Loading...
PC MINS 20121211 Approved January W, 2013 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:21 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, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent-, Commissioners Lewis, Nelson, and Tomblin were 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 distributed two items of correspondence for agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. General Plan ConsistencV Finding — Cherry Hill lot purchase Director Rojas stated that the City Manager's office has asked that this item be removed from the agenda, but will return on a future agenda. The item was removed from the agenda without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Conditional Use Permit (Case Nos. ZON2012-00067 and SUB20112-000011): 5601 Crestridge Road Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the project and reviewing the direction given by the Planning Commission at the November 13, 2012 meeting. He explained how the Commission's concerns had been addressed by both the applicant and by staff, which included the issue of the entry tower, the construction timeline and phasing, the parcelization of the Tentative Tract Map, conditions of approval regarding the trails at the site, conditions regarding the lighting at the site, photo sims to illustrate maximum foliage height, a condition included requiring a one-year review of the operational aspect of the development, and a condition requiring the CC&Rs be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. He discussed a letter received from Congregation Ner Tamid expressing privacy concerns and staff's opinion that an eight-foot tall privacy wall, as requested, is not warranted to address this issue. Director Rojas added that, while there is a condition of approval regarding a review of the exterior lighting, he explained that staff and the developer's emphasis and focus is making sure the lighting placed on the buildings is adequate and meets the City's requirements. He pointed out an added condition that requires a lighting plan be submitted to the City for review. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. James O'Malley (applicant) stated he has embraced and appreciated all of the comments from the neighbors on this project. He stated that he endorses the staff report and the conditions of approval. He commented that he looks forward to moving ahead with this project and making the community a part of the City. Steven Millet (representing Congregation Ner Tamid) explained the property touches the project site on the northwest side, noting this has not been mentioned in any of the documents. He would like this to be noted. He was concerned with staff's recommendation that no fencing was necessary in the area, as the brush will be cleared and will leave the area open to dust and contaminants from grading and construction. He was also concerned about people looking over at the children in the pre-school playground, which is why they are asking for a minimum eight-foot tall fence. He would like to ask the exact use of the community garden and if there will be any type of chemical or insecticide use near the children in the pre-school. Director Rojas displayed a site plan showing the proposed project property as well as the Congregation Ner Tamid. He pointed out the proposed community garden area and the existing fence line and substantial landscaping area between the two properties. He stated that during a site visit to the community garden area he was not able to see over the fence and landscaping to see onto the playground. He also showed the public trail Planning Commissicn Minutes December 111.2012 Page 2 area, noting the community garden will be between the trail and the Congregation Ner Tamid property. Robert Rockoff (5525 Seaside Heights) discussed the height of the trees. He asked that a provision to the conditions of approval be added that in the event the foliage is close to more than one structure, the foliage height shall not exceed the lowest roof ridge. He felt this would help the developer to determine approximate mature height foliage to be planted and would enable the HOA to gauge and self-regulate the foliage heights. It would also ensure that any off-site viewing property, no matter what their angle of view of the development, would see foliage no higher than the roof ridge line. He did not agree with staff's suggestion that the foliage be kept at a level below the yellow line depicted on a photo simulation. He felt this method may increase the likelihood of issues and disputes, as this method seems too imprecise and subject to misinterpretation, He also felt that black and white copies of such copies given with the CC&Rs would have a diminished quality. He also did not think the HOA would be able to achieve self-regulation in regards to foliage heights. Chairman Tetreault asked Mr. Rockoff to clarify how his method of determining maximum tree height is different from staff's suggestion. Mr. Rockoff explained that his idea limits the height of the trees to the height of the ridgeline of the roof on all buildings. Chairman Tetreault asked from what perspective this height would be determined. Mr. Rockoff answered that it could be determined by just driving down the street and see if the foliage is higher than the roof. Linda Davis (5575 Mistridge) stated her concern was that her view be completely preserved. She commented that when Belmont was constructed it was discovered there was a bunker under the property and the building height was therefore raised to a level much higher than the residents anticipated. She hoped that there would be no issues with this project which would result in higher building heights. She hoped the foliage would be limited and maintained to the roof ridgelines to preserve the views