Loading...
PC MINS 20170711 Approved 7/25/1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 11, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cruikshank at 7:06 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman James, and Chairman Cruikshank. Absent: Commissioner Tomblin was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Associate Planner Silva, Assistant Planner Anaya, and Assistant City Attorney Rose. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Emenhiser noted that he and Commissioner Nelson must recuse themselves from hearing Agenda Item No. 3, and suggested that this item be moved to the end of the Agenda, after Item No. 5. The Agenda was unanimously approved as amended to hear Item No. 3 after Item No. 5. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that the July 4th City Council meeting was cancelled due to the holiday and that a Closed Session was held on July 5th. He reported that the City Council will consider amending Title 12 of the Municipal Code to codify language requiring a Haul Route Permit for construction-related loaded trucks using City streets at its July 18th meeting. Director Mihranian reported that the Commission-approved project on Rue Langlois was appealed and will be considered by the City Council at its August 15, 2017 meeting. He also reported that the Commission-approved View Preservation Permit related to specific trees within the common area of the Rancho Palos Verdes Estates Community was appealed and will be considered by the City Council at the September 5, 2017 meeting. He informed the Commission that Staff is in the process of revising the Staff Report Cover Sheet template to be more user friendly and will no longer be using the Thomas Guide maps for identifying the project vicinity. Commissioner Emenhiser requested that Staff provide the Commission with hard copies of the General Plan technical studies and reported on reading a recent article in the LA Times on wireless telecommunications facilities. Commissioner Nelson reported that he and his wife met with Cal Water representatives at the project site. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Jeff Calvagna discussed the cell towers, and stated that under State Law, Public Utility Code Section 7901, the City can deny cell sites that do not meet the City's aesthetic requirements. He stated that every one of the proposed cell sites violate at least one aspect of the Ordinance. He briefly discussed the Federal Law, and the term significant gap. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2015-001230): Cal Water 5837 Crest Road Director Mihranian presented a brief staff report, noting that at the last public hearing the Commission directed Staff to come back with a status report on how the process is progressing especially in regards to the on-site landscaping and fencing. He stated the City is working very closely with the neighbors and the applicant to develop a landscape and fencing plan that will be installed before the Commission begins its discussion on the CUP request later in the year. He explained that at the last neighborhood meeting both parties agreed it was premature to come before the Commission at this meeting, as all of the design issues have not been flushed out. Therefore, both parties requested the public hearing be continued to the July 25th Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Bradley stated the he was informed by a resident that there was quite a bit of activity at the site over the 4th of July weekend, and stated one resident speculated the site was being used to dump spoils taken from outside of the Peninsula cities. He asked Staff if there was any way to verify where the spoils that go to this site originate from. Director Mihranian answered that the City can ask Cal Water for some type of receipt or information on where the spoils are coming from. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. David Hanna read an email to the Commission from the neighbors around Cal Water. The email touched on the spoils left over the 4th of July weekend, as well as landscape Planning Commission Minutes July 11,2017 Page 2 issues. He stated he has a log sheet documenting activities that are occurring at the site during non-operational hours at Cal Water. He also stated that real estate agents are now telling the residents in the neighborhood that they have to disclose the noise and activity at Cal Water if they are going to sell their house. Commissioner Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to July 25, 2017, seconded by Vice Chairman James. Approved, (6-0). NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation, Major Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2017-00037): 6501 Palos Verdes Drive East Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various permits. He noted that sections of the Staff Report and Resolution inadvertently identified the residence as being 7,349 square feet, however the applicant is proposing a residence of 7,348 square feet noting the one square foot discrepancy. He displayed a site plan of the proposed two-story residence, three car garage, and retaining walls. He also discussed the proposed grading of 456 cubic yards. He stated that Staff analyzed the findings and found the proposed project was consistent with the findings for a Height Variation, including neighborhood compatibility. He explained that as part of the public notice process, Staff received one public comment from the resident at 3 La Vista Verde in regards to lot drainage, long term construction activities, and privacy. He explained that Staff addressed the concerns and incorporated measures to mitigate these impacts into the proposed Resolution and conditions of approval. He stated Staffs recommendation is to adopt the Resolution conditionally approving the project. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Staff about the drainage and the proposed mitigation proposed by Staff. Associate Planner Silva explained that as part of the conditions of approval Staff is requiring the applicant to submit a drainage plan that will be reviewed by Building and Safety and Public Works to ensure that the proposed drainage will meet all current code standards and address the issues raised by the neighboring property owner. Vice Chairman James referred to the City's Code and the requirement of a major grading permit for grading over 50 cubic yards. He noted that this project is proposing 456 cubic yards of earth movement. He also noted that the Code says that in order for the Commission to approve a major grading permit, certain findings must be made, one being that the grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. He stated that he questioned the word necessary, noting that one could probably build this house without all of this grading, though it may not be as nice or provide the improved driveway design. He noted that there is nothing in the staff report to show either what the standard should be for necessary, or why the grading being proposed is necessary. In addition, the Commission is to make a finding that the Planning Commission Minutes July 11,2017 Page 3 nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours. He noted the staff report states the proposed grading maintains a majority of the natural contours and the finishing contours will blend with the existing contours. He stated that he did not feel either of those findings were adequately addressed and that Staff has ignored the language of the statute. Associate Planner Silva responded that, in terms of the necessary grading, Staffs opinion was that a redesigned driveway would be necessary for improved accessibility in and out of the property. In terms of the downslope retaining walls, Staff felt these walls were necessary to improve drainage and enhance slope stability in the rear yard. Director Mihranian added that from the Planning Department's experience dealing with projects of this nature, that being a tear down and rebuild residence and someone who is trying to upgrade their property, as well as accommodating the requirements of the Fire Department and the Building Code, that it is not uncommon to see grading in the area of 456 cubic yards of grading, noting that the grading is balanced on site. He also explained that Fire Department requirements of access and turnaround areas usually dictates where and how the structure is sited. He noted that in this case the applicant is proposing to cut into the slope to widen the driveway, and as a result the grade under the house has to be raised. He explained that Staff believes the grading is necessary to support the proposed improvements, however this is a finding the Planning Commission must make in order to approve the project. Chairman Cruikshank requested that, unless legally obligated to do so, that neighboring residents names not be included in the staff report, only their addresses. Director Mihranian stated that Staff will include only addresses in future staff reports. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Ben Cauthen (architect) stated it appeared the major concerns with the project were the civil engineering issues, that being grading and drainage. He discussed the drainage, noting there is a civil engineer working on the drainage design which will mitigate all of the issues of drainage leaving the site. He explained there will be pumps that take the water from the site to the street, so that no water will leave the property from below. He also noted that the drainage is reviewed and approved through the Building and Safety plan check process. In discussing grading, he explained that the majority of the grading is in the interest of safety and being able to access the property. He noted that exiting the property is currently very dangerous. He explained that the cut is necessary to create the driveway and the fill is in the interest of balancing the grading on-site. He explained that the grading creates walls and planters in the back yard. In regards to the house, he stated that the house cannot be seen from the street and he has worked with the neighbors to address their concerns. Vice Chairman James asked Mr. Cauthen, once the water is pumped from the property onto the street, where will that water go. Planning Commission Minutes July 11,2017 Page 4 Mr. Cauthen answered that the water will be collected on-site, pumped to the street, and that water will go down the street to the approved storm drain system. Ghada Young (property owner) stated that there is currently a drainage issue at the property, and their drainage proposal is an improvement to what currently exists. With regards to the size of the driveway, she explained there is currently a parking issue on the property as very few cars can park on the property, there is no parking on the adjacent easement, and there is no parking available on Palos Verdes Drive East. Cynthia Giacomin (3 La Vista Verde) stated her main concerns regarding the project are listed in the letter that was included in the staff report. She explained that in the past there has been quite a bit of damage done to her property as a result of the drainage from the subject property. She was concerned about the pumping of water onto Palos Verdes Drive East, the dust and noise during construction, and the integrity of the earth on the slope that could bring more dirt down onto his property. Anthony