close of the comment period. Director Rojas noted that there has been the typical 30 day comment period, and unfortunately this meeting could not be scheduled until near the end of the comment period. He added that the Commission has the ability to extend the comment period out an additional week or two if they desire. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Director Rojas stated that no decision will be made at this meeting, as it is a forum for public comments. Public comments made will be incorporated into the draft EIR. Robert Rockoff(5525 Seaside Heights Drive) stated he did not get a notice of this meeting, and as far as he knew other residents on his street did not get a notice of this meeting. He questioned why residents on Seaside Heights did not receive a notice of the meeting. He stated he looks directly at the property from his home. He asked if the silhouettes in place represent the proposed roof tops of the project. He stated he was very concerned about the height of the trees and did not feel the City conforms to its own Ordinance. He wanted to make sure the trees do not block the view he currently has. He was also concerned about the potential traffic problem and the flow of traffic out of the property. Chairman Tetreault asked staff about the public notification of this meeting, Planning Commission Minutes June 26,2012 Page 4 Director Rojas stated that residents within 500 feet of the project were notified of the meeting, noting Mr. Rockoff s property is approximately 930 feet from the property, which is why he didn't receive a notice. He stated that this project and the public hearings are just beginning, and noted that notices are sent to the surrounding HOAs. He stated staff is just beginning to get the word out to the public and hoped that residents not in the 500 foot radius would hear about the project through the newspaper, their HOA, through word of mouth, or from the City's listserve or website. He also noted that anyone who speaks, writes a letter, or an email about the project becomes an interested party and will receive all future notices. Linda Davis stated the silhouette flags were very helpful to see the density of the project, noting the project appears to be quite dense. She felt there are a lot of buildings close to the street and there doesn't seem to be adequate space between the buildings. She didn't see any open areas where one could look through the buildings. She would like to see a smaller project built. She was concerned about limiting the age to 55 and over and how that could be enforced with a private developer. She discussed the preservation of the open space, noting the open space appears to be at the rear of the structures so there would not be much open space visible from the street. She stated she used to see red tail hawks in the area and already doesn't see as many as she used to. She was concerned about the noise associated with the access gate into and out of the development, as well as the backup of traffic getting into this gated area. She was concerned about the added light pollution, as the buildings will be very visible from Mistridge Drive, She would like to see more open space, and questioned how the City's Conceptual Trail Plan would work if it is a gated community. Luella Wike stated she lives on Oceanridge Drive and looks down on this proposed project. She stated that if the stakes on the property truly represent the height of the buildings, then she felt quite a few views will be preserved. She explained that in the Mesa Development where she lives views are of great concern and asked that the Commissioners will eventually come to the properties and look and see if there are any views being blocked. She explained from her residence she has a beautiful view which includes green trees. She hoped the developer would be able to take the grade of the project down enough so that she can still see the tops of the green trees as she looks down over the project, She was also concerned with lighting, noting that staff should look into putting limits on the outside lighting that people can use. She noted the more lights down there the more it impacts the night view of the City, which may be one of the biggest selling points of the homes in her development, Harold C_ rag wanted to make sure all of the silhouettes have been erected on the property. He also questioned the contouring on the map staff used in their power point presentation. Lastly, he expressed his concerns with the ambulance trips that are happening more and more on a consistent basis, with the inclusion of sirens. He asked that there be a report prepared showing how many calls go out on that area, as it will obviously increase. Planning Commission Minutes June 26,2012 Page 5 Senior Planner Schonborn stated that the silhouettes at the site represent the tops of the proposed buildings, noting that some buildings are not silhouetted since they are proposed to be below the existing grade. He showed a drawing of the existing grade and how the proposed buildings will be incorporated into the area. He also noted that the contours on the map slope down. Beth Stallkamp stated she lives on Mistridge Drive, was not notified of this project, and wanted to ensure she was added to the interested party list to receive all public notifications. She questioned why more senior housing was needed in the City. She asked if any consideration was given to the residents who look down on Mandela and how Mirandela has affected them since it was completed. She noted that she gets quite a bit of amber light from Mandela up into her residence in the evening. She asked if there will be stairs up to the second story, noting that may be difficult for seniors. She asked if there has been any consideration in putting trees along Crestridge Road to help block the views of the buildings. Chairman Tetreault asked if this is City owned property or a private development. Director Rojas answered this is a private development, and the parcel has always been privately owned, Chairman Tetreault asked if the City will get any type of affordable housing or senior housing credits from the State for this project. Senior Planner Schonborn answered there are three low income housing units proposed as part of the project to satisfy the affordable housing requirements of the City's Code. Director Rojas added the City foresees public trails on the property as well as other public improvements warranted by the project impacts that may be identified in the EIR analysis. Chairman Tetreault asked if there will be exterior access stairs to the second floor. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that there will be interior stairs, and each unit will also have an elevator to the upper level, Leo Kopsombut stated he has not seen the actual layout of the units, and questioned if the silhouettes are accurate. He noted that with the large amount of grading and then putting up the buildings, he questioned what the view will really be like for the surrounding residents. Also, being that this is a privately owned development, he asked if the voices of the residents and the City will be taken into account if the project continues, or is this something where the developer is just fighting for permits. Planning Commission Minutes June 26,2012 Page 6 Chairman Tetreault asked staff if there was a way to get rather detailed renderings of the project, taken from a number of different vantage points. This may help the community see what the finished project will look like in greater detail. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that as part of the EIR, the aesthetic section will have some view simulations of the project site included. He added that many of the speakers were concerned that they had not received public notice of this meeting, and he offered his email address so that any resident who would like to be included as an interested party and receive notices can request to be added to the list. He also noted that he is currently compiling a list of properties to visit and conduct a view analysis from, and any resident who would like him to visit their property should notify him. Commissioner Leon stated he would like the EIR to address some degree of coordination between the different projects on Crestridge Road. He understood the need for coordination between this project and all of the other projects in the area is not really the responsibility of this applicant, however as the projects get larger in size having several separate and distinct and uncoordinated large projects on Crestridge Road is not advisable. He therefore suggested that as part of the EIR it address traffic and other environmental issues looking at all of the developments on Crestridge Road as opposed to looking primarily at this one in isolation. Commissioner Nelson noted several comments have been made about the lighting, and suggested they go to Terranea and look at how they did their lighting for the community. He felt their lighting is invisible to the neighbors, yet the paths are very clearly lit. He felt that good lighting is possible, as proven by Terranea, and it will be addressed as the project moves forward. Chairman Tetreault noted that, given the number of residents who have expressed concern that, because they are out of the 500 foot radius they did not receive a public notice for this meeting, that the public comment time be extended by at least a week. Commissioner Nelson suggested extending the public comment period until the end of the business day on Thursday, July 12. Senior Planner Schonborn agreed that extending the public comment period to the end of the business day on July 12th would not adversely affect the project schedule. 3. Code Amendment— Hedge height in the front and setback (Case No. ZON2010-00293) Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report by giving a brief history of the code amendment and explaining that the City Council is now very specific in their direction by stating that an applicant wishing to have a hedge over the code limit of 42 inches should burden the cost of that request. The Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to create a discretionary permit process that could allow hedges over 42 inches in the front yard setback. Based on that direction and as a starting point for the Planning Commission Minutes June 26,2012 Page 7 Planning Commission's discussion, staff brought back a previous code amendment proposal from last year that includes a permit process. She stated that staff is requesting the Planning Commission review this process in more detail and specify any direction or feedback, and continue the discussion to the July 24th meeting. Commissioner Leon asked how much staff was anticipating this type of application would cost an applicant. Associate Planner Kim explained staffs previous proposal was under a Site Plan Review process that the City currently uses, and that cost is $329, Commissioner Leon asked if there was a way to make this a less expensive process. Associate Planner Kim explained that staff can estimate what staffs time would be to process this type of application, which would include Public Works staff time for an analysis as well as Planning Department staff time for the view analysis. Director Rojas added that it is the City Council who sets the fee. Therefore, staff is going to suggest using the Site Plan Review fee for now, which is the most comparable and one of the least expensive application fees. However, the City must charge whatever the cost is to process the application, so if staff finds the processing is less expensive or more expensive the fee will have to be adjusted with a follow-up report to the City Council. Commissioner Gerstner referred to the proposed language, item E-2 and the discussion of Public Works determining if the hedge creates a public health hazard regarding activities happening around the driveway of the hedge owner, and based on their determination an applicant will be allowed to or not allowed to have a hedge over 42 inches in height. He asked staff to discuss the criteria that will be used by the Public Works Department to make this determination. He added that it has already been determined that the Public Works Department feels any hedge over 30 inches blocks the view. His concern was he did not know what criteria will be used and questioned if the Director of Public Works might say, you can't have a 60 inch hedge or even a 42 inch hedge because anything over 30 inches blocks the view. Director Rojas explained that the Code allows a 42 inch hedge by right and staff is not going to make people reduce the hedge height to below 42 inches. He stated he has discussed this with the Public Works staff and they have agreed they will only look at