Loading...
18 - P.C. Minutes dated February 28, 2012P.C. Minutes (February 28, 2012) ATTACHMENT - 177 Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. PC Resolution 2012-04 was adopted (4-1-1) with Vice Chairman Tetreault dissenting and Commissioner Nelson abstaining. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. General Plan Amendment, Zone change, Environment Assessment, Height Variation & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2010-00025): 10 Chaparral Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a description of the subject lot and reviewing the proposed project. She stated that staff was in support of the proposed zone change and land use change to accommodate the construction of a new home on the flat area of the lot. She discussed the proposed structure, noting that staff was able to make the necessary findings to recommend approval of the project, as discussed in the staff report. She discussed the property owner's decision to voluntarily dedicate nearly one-third of his property as trail easements to the City, and how these potential trail easements could be used to create useable trails. She stated staff was recommending the Planning Commission make the required findings, adopt the Resolution recommending to the City Council the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration, and conditionally approve the proposed project. Commissioner Leon asked staff if the City will be helping the land owner with the costs of surveys and legal descriptions associated with the land being dedicated to the City. Associate Planner Kim answered that since the applicant is dedicating nearly one-third of his property to the trail easement, the City will be taking on the costs of the legal descriptions and recording of the documents. Vice Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Frank Colaruotolo (applicant) stated he was available to answer any questions the Commission may have. John Feyk stated his concern was with the trails. He felt the most critical trail is the downhill trail, hoping that it will be located somewhere where humans and horses can use it. He was worried that it may not be maintained, as in the past the area has been washed out. He stated the area of the proposed Bronco Trail is a very steep slope and he was concerned about that area. He understood the property owner was willing to give the trail easement, but pointed out that the problem is maintaining the easement so that the trail can be used in a reasonably safe manner. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff who is responsible for maintaining these types of trails. Director Rojas showed the public trail easement on the aerial photo, explaining that the current trail is not in the public trail easement. He stated the City's responsibility is to Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 2 ATTACHMENT - 178 maintain trails in public trail easements. Once the trail is put into the easements described in the staff report it will become the City's responsibility to maintain. He pointed out that these are unimproved trails and will stay unimproved trails, explaining that as long as they stay unimproved trails the City does not have any liability if someone is hurt on one of the trails. He added that the cost of trail maintenance falls under the Public Works Department with whatever resources are allocated by the City Council as part of the budget process. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff if the proposed trail location has been reviewed by anyone. Director Rojas explained that in the past trail easement areas would be identified on a map without much consideration as to how the trail would be constructed or function. However, now the City takes the time to walk the site of a proposed trail easement to ensure that the route provides a viable trail connection to trails identified in the Conceptual Trails Plan and can be constructed within the proposed easement area. Thus, staff used the services of a professional trail builder who walked the entire property with staff, giving his recommendations as to the trail route. This feedback was used as the basis of the proposed easement width and location. Damon Swank stated he owns the property immediately to the east of the subject property and noted he submitted a four page, single spaced document to the City which was not able to be included with the staff report. In that document he listed more than a dozen specific issues he had with this proposed project, including the environment, the planning, the building, the geology, the lighting, and the damage that will be done to his and -his neighbor's property. He was surprised that nothing in his letter prompted any questions from staff or the developer. He mentioned that the environmental history of this site has been dismal, explaining all vegetation on the property above the subject property was completely removed and the City did not require any replanting. He asked if the Commission would be inclined to continue this public hearing so that the points he discussed in his letter, which was distributed as late correspondence, could be considered by the Commission. Vice Chairman Tetreault suggested the Commission ask Mr. Swank questions in regards to his letter to get the benefit of his concerns, and then give Mr. Swank another minute to wrap up after that. Commissioner Gerstner felt the letter could be summarized into a couple of different points. He stated that several of the points related to views and views down the canyon, while many of the other points related to the fact that there will be construction, the streets will be dug up, earth moved, noise, dust, and other things that go. with construction, and the last general point is revolving around whether or not the site is safe to build on. He felt that the Commission and staff could answer the concerns with construction activity and the safety of the site, and the concerns related to view might be subject to some discussion. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 3 ATTACHMENT - 179 t Director Rojas also noted that Mr. Swank submitted similar comments previously when the item was before the Commission. Staff addressed those comments in the previous staff report and could go through the responses to those concerns if that was the Commission's desire this evening. Mr. Swank stated there are unusual and unique situations in regards to this project. As an example, he noted that the street will be destroyed during construction, and Chaparral is a private street and is maintained by the residents. Joe Oliveri (6 Chaparral) stated he was astonished this project has gone as far as it has, and hoped that every Commissioner had read the staff report. He felt there were conflicts in the staff report to the actuality of the situation. As an example, he noted that at one time he had the opportunity to buy that property. However, his geologist strongly discouraged it, stating the liability was too great. He stated this is in direct conflict with what the City's geologist who says there hasn't been any movement. He referred to page 59 of the geology report which says there has been movement and there is a history of ancient landslide on the property. He stated that there have been recent examples in the neighborhood of land movement, noting the landslide on Martingale Drive. He could not believe the City was willing to take the risk of the liability in allowing this geology report to go through and giving a permit to build the house. He noted the evidence of movement on the property from Mr. Swank's geologist, his geologist, and two other geologists. He stated that what is defined in the staff report is not what has been cited by other geologists that have looked at the property. He stated that he agrees with Mr. Swank that this is something that the City can just skim the surface of, and felt that there should be a formal hearing. He stated he will do everything that is legally accessible to him to keep any excavation from happening on the property next to him and the property below that property. Jody Oliveri stated she has lived in her residence for fourteen years and during that time has seen people try to develop the property in question. She stated that when you walk the trails after a rain you can see how the land has changed. She also noted that there was a fire in the area and only one fire truck was able to access the area. Even then, they did not have a long enough hose to get down to the fire. She felt this is a dangerous wilderness type area that she did not feel was safe to develop. Sunshine questioned if any staff walked with Kurt Loheit on the existing trail that exists from Rolling Hills Estates to Bronco Lane, as the connection to maintain that existing trail is not part of the plan. She stated that preserving the existing trail is also not part of the proposal. She was quite upset that staff was unable to truly comply with the Conceptual Trails Plan. Frank Colaruotolo (in rebuttal) stated that staff and the Commission has the geology report from his soils engineer, and the City geologist has reviewed and approved all of the testing that has taken place on the property. He noted that the landslide will be mitigated,with the placement of the caissons. He also noted that he has dedicated as Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 4 ATTACHMENT - 180 much of the property as he can to trails, and any more would be a detriment to the property. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Colaruotolo if he will be responsible for fixing any damage to Chaparral Lane due to construction at the site. Mr. Colaruotolo answered that prior to beginning any work at the site he will document the condition of the street and once work is complete he will document the condition of the street and any damages that occurred during construction. Whatever damages take place due to construction will be his responsibility. Vice Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the offer to repair any damages to the street is memorialized in the conditions of approval. Director Rojas explained that it is not in the conditions of approval because it is a private street and the City does not typically get involved with issues on the private street. However, if there is no objection from the applicant, the Commission can add such a condition. Commissioner Lewis asked if there is any limitation to neighbors submitting competing geology reports to show that what is proposed is not safe and to rebut what the City geologist has said. Director Rojas stated that the neighbors do have the opportunity to hire their own geologists and submit their own reports to the City. Commissioner Lewis asked, if the Planning Commission and the City Council approve this proposed project, is there any opportunity at that point for the City geologist's input. Director Rojas answered that the city geologist has approved the project in concept, and once the actual construction plans have been submitted to Building and Safety for plan check the city geologist will check the plans to make sure they are consistent with the recommendations of the applicant's geology report. Commissioner Nelson noted that he had recently hiked the trail and there is currently some erosion taking place on the trail. He did not feel the trail is safe and the safety issue will have to be addressed either by the property owner or by the City. Commissioner Nelson also noted a written comment in the geology report dated January 29, 2012 that was prepared for Mr. Swank that the report would become invalid after 90 days and the report was not to be provided to any third party without their authorization and on -sight inspection. He asked staff how this report became part of the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 5 ATTACHMENT - 181 f F .... Director Rojas answered that Mr. Swank provided the report to staff. Commissioner Leon asked if the basic premise is that the proposed caisson wall will mitigate the instability issues with the site and the surrounding sites. Associate Planner Kim answered that the caisson wall was developed to stabilize the access to the site as well as allow development on the property. Vice Chairman Tetreault referred to comments in Mr. Swank's email, and asked staff if it was true that the property is not serviced by a sewer system. Associate Planner Kim explained that this property does have sewer available to it, as confirmed by LA County Sanitation District, and. the property will connect to the sewer system. Vice Chairman Tetreault also noted comments in the email regarding construction noise at the site and hazardous materials at the site, and asked if these concerns are addressed in the conditions of approval. Associate Planner Kim answered that there are construction hours that are set in the Development Code. She also noted that there is not a condition in the conditions of approval that addresses construction noise, as the City expects there to be some noise, dust, and debris associated with any construction project that may affect the surrounding neighbors on a temporary basis. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if these construction hours and noise issues are the same as what would have been allowed to anyone else on the street in order to build their homes. Associate Planner Kim stated that is correct. Vice Chairman Tetreault also noted in the email the concerns with fire access and the ability of the Fire Department to reach the end of the street, and asked staff if this project affects this and if it has been reviewed. Associate Planner Kim explained that during the plan check process the Fire Department will review the plans, and the permit will not be issued without the Fire Department sign -off. Vice Chairman Tetreault understood that the City geologist has reviewed the applicant's geology reports and given an approval of these reports. He also noted that there are neighbors who contest the validity of that report, or there may be some competing geology reports that bring into question the appropriateness of the site for construction. He asked staff what the role of the Planning Commission is with respect to this application, in view of the fact that the City's geologist has reviewed and approved the geology reports that the applicant submitted to the City. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 6 ATTACHMENT - 182 f t> Director Rojas answered in order to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission must be able to make a finding that the geologic issues are adequately addressed and that any potential impacts will be adequately mitigated. If the Planning Commission has questions or doubts about the geology reports, the Commission can ask the City Geologist to attend a future meeting to explain his review, why he thinks the issues are adequately addressed, and answer any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if it would be within the Commission's purview, if they were to approve the project, to recommend that the City Geologist attend the City Council meeting when this item is heard before the Council. Director Rojas stated that, given the discussion tonight, he was anticipating having the City Geologist at the City Council meeting. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the only geology report that he has seen that has done any subsurface exploration is the report submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the City Geologist. He stated that the more thorough analysis has provided the basis for the recommendations of the applicant's geologist and the approval of the City Geologist, and feels he felt comfortable with that report. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if the proposed residence is recommended to be on caissons, or if the recommendation is for recompacted soil with spread footings. He explained that he has been involved in many large homes on unstable land where caissons have been put in around the property and under the home, which serve to provide certain levels of stabilization. He noted that this also adds to the analysis done by the Geologist. Associate Planner Kim did not know if caissons were recommended for the residence, but felt the applicant could answer the question. Vice Chairman Tetreault reopened the public hearing to specifically ask the applicant this question. Mr. Colaruotolo explained that, based on the soils engineer's recommendations, the house will be on a continuous footing because there is no landslide or condition in that lower level area where the house will be placed. The only landslide area is at the access road area. Vice Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that this item will be heard by the City Council, and encouraged members of the public who have concerns with this project to make their case before the City Council at the appropriate time. He stated that his inclination was to recommend approval of the project and send it to the City Council with the Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 7 ATTACHMENT - 183 recommendation that the City Geologist attend the meeting when the project is before the Council. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendations with the added conditions that the City Geologist be available at the public hearing before the City Council to clarify the geologic issues and to add a condition to the conditions of approval that before construction begins the current condition of the road be documented to staff's satisfaction, and following construction the condition of the road be assessed and the applicant be required to return the street to the original condition as documented, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff how the public easements on the property will be kept clear during construction on the property. Director Rojas explained that during construction there will be no public access to the adjoining trails or to the trail easements which will be recorded on the property, which is consistent with other projects in the City where public trails and easements were impacted during construction. He pointed out that on this property while the trail does exist, the trail is an unsanctioned, unauthorized trail on private property. While he was sympathetic to the neighbor's concerns, Commissioner Lewis explained that if the City denies a property owner the right to develop his property the City could be held liable. He encouraged the neighbors to submit all of their concerns and documents to the City Council well before the public hearing so that the Council members have the opportunity to read and understand the arguments. The motion to approve staff's recommendation, as modified, was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Leon dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Permit and Variance Revision (Case No. ZON2012-00038): 5504 Crestridge Road Director Rojas reported that the applicant has requested a continuance and staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to the March 27th meeting. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 27th without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of January 24, 2012 Planning commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 8 ATTACHMENT - 184