Giacomin agreed that the biggest concern is the drainage. He explained that his property is surrounded by Palos Verdes Drive East, and questioned if the water is pumped from the neighboring property onto Palos Verdes Drive East, would the water just go down the street and end up on his property in another location. He was concerned that going down to bedrock would disturb the soil over the bedrock, and where would that soil end up. He questioned if a geologic report had been done on this topic, as well as the use of caissons. Associate Planner Silva responded that a geologic report has been prepared and submitted to the City. He noted that neither the plans nor report identify the use of caissons, however if caissons are going to be used the plans and report will have to modified and reviewed by the City Geologist to reflect that change. Director Mihranian added that the City's development process requires a geotechnical report be reviewed and approved by the City's Geologist prior to permit issuance. He explained that as part of the review process the City will ensure that construction impacts will not adversely affect the neighboring properties. Commissioner Bradley asked Staff if they had assessed where the drainage water will go once it reaches Palos Verdes Drive East, and if the street can handle that additional water that enters the storm drain. Director Mihranian answered that will be vetted in the Building and Safety plan check process when reviewing the drainage plan. Commissioner Bradley pointed out that this project is increasing the lot coverage by over 50 percent, and that if there is a problem with drainage in this area, this proposed project will only exacerbate it. Planning Commission Minutes July 11,2017 Page 5 Director Mihranian agreed this development will create more runoff. He stated that currently there is no controlled drainage as runoff sheet flows down the slope to neighboring properties. With the new drainage plan Staff will ensure that this situation is mitigated and the water runoff is collected and diverted to the appropriate storm drain system. Part of that review will be determining if the closest city storm drain has the capacity to accommodate the water flows, and if not, an on-site detention basin will be required to time release water flows. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bradley stated he was concerned with the drainage, as well as the bulk and mass of the proposed home. He stated his concern that the Commission continues to see proposed residences at the high end in terms of size, often 20 to 40 percent larger than the next largest home in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman James asked staff if their lot coverage calculation included not only hardscape, but the regraded potions as well. Director Mihranian explained that grading does not count as lot coverage in the City, except in the Seacliff Hills neighborhood and that is because there are specific residential development guidelines that require grading to be counted towards lot coverage. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he felt the owner and architect have tried to address the drainage issues at the site. He stated he preferred Alternative No. 1 in the staff report because once again, the Commission is seeing the creep of size in a neighborhood, and sufficient questions have been raised in regards to the grading and drainage. He would therefore like to see the project come back to the Commission. Commissioner Leon agreed that the increasing size of houses is a concern. He stated that where one would like to have larger houses is in areas where they cannot be seen. He stated this lot affords that opportunity, and was in favor of the project from a bulk and mass standpoint because it is not visible. He stated he would rely upon the City to ensure the drainage and geotechnical issues all meet Code. Chairman Cruikshank noted that the Commission did not hear from any of the neighbors objecting to the size or bulk and mass of the proposed residence. He noted his concern with the drainage, and stated more information could have been supplied to the Commission in this regards. Commissioner Nelson moved staffs recommendation to approve the project, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Emenhiser stated his agreement that there was no opposition to the project in terms of bulk and mass, and Commissioner Leon's comment that if one is concerned about the size of the house, this is a good lot to put it on. However, he Planning Commission Minutes July 11,2017 Page 6 stated the concerns regarding drainage and size merits the project coming back before the Commission with a little bit of rework to address these issues. He stated, therefore, that he will vote against the motion, however that was not a vote against the project. Commissioner Bradley also agreed with Commission Leon in that if there is going to be a larger residence built this is one of the least intrusive properties from the rest of the community. He stated that although it is the smallest lot in the area, it may reset the standard for that area. He stated he still has concerns and will not be able to support the motion. He stated he was in favor of staff's Alternative No. 1. Commissioner Leon stated he agreed that the larger house may set precedence, however it is more than just the square footage of a lot and lot coverage. He stated that there is also neighborhood compatibility and the placement of the house to consider. He stated that in this particular case, the larger house is not imposing on anyone in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman James asked staff if there will be a culvert running along the