of the neighbors above. She referred to staff's photo with the yellow line drawn on it, noting it was taken from her yard. She questioned if city staff would have to enter her yard every time there was a question as to whether or not the foliage was in compliance. She also discussed the hours of operation and grading, and hoped that these hours took into consideration the residents and the school hours. James O'Malley (in rebuttal) stated that, in regards to Mr. Millet's comments, the community garden is the most passive use of the land that he has ever created on a project and felt it would work quite well at the site as proposed. In regards to Mr. Rockoff's comments, he felt that there are numerous methods that can be used to gauge the height of the trees, but was satisfied with staff's suggested method. He Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2012 Page 3 noted that one of the most important aspects of the vegetation will be the species of tree that is selected. He also stated that comments by Ms. Davis were well taken. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. O'Malley if he had plans to put any type of fencing around the community garden area. Mr. O'Malley answered that he did not plan to put fencing around the community garden. Vice Chairman Emenhiser noted Mr. Millet's concerns in regards to the privacy issues surrounding the children's playground at Congregation Ner Tamid. He asked Mr. O'Malley if he had any solutions to that particular issue, Mr. O'Malley did not see this as an issue at all. He felt there is a natural grade break as well as an existing fence and existing vegetation. He could not think of a more passive use for the area and a nice addition to the community. Director Rojas displayed a photo showing the proposed garden area, the existing vegetation, and the fencing behind the vegetation. He stated that staff did not see what the developer could do to enhance that area since the playground is already screened. Chairman Tetreault asked if the photo taken by staff shown on the screen was depicting finished grade. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the photo depicts finished grade and the the existing finished grade may be slightly lower after the area is cleared and grubbed. He added there could be a condition of approval that any grading in this area will be only to grub the site. He also referred to the grading plan, which shows no grading at that area. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked staff what remedies will be available to the residents if there is grading or construction occurring outside of the approved hours. Senior Planner Schonborn clarified that there are two separate aspects to the project, grading and construction, The grading component has more restrictive hours of operation, that being 8:15 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Monday through Friday, Director Rojas added the City will require the developer to post a sign on the property giving a phone number to call if there are any concerns regarding the construction at the site, If there is no remedy, the resident can then call the City. Commissioner Gerstner asked to go through condition Nos. 71 through 80, which address the exterior lighting. In looking at the conditions he noted that what the City should be looking for is a foot candle estimate for the entire property. In regards to the color temperature, his recommendation was to get all of the lighting within a certain range rather than the lighting ranging from 1700 to 4500. He felt a reasonable range was 2800 to 3700. He particularly liked the sentence describing how one should not be Plarning Commission Minutes December 11,2012 Page 4 able to see the light source, but rather the light was shielded and one was seeing reflected light. He thought that should be reiterated in condition No. 76. Chairman Tetreault asked staff to discuss condition Nos. 75 and 7, specifically the 42 inches above existing grade height limitation versus No.77 which states any exterior lighting shall not exceed five feet in height. Senior Planner Schonborn explained the intent for condition No. 75 was more applicable to lights on a building, where No. 77 addresses lights throughout the facility not on buildings. Chairman Tetreault felt that No. 77 should be better defined. Chairman Tetreault referred to Ms. Davis' comments regarding grading during the periods of time when school lets out, and asked staff to comment. Senior Planner Schonborn explained this was looked at in the environmental process, which resulted in the recommended 8:15 to 4:15 hours. He stated that if there are additional measures the Commission would like to add this can be discussed with the Public Works Department where they may want to add conditions of flagging during certain hours or other mitigation measures as needed. Director Rojas explained that haul routes are reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, and if the Planning Commission would like to emphasize their concerns with school traffic, the Commission may want to add a condition of approval that directs Public Works review the haul routes and traffic situations at the site on an ongoing basis. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he has no issues with the Environmental Impact Report, as he felt it adequately covered the issues at the site. He explained that his issues are with the specifics related to the conditions of approval, Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Leon, noting that he expected there would be discussion on the conditions of approval. Commissioner Gerstner offered an amendment that the conditions of approval be modified such that where there is discussion about the front gate remaining unlocked for the purposes of the trail easement, that any rear gate or fence be named in the same condition. Vice Chairman Emenhiser accepted that amendment, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Planning commission Minutes December 11,2012 Page 5 Senior Planner Schonborn suggested the following language be added to the end of condition No. 63: Public access to the trail shall not be impeded by a fence, gate, or any other structure, Chairman Tetreault referred to condition No. 55, asking that language be included that a review of the hours or other mitigating factors with respect to construction hours takes place when necessary, Commissioner Leon expressed concern about trucks driving by the high school. He felt 8:15 adequately addresses the morning arrival at the high school. He noted, however, that the high school day ends at 3:00 at was concerned that trucks will still be hauling dirt past the high school at that time which he felt will dramatically impact the traffic. Senior Planner Schonborn felt that adding more restrictions to the export will prolong the grading well past the projected eight month time period. He also noted that this was addressed in the EIR through a traffic sampling, which concluded that even during the peak afternoon hours there will not be a significant impact to the traffic. Chairman Tetreault asked that, in regards to condition No. 55, there be some review of these issues as the project is going on, and if it is determined there is a public safety issue, modifications can be imposed upon the developer. Senior Planner Schonborn added that Belmont and Mirandela used this same truck route when they did the grading on their properties. He looked in the files and spoke to Public Works, and found that there were no impacts associated with those grading projects, Vice Chairman Emenhiser accepted the Chairman's friendly amendment. However Commissioner Leon preferred to have stronger wording so that the issue was not just between Public Works and the developer. He suggested wording that the schools have some sort of ability to comment on the subject. He therefore did not second the friendly amendment. Chairman Tetreault moved on to the possible conflict between condition Nos. 75 and 77, noting staff will change the wording in condition No. 75 to make it consistent with the wording in condition No. 77. Commissioner Gerstner suggested modifying the language in condition No. 75 by striking the words "with no eaves" and adding at the end of the condition "excepting recessed light fixtures in the ceilings above exterior balconies." Vice Chairman Emenhiser accepted the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Gerstner suggested the requirement in the last sentence of condition No. 72 be added to the items the Director is looking to review in condition No. 76. Planning Commisston Minutes December 11,2012 Page 6 Vice Chairman Emenhiser accepted the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Gerstner suggested changing the word "lighting contractor" to "lighting consultant" in condition No. 72. He also suggested removing the words "estimates of maximum illumination on the site" and replacing it with "foot candles by area." Vice Chairman Emenhiser and Commissioner Leon accepted the amendment. Commissioner Gerstner also suggested removing the words "high pressure sodium lights" and replacing them with "light fixtures", He also suggested changing "less than 4500 kelvin" to "a range of 2700 to 3700 kelvin". Vice Chairman Emenhiser and Commissioner Leon accepted the amendment. Commissioner Leon noted there had been several public comments in regards to tree height, and how it is measured. He discussed staff's proposed yellow line and felt it was the appropriate way to measure tree height, but thought it should be called something other than the yellow line. He suggested wording saying the trees would be limited to the height of the ridgeline of the specific condominiums on the ridge. Senior Planner Schonborn noted there are different buildings and different ridgelines, showing that all of the highest ridgelines are not all concentrated in the back. Director Rojas explained that 20 years ago staff may have attempted to write conditions as described by Commissioner Leon. However, through technology staff has found that drawing a line on a photograph has been successful. In addition, once a tree is trimmed there is usually a trim line on the tree for future trimming. Staff feels in a project such as this with multiple buildings and multiple ridgelines that can be misinterpreted through the years with someone trying to read a condition, that this is a better option, Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked if the yellow line is based on the highest ridgeline of the development. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the yellow line is based on the highest visible ridgelines, as viewed from each of the points. Chairman Tetreault noted that the City is trying to protect views, not keep trees below a certain height, and in order to do so it is not a fixed point that is being discussed. The view will be dependent on wherever the view is being taken from, Commissioner Gerstner felt that if staff feels this is the easiest and best way to enforce the tree issue, he will support their recommendation. He also felt that allowing other trees that don't cross this line to grow up taller to help obscure the light and other impacts of this development is beneficial to the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2012 Page 7 Chairman Tetreault suggested additional language for condition No. 55 as follows: Public Works takes into consideration school traffic along the haul route and has the ability to modify the haul route and times of operation or impose other conditions in the interest of public safety. Vice Chairman Emenhiser accepted the proposed