Loading...
PC MINS 20151208 Approved January 26, 201 •;4 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 8, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nelson at 7:13 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Gerstner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Leon, and Chairman Nelson. Absent: Vice Chairman Tomblin was excused Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Seeraty, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Nelson suggested hearing agenda item No. 3 ahead of agenda item No. 2. Approved without objection. COMMUNICATIONS Assistant City Attorney Burrows reported on the closed session held by the Planning Commission prior to the public meeting, stating there was no reportable action from the closed session. Director Rojas reported that at their last meeting the City Council reviewed and approved the first reading of the Ordinance in regards to the new procedures for City Trees and the Public Works Department, noting the Ordinance will be on their next agenda for adoption. He also noted that at their upcoming meeting, the Commission's recommendation on the Western Avenue plan will be heard. Director Rojas reported that three seats will become vacant on the Planning Commission, and interviews are scheduled to take place with the City Council on January 5th. He thanked all of the Commissioners for their service on the Planning Commission. Director Rojas distributed eleven items of correspondence related to agenda item No. 2 and one item related to agenda item No. 4. Chairman Nelson reported on his attendance at the City's Holiday party. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of November 10, 2015 Minutes Commissioner James moved to approve the consent calendar, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Final Draft General Plan Document and Land Use Map Elena Gerli with the City Attorney's office gave the Commission a brief update on her review of the proposed General Plan update. She explained the City Attorney's office is reviewing the draft document for clarity, brevity, consistency, organization, and that all of the statutory requirements are met in the document. She stated she would be coming back in a month or so with a more specific work plan and suggestions on what the Planning Commission and the City Council may want to do. Commissioner Emenhiser moved staff's recommendation to continue the item to the January 26, 2016 meeting, seconded by Commissioner James. Approved without objection, and Commissioner Gerstner abstaining. 2. CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2015-00230): 5837 Crest Road Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report, briefly reviewing some of the concerns of the neighbors and the Commission that were discussed at the previous public hearing. She stated the neighbors have also submitted to staff their own suggested conditions of approval for the CUP Revision, and that Cal Water is amenable to many of the suggested conditions of approval. She stated that staff believes the draft conditions of approval attached to the staff report will help minimize the long term impact of the operation of Cal Water at the site, and is asking the Commission to review and provide feedback on these draft conditions of approval, and if acceptable, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution for the Commission's adoption at the January 12, 2016 meeting. Commissioner Leon asked staff to read the condition regarding the hours of operation. Associate Planner Seeraty read the condition stating the hours of operation as 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., which is the current normal hours of operation. Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2015 Page 2 Commissioner Leon noted the correspondence from the neighbors noting trucks and equipment at the site operating before 8:00 a.m. Associate Planner Seeraty explained these early morning complaints are part of the reason the new condition regarding hours of operation is being proposed, noting the only hours of operation conditions that has previously existed are in regards to the operation of the gasoline tank. Chairman Nelson also noted the draft conditions of approval addressing staging of construction material and equipment, the re-fueling times, and delivery times, all limited to 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, with nothing allowed on weekends or National Holidays. Associate Planner Seeraty explained these are all proposed draft conditions of approval based on the Planning Commission's input at the November 10th meeting, as well as input from the neighboring residents regarding their concerns about the operation of the site as a whole. Because the Conditional Use Permit has been opened up as a result of the application for the fuel tank, these conditions were proposed to address these concerns. Commissioner James asked if there was a definition for emergency conditions. Associate Planner Seeraty answered that emergency conditions has not yet been defined. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Matt Kang (Cal Water) stated Cal Water has met with the neighbors and discussed their issues with the site. He stated they have changed operations by moving the location where certain materials have been stored, thereby reducing the amount of materials being stored at the site. In regards to landscaping, he noted Cal Water is going to speak to the City about some type of faster growing landscaping at the site and adding some trees to help screen the site. He noted there was a comment that the tank be split, however he explained that in doing so that would cause the need to re-fuel the tanks more often than is currently required. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Kang if Cal Water has ever considered designing a better, more professional layout for the materials and equipment at the site, rather than just stockpiling materials throughout the site. Mr. Kang answered that Cal Water has changed their operations, noting the cinderblock bins where materials are stockpiled. He explained that Cal Water has heard the neighbors' concerns, have seen the video, and is now working on addressing these issues and concerns. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Kang how Cal Water would define an emergency situation or condition. Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2015 Page 3 Mr. Kang answered that Cal Water would define an emergency as any work that is not scheduled or planned. He noted that with the aging infrastructure there are unforeseen incidences and breakdowns. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Kang about the mission of Cal Water and what he does for the company. He also asked how staff's proposed hours of operation might affect Cal Water. Mr. Kang answered that the mission is to provide quality water and service to all of Cal Water's customers. He stated he is the superintendent for production, meaning he is the superintendent in charge of facilities, pumps, reservoirs, and transmission mains. In regards to the proposed hours of operation, he noted that currently the office hours of operation are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. He noted that the 6:40 a.m. incident that occurred was an outside contractor at the site who was not informed of the restrictions, and it was addressed that morning. Chairman Nelson asked if Cal Water management and/or legal counsel has reviewed the draft conditions of approval. Mr. Kang answered that the district manager and assistant district manager have reviewed the draft conditions of approval, with the comments that are included in the staff report. James Demus stated the Cal Water facility over time was used primarily as a reservoir, a service center for billing and customer service, and for emergency repairs. At no period could he find a record that the CUP was granted to allow the site to be used as a construction yard or a starting yard to accomplish these major repairs. He stated there are major repairs happening throughout the peninsula that will impact the neighbors now and for many years to come. He questioned, if this is a residential zoned site, why are large trucks, pipes, sand, gravel, and other materials being brought to the top of the hill and distributed from there. He felt there must be a better and more efficient way to do this. He did not think the facility was ever meant to be used as a staging yard for major infrastructure repair, which seems to be what is now happening. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Demus if, in his research of the property, he found that the facility was in place prior to the neighborhood being developed. Mr. Demus responded that to the best of his knowledge that is the case, noting however that he was not able to find documentation on that. David Hanna stated he had a real estate agent look at his home and the surrounding neighborhood, and confirmed that if Cal Water continues to develop it will bring the value of the home down. He stated he bought his home in February, and noted the location of his home and commented that most of the activity at the site takes place near his home. He felt it was fair to limit hours at the site from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. He stated that they understood as a neighborhood that they are not going to shut down Cal Water, as Cal Water has to do its job. However, Cal Water has not done its due diligence in making sure that the area and the