bottom east side of the project that will then feed into the sump pump system. Director Mihranian stated he did not see a culvert shown on the plans. Vice Chairman James stated he was persuaded by the owner's comments that both the drainage and parking on the property are being improved, yet at the same time the owner is applying to build a larger house so he did not feel it was inappropriate for the City to ask her to improve those things. He suggested the Commission ask the applicant if they would be willing to make some minor modifications and bring the project back to the Commission for consideration. The motion to adopt Staffs recommendation to approve the project failed, (3-3), with Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, and Vice Chairman James dissenting. Chairman Cruikshank asked the Commissioners to express their concerns for the applicant to get an idea as to what would better appease them in terms of the project. Vice Chairman James stated he was very close to voting in favor of the project. He stated he would like to see more information regarding the drainage, questioning if a culvert at the bottom of the slope would provide protection to the property below. He stated he did not understand why the additional parking area had to be raised with the fill dirt. He also stated he wouldn't mind seeing the house a bit smaller, but probably would not vote to deny the application on that grounds. Commissioner Emenhiser stated his opinion that it was probably in the applicant's best interest to adopt Alternative No. 2. He stated there was a lot he liked about the project but there are concerns. He stated that he thought the applicant would be better served by redesigning and coming back to the Commission as opposed to having the Commission deny the project. Planning Commission Minutes July 11,2017 Page 7 Commissioner Emenhiser moved to adopt Alternative No. 2 of the staff report, which is to continue the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Chairman Cruikshank re-opened the public hearing. Ben Cauthen stated that he wished he had more of the information as well, as he only has a preliminary drainage plan. He stated that he could not, therefore, tell the Vice Chairman whether or not there will be a culvert. He stated that the Building Department will not let this house be approved without meeting every code requirement. He also noted that the City is very strict about drainage. He stated that he hoped that the Commission would put more attention on the structure rather than the drainage. He questioned if the Commission would be willing to put a small reduction in the square footage into the conditions of approval. Chairman Cruikshank stated that the motion on the floor is to allow Mr. Cauthen to work with Staff and come back to the Commission at a future date, and the motion to approve the project at this meeting has already failed. He stated the issue of drainage has not been answered adequately, as most of the Commissioners still have questions. He asked Mr. Cauthen if he would be willing to work with Staff and come back to the Commission at a future date. Mr. Cauthen answered he was very willing to work with Staff. Ghada Young explained that the proposed parking needs to be higher because this is where the existing driveway and hardscape currently are and to move the parking anywhere lower on the property will result in much more hardscape. She stated she was trying to landscape as much of the property as possible. She stated that she was willing to come back to the Commission but wanted some very clear direction as to what they would like to see when they come back. Chairman Cruikshank responded that he felt if Ms. Young continues to listen to the Commissioners during the remainder of the meeting, she will most likely get the answers to her questions. Commissioner Emenhiser responded that, in terms of guidance, he felt size was an issue and would prefer to see something under 7,000 square feet and the drainage was a major issue. Commissioner Nelson stated he had no problem with the proposed size of the project, however he was concerned with the drainage. Commissioner Leon stated that, with respect to drainage, he would like to see it addressed at the system level so that when looking at drainage they can talk about water from the entire lot. He stated he would also like the applicant to address where the water is going and if Palos Verdes Drive East can adequately handle the added Planning Commission Minutes July 11,2017 Page 8 water flows. He added that he does not have an issue with the size of the proposed residence. Director Mihranian stated that Alternative No. 2 is to continue the public hearing to a date certain, and therefore a date should be identified. He also noted that, due to the Permit Streamlining Act, a decision must be rendered by August 5th, and therefore Staff will need a one-time 90 day time extension from the applicant. In response to Commissioner Leon's request to have the drainage study look at whether the storm drain system can accommodate the added water flows, he explained that is a very involved study which is typically done in in conjunction with plan check in Building and Safety. In looking at future agendas, he recommended that the earliest this item be brought back is September 12th Chairman Cruikshank stated he did not think this would be a lengthy agenda item, and suggested the August 22nd meeting. The Commission agreed. Commissioner James stated that if the applicant cannot get a full hydrology study in time, he might be satisfied with something less than that. Mr. Cauthen stated the August 22nd meeting was acceptable. Ms. Young stated she was granting the one time, 90 day time extension. The motion to continue the public hearing to August 22, 2017 was approved, (6-0). 