hedge heights over 42 inches. Commissioner Gerstner stated that if 42 inches blocks the view, blocking the view more at six feet will not change the conditions. Associate Planner Kim explained that the Public Works Department will make a case by case site evaluation of a hedge, and depending on where the property is located, a decision will be made. Planning Commission Minutes June 26,2012 Page 8 Director Rojas added that the Public Works criteria is subjective and on a case by case basis. If that explanation is not sufficient for the Commission in terms of an Ordinance, he can request a member of the Public Works staff attend a meeting and explain their process and criteria. Commissioner Gerstner explained that to the extent the Planning Commission is going to recommend giving the power to the Public Works Department to make a determination, the Commission should understand what the guidelines are of that determination. He also felt two different definitions would help; one being a definition of a visibility triangle and some other terminology that describes the intersection that happens between the driveway and the street which has a visibility zone. He felt it was very confusing because there is no term for the view condition off of the driveway. Vice Chairman Emenhiser stated that the Planning Commission has gone back and forth on this issue several times and still could not make a decision. With that, the Commission sent the issue back to the City Council for clarification, the City Council voted 3-2 to send the issue back to the Planning Commission with some clarification. He did not know if the Planning Commission would be able to solve the issue with all of the complications because the complications seem to be built into the essence of the regulation. He wondered if the Commission should send the issue back to the City Council as confusing as it is since the Council has the ultimate policy decision that the Commission does not. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the City Council asked for the Planning Commission to solve both the hedge and the visibility triangle issues. Associate Planner Kim answered that the City Council asked the Planning Commission to solve the hedge issue. Staff is proposing the change to the visibility triangle review process. Commissioner Gerstner suggested the Planning Commission limit their scope of discussion to just the hedge issue. Director Rojas explained that the hedge issue is related to the visibility triangle because there could be a situation where a hedge is in the front setback and also in the visibility triangle on someone's property. Staff feels a hedge should still be allowed to be over 42 inches if Public Works says it is safe to do so. If the Planning Commission does not discuss the visibility triangle, that will leave a situation where no hedge will be allowed over 30 inches in the visibility triangle. Commissioner Gerstner questioned if there could be language added to this particular section of the Code, and not go to the visibility triangle section of the code, which states these hedges shall be allowed in the visibility triangle not withstanding the language of the visibility triangle section of the Code, to the extent they don't block a view. Planning Commission Minutes June 26,2012 Page 9 Director Rojas explained that currently if someone wants a taller hedge in the visibility triangle they must go before the Planning Commission. Staff is suggesting this be a Director level decision rather than a Planning Commission decision to save time for an applicant. Commissioner Nelson asked staff how this all will be enforced, Director Rojas answered that this will be enforced through neighborhood complaints. Chairman Tetreault understood there are many variables involved when looking at hedges and any view obstruction. However, he felt there should be some criteria for residents to review and consider when making a decision as to whether or not pay the fee and go through the permit process to request their hedge be allowed at some height over 42 inches. He would like to hear from Public Works how this is going to work and the criteria that will be used. He felt that before the Public Works staff can enforce this they will have to have certain criteria and will have to know how to do it, and he would like to know what that is, Director Rojas felt it would be helpful to have a member of Public Works discuss this with the Planning Commission at the next meeting. Vice Chairman Emenhiser felt that the Planning Commission should take the guidance of the City Council and approve staffs recommendations and send the item to the City Council for a final decision. Commissioner Nelson agreed, Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to continue the discussion to July 24th with a member of the Public Works staff present at that meeting, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of May 8, 2012 Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser, approved without objection, 5. Minutes of May 22, 2012 Commissioner Nelson noted a minor typo on page 16 of the minutes. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Approved without objection. 6. Minutes of June 12, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes June 26,2012 Page 90 Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-agenda for the meeting on July 10, 2012 Commissioner Nelson moved that, since there are currently no items on the agenda, that the July 1 oth meeting be cancelled, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Approved without objection. Commissioner Leon suggested a future agenda item on the review of the view preservation process. He suggested that the City's mediator be present at that meeting. Director Rojas cautioned that this is an Ordinance that was passed by the voters in the City and therefore the Commission is very limited in any changes that can be made. Secondly, any code amendments must be initiated by the City Council. He would like to have the City Attorney present at the meeting to determine if what the Commission is proposing is something that can be done at this level. He noted that the Guidelines are also approved by the City Council. Therefore, if the Commission has suggestions for changes to the Guidelines they must be presented to the City Council for approval, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 26,2012 Page 11