amendment, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Chairman Tetreault re-opened the public hearing to allow the applicant to address and comment on the Planning Commission's discussion. Mr. O'Malley felt that everything discussed is smart and has the proper intent, He stated that he had previously talked to the principal at the high school who stated she did not have any concerns or issues with the previous two projects adjacent to this project during their grading and construction phases. The principal also explained that the peak traffic period at the school is the morning drop-off period, while the afternoon traffic is much more sporadic. He asked the principal to witness the traffic patterns during the grading period, and if there are problems to contact Senior Planner Schonborn, He discussed the dust and air quality at the site, noting that it is a major issue for the contractors, and he was confident there would be no problems. He discussed condition No. 72 and felt the current condition was clear and concise. He stated that they will definitely comply with all city regulations and will shield lights at this project and be sensitive to both the local and long distance neighbors. Commissioner Gerstner noted balconies that extend out from the building, and asked Mr. O'Malley what type of lighting would be on these types of balconies. He noted that, from his point of view, he was not sure there should be lighting on this type of exterior balcony. Mr. O'Malley explained this is an example of an area that an exterior light may be required on these balconies per the Building Code, however if the Code does require lights they will be shielded. He also noted that the Building Code may require balcony lighting at a certain height. Chairman Tetreault discussed the height of lights and the Commission agreed that the height of the lights on buildings would not exceed seven feet, and the lights not on buildings would not exceed five feet in height, Dan Withee wanted to make sure that this condition will still give him the ability to put down lights in the covered balconies upstairs. Commissioner Gerstner suggested changing the wording slightly to allow for a ceiling light in the second floor covered balconies. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2012 Page 8 The motion to recommend the City Council certify the ECR (PC Resolution 2012- 022) and recommending the City Council conditionally approve the project, as conditioned (PC Resolution 2012-023), was approved, (4-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. General Plan uRdate — Review proposed changes to the existing Land Use Map regarding the location of the Hillside (Hazard) land use boundary Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining staff has been receiving quite a few questions from the public regarding the background of these proposed changes and why staff felt these changes were necessary. With that, he gave a brief presentation on the General Plan's discussion of hazard designations within the City. He discussed the Zoning Code and the Zoning Map, which are the implementation tools of the General Plan, He explained that in updating the General Plan staff identified a variety of inconsistencies between the Zoning Code mapping and the General Plan mapping. He stated that staff asked the City Geologist to evaluate the Open Space Hazard area designations and boundaries, and explained the criteria used by the City Geologist in doing so. He explained that the result of this evaluation was that there are slightly over 1,000 properties in the City that required some sort of adjustment. Of those 1,000 properties, approximately two-thirds required adjustments where the boundary would be taken off of the property or off of developable areas and the remaining third would actually be an expansion of boundary. He briefly reviewed the Planning Commission's direction to staff at the September 25th meeting. He explained that staff would be reviewing proposed changes with the Planning Commission over a series of meetings, and that tonight's objective was to cover 260 properties, focusing on three different canyon areas. He displayed aerial photographs of the canyons reflecting the current designations as well as the proposed changes. He noted that these proposed changes are not final, as this will be a Planning Commission recommendation on a General Plan update to the City Council. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the new line crosses over any existing structures, balconies, or patios. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the proposed new line does not cross over any structures or improvements. Commissioner Leon noted that it appears this was done at a relatively small scale and felt there were a few instances where the line was placed right over a property to make it into a consistent line at that scale. He therefore recommended the Commission go over this very carefully, expanding the scale and looking at the aerials to make sure no patios or structures were affected, Deputy Director Pfost explained that staff has gone over this several times at a larger scale, noting that it would take a lot of time to present 260 individual properties to the Planning commission Minutes December 11,2012 Page 9 Planning Commission. He added that he can show individual sites with quite good detail if that was the Commission's decision. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Carol Falstrup (49 3/4 Rockinghorse Road) noted that the current proposed line encroaches onto approximately half of her property. From her perspective that will decrease the value of her property as it takes away the possibility of development in that area, She felt that this was putting a burden on her as a property owner, as she now must hire a geologist, a surveyor, and an attorney in order to do her own homework to confirm the City's determinations. She also noted that at 49 1/4Rockinghorse Road is an open lot and the proposed line will be encroaching onto that property as well. Because the line is removing the ability to build a house, it is pushing the house up the hill towards the road, which will them loom over her home. She asked what is driving the City to put more land into this category. She asked what the City's long term intentions are for this land, are there trails proposed at the bottom of the canyon or public access. She asked if staff had done site visits or if this was all done with aerial photographs. Finally, she asked what the timing for the completion of this project was. George Winston stated his concerns were for 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East. He recalled at the last hearing there were several options and it may be helpful to have those options displayed again this evening. He stated that one of those options was to take no action at all. He asked what the driving force was behind these changes and who would be benefiting in the long run. He asked if the City needed to go through all of this for the sake of consistency. He was concerned the hazard area was being removed from some properties where it might over-arch some structure that is already there. He did not think it was reasonable that in some areas it's ok because there is a structure already there and in other areas it's not ok to put up a new structure. He was concerned about the decrease in property values by simply having a label on the property, as well as the potential for increases in insurance costs. He noted that plans have been drawn up for the property at 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East, and this change may impact those plans. John McCowan stated he was representing himself at 2064 Galerita as well as his adjacent neighbors at 2161 Santa Rena and 2158 Santa Rena. He felt these properties are negatively impacted, as the line is being placed on areas where there is not a 35 percent grade. He explained that he had run tape on the rear slope to confirm the slope is not 35 percent. He noted that on this section of property he had plans to build a swimming pool and develop the area. He noted that the same is true for his neighbors, as the line is proposed on flat or slightly sloping areas of their properties. Adel Salehpour stated he was also speaking in regards to 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East. He asked if there has been any major seismic activity within the proposed areas which may prompt the City to take this action. He felt this proposal will negatively affect property values and eventually affect appraisals. He also felt this proposal could halt remodels and new additions on homes, which will affect revenues to the City. He asked Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2012 Page 10 if geology reports would be required to repair broken property line walls that are in the hazard areas. Finally, he asked if the proposed Crestridge condominiums previously discussed by the Commission would be affected by this change, Don Dvorin (49 1/2Rockinghorse Road) understood the City already restricts development of the sensitive hillside areas in question. It was unclear to him what is being gained by going through this process of creating a new overlay. He felt the City should use the tools currently available to them to impose restrictions on a lot by lot basis, rather than doing a blanket overlay that seems to be raising quite a few issues. His biggest issue, however, was in respect to the vacant lot next door to him at 49 '/4 Rockinghorse Road. He felt that the City has taken the pad footprint that was proposed from the previous applicant and locked it in as the boundary line for this new open space. He vigorously opposed that footprint and wants it moved down the canyon several feet, explaining that for every foot that house will be moved down the canyon the ridgeline as viewed from his house drops two or three feet. He also noted that the lot flattens out towards the bottom of the canyon. He felt the City is giving him the burden of a pad location that he didn't like in the first place, with none of the benefits and concessions that the Planning Department was able to get in connection with the permit application. David Lukac stated he agrees with everything that has been said by the previous speakers. He noted that the proposed plan puts approximately half of his property into the hazard zone and, as an equestrian, he asked if that will then deduct from his acreage in regards to his ability to keep horses on his property. He also asked how the old hazard designation was determined and how that methodology was different from what is being done today. He felt that property owners should have the right to ask the City Geologist to come to their property to make a determination rather than use computerized technology. Ray Van Dinther stated she also agrees with everything that has been said by the speakers, She noted that over the past 30 to 35 years many improvements have been made on these proper-ties in one way or another, and a lot of areas the City may think are extreme slopes or unusable land are in fact very useable land, and in many cases, very flat land. The bottoms of the canyons are flat, and she explained that many of the properties go down one side of the canyon and back up the other side. She did not think these decisions could be made by looking at a two-dimensional piece of paper or a three-dimensional picture from the sky. She felt someone must walk the properties and determine exactly what is on each property. Madeline Ryan agreed this approach should not be taken with these properties. She noted that it is very important to her that the City maintain the equestrian overlay zoning in the area, She felt that any portion of any property that is rezoned to Open Space Hillside that would prevent them from keeping a large domestic property or building a structure to keep that animal in, is unacceptable. She stated there are numerous errors on some of the properties, and that the City Geologist should physically visit these properties, Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2012 Page 11. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Emenhiser explained that the City embarked on this effort to try to correct the current map, however he continues to have a number of reservations about the process. He discussed the various concerns expressed by the speakers and felt that the process needs to be changed, as it does not appear to be working. Chairman Tetreault explained that he wrote down the questions and concerns of the speakers and would now go through and address these questions with staff. He began with the comment that 666 properties benefit from this change as they have an increase in useable land, while 374 properties have hillside area introduced or increased on their properties. He asked if there is any quota to this, or any formula to achieve an end result. Deputy Director Pfost answered that it was simply a matter of going through the map property by property, with no formula or end results, Chairman Tetreault asked if this was the first step towards something else the City may have in mind, such as the introduction of public trails at the base of the canyons. Deputy Director Pfost answered there is no such intention. Chairman Tetreault asked staff when this will go to the City Council and when will a final decision be made. Deputy Director Pfost explained that this will eventually go before the City Council, estimating the Planning Commission could finish up with the Land Use Map in February or March and the entire package going before the Council some time in the summer. Chairman Tetreault noted a speaker's question as to what the driving force was behind this process. Deputy Director Pfost explained there has not been an update to the General Plan in 38 years and in the existing General Plan when the open space hazard designation was plotted it fell on flat areas of properties and the City is trying to update the map to be consistent with the criteria discussed in the General Plan. He stated that this is a process of identifying the errors in the General Plan Land Use Map and trying to correct those errors, Chairman Tetreault gave a hypothetical situation in which a resident, who currently has an area on their property not in the hazard zone and would like to build on that area, but with these changes the area will now be in the hillside area and they can't build on that area. He asked what process that resident would go through now to get approvals and what process that resident will have to go through if these changes are approved. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2012 Page 12 Deputy Director Pfost explained a swimming pool, or any other structure, cannot currently be built on an extreme slope. The only change will be that the extreme slope will be designated as open space hillside. Using the example of a deck over an extreme slope, he explained currently one can build a deck not exceeding six feet over an extreme slope. Under this new designation, staff is proposing to continue to allow the deck to go over an extreme slope up to six feet. The only thing staff was taking away was the option to apply for a Variance to allow a deck more than six feet over the extreme slope, Chairman Tetreault asked how a property owner can dispute the City's findings and show that they do not have an extreme slope on their property. Deputy Director Pfost explained there is a provision in the Development Code to move that line up to 100 feet through an interpretation procedure. However, he has heard from the speakers regarding three areas of concern, and staff can have the City Geologist do a site visit and see if any adjustments are warranted. Chairman Tetreault asked if any of these lines are affected by a history of seismic activity, Deputy Director Pfost did not believe any major seismic activity has occurred that warranted where the lines would be place. The City Geologist mainly looked at the steepness of the slope, canyons, and blue line streams. He also looked at bedding planes and topography of the area. Chairman Tetreault asked how this designation affects the ability for horse keeping on these properties. Deputy Director Pfost acknowledged that many of these properties are in the Q District, and this will not affect the number of horses allowed on the property as that is determined by the acreage of the property, which will not change. The only thing that may change is the location of any barns on the property. He noted that barns cannot now, or with this proposal, be built on extreme slopes. He also noted that several speakers pointed out that at the bottom of these canyons there are some flatter areas. He agreed, but noted that they are actually blue line streams and structures should not be constructed at the bottom of those canyons. Chairman Tetreault noted a speaker asked if this will affect the proposed Crestridge project. Deputy Director Pfost explained that staff has not completed the study on that side of the City, but was aware there may be extreme slope on the back slope of the project. He noted, however, that was an area of City owned land. Commissioner Gerstner felt it was very important for the City Geologist to go out and look at any property where the owner felt the new lines were incorrectly located and to Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2012 Page 13 verify that the line has been