4. Telecommunications Facility Permit No. ASG 10: Los Verdes Drive, west of Avenida Classica Director Mihranian presented the staff report, stating Staff is recommending the Commission continue the public hearing, without discussion, to the July 25, 2017 meeting because of errors made in the public noticing procedures. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the public hearing to July 25, 2017, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Bradley asked where the City is on the shot clock on these two requests. Director Mihranian answered that it was his understanding from the case planner that the shot clock is due to expire on September 1, 2017. Commissioner Nelson asked what happens on July 25th if the Commission denies the application. Director Mihranian answered that the application can be appealed to the City Council. He stated that there is not clear case law that once a decision has been made and the application goes into the appeal period, whether the shot clock continues or stops. Planning Commission Minutes July 11,2017 Page 9 The motion to continue the public hearing to July 25, 2017 was approved, (6-0). 5. Telecommunications Facility Permit No. ASG 33: Across from 6480 Chartres Drive Director Mihranian presented the staff report, stating that similar to the previous item, this is a request to continue the public hearing to July 25, 2017. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the public hearing to July 25, 2017, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (6-0). 3. Variance, Site Plan Review, and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2017-00111): 6568 and 6600 Beachview Drive and 32636 Nantasket Drive Commissioners Nelson and Emenhiser stated they both live within 500 feet of the subject site, and therefore must recuse themselves from this item. They left the dais at this time. Assistant Planner Anaya presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. He stated that Staff believes the approval of the Variance application can be supported due to the unique location and layout of the common area of the complex, the proposed upgrades will provide recreational activities to the apartment residents of all ages, and allowing the amenities to be upgraded to a height that exceeds 12 feet is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant to better serve its residents. He stated that staff believes the new upgrades and new height will not be detrimental as the existing roof deck was established 47 years ago, and all upgrades will remain within the existing roof deck footprint. He stated that Staff also believes that this project will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan, as the upgrades will help enhance the quality of living at the apartment complex. With that, he stated Staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the project, as conditioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman James referred to Condition No. 20 of the Conditions of Approval, discussing the guardrail. However, he noted in the diagrams it appears the existing guardrails are going to used and not replaced. He asked Staff to clarify. Assistant Planner Anaya explained the applicant is proposing to install a new guardrail to the same height. Vice Chairman James asked if there is a Code Section that requires the spacing of the guardrail to be at a certain distance so that a child cannot get through it. Director Mihranian answered that there is a Building Code requirement on the guardrail spacing. Planning Commission Minutes July 11,2017 Page 10 Chairman Cruikshank asked if this project needs to be ADA compliant, and if the proposal is ADA compliant. Director Mihranian responded that he was not sure how the ADA Code is applied to this project in terms of access, and it is something that will be looked at in the Building and Safety plan check process. Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Chase Ballard (applicant) stated the existing railings are compliant and will remain in place, except for at the tennis court area where it will be replaced with compliant railings. In regards to ADA compliance, he explained the various methods that will be used to make the different roof deck tiers accessible. He stated that from a Fair Housing and an ADA perspective, they want to make sure the area is accessible. Chairman Cruikshank closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon moved to adopt Staff's recommendation to approve the project as conditioned in the staff report, seconded by Vice Chairman James. The motion was approved, and P.C. Resolution 2017-18 was adopted (4-0-2) with Commissioners Nelson and Emenhiser recused. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on July 25, 2017 Director Mihranian explained that the City Council has directed Staff to prepare an Arterial Fence and Wall Master Plan, and that Staff is looking to add an item at the end of the July 25th agenda asking the Commission to appoint a three member sub- committee to assist Staff in preparing this Master Plan. Commissioner Bradley stated that this meeting could be very long, and asked if the Commission should consider starting the meeting an hour earlier so that the meeting won't go quite as late at night. Director Mihranian stated that public notices have all been sent out, and the notices say the meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Leon requested that Staff provide the pre-agenda for meetings well before the notices are published to allow scheduling adjustments to be made. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 11,2017 Page 11