placed in accordance with the criteria that has been established. He agreed with the criteria being used and also agreed that a jagged line through properties, as opposed to a straight line, was acceptable. Vice Chairman Emenhiser felt this was a well-intentioned, but mistaken effort to correct a problem and is unnecessarily generating anxiety among the property owners. He felt a better solution had to be found. Commissioner Gerstner felt that if the Planning Commission is going to change their course, he would rather do so when the entire Commission is present. He stated that he would be in favor of directing staff to get this closer to being right, given the criteria already agreed upon. When this is then brought back before the Commission, if one of the Commissioners wants to then address the broader question, then the broader question will be readdressed. Chairman Tetreault explained that staff and the Commission are aware that the lines that were originally drawn over 35 years ago were not accurate. Since we know that is true, he felt it was important to do something to correct it, as it will be to the benefit to those property owners that the line adversely affects. He felt the City has an obligation to the property owners to do this correctly, and he felt that while this has been a good attempt, it is still inaccurate as to a number of properties. He also noted that the proposal puts the burden on the property owner to prove that their property should not be restricted in this fashion. He noted that in the staff report, option No, 3 suggests moving forward with adjusting the hazard lines as recommended, but only for those properties where the hazard land use area decreases. There would then be no detrimental effect to any property owner. He felt this option was the only one that could be used to move forward. He stated that he fully appreciates the reasons why the City is doing this and it is with the best of intentions; however, he was not comfortable with the results. Director Rojas explained that for years residents have been telling staff that the hazard line on their property is incorrectly placed. In order to address the problem in a consistent manner, staff knew that most residents would be happy to see the line on their property better located and some residents would be upset. To mitigate this, staff has proposed a system where no property rights will be taken away. The areas on a property that currently cannot be developed will be the same with the new designation. Notwithstanding that, he noted some good points have been brought up by individuals and staff can look at these individual cases to ensure the proposed line has been properly placed. He explained that the only difference resulting from this proposal is that a Variance will not be available for certain proposed construction. He also noted that the cost of a Variance is $5,000 and the request must be heard by the Planning Commission. However, the process to adjust the line on a property without a Variance is a Director decision and the City Council directed that the fee be less than $500. Therefore, staff feels the remedy to address these concerns is actually easier with the option currently before the Commission. He explained that this item can come back to Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2012 Page 14 the Commission on January 22nd, and between now and then the City Geologist can visit the properties in question. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to the January 22, 2013 meeting, and directed staff to work with the City Geologist to review and refine the proposed maps as necessary, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Approved, (4-0). 4. General Plan update — Review proposed changes to the existing Land Use Map pertaining to specific residential planned developments. Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining staff has identified six areas in the City identified as residential planned developments that were built after the City was incorporated and after the General Plan and Zoning Code were created. Staff has found these planned developments have two land use districts on them when they should only have one, and noted the land use designations should have been changed when the development was entitled. He used the Seabreeze Tract as an example, showing how the two land use designations and how the boundary line, on some lots, actually bifurcates the properties and even structures. Therefore, some properties actually have dual land use designations. He explained that staff is proposing to combine each of these six RPDs into one land use district, which they should be according to their density. He stated that staff has notified all homeowners and HOAs within the RPDs and has received no correspondence that is opposed to the proposed change. Chairman Tetreault asked if there was any downside, or if it would adversely affect any of the properties. Deputy Director Pfost answered that there is no downside and no properties would be adversely affected. Director Rojas added that the City regulates the tracts based on the conditions of the tract rather than the zoning. Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to approved staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (4-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 51 Minutes of November 13, 2012 Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Leon. The minutes were approved as presented, (3-0), with Chairman Tetreault abstaining. 6. Minutes of November 27, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2012 Page 15 Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (3-0) with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the January 8, 2013 meetinq The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2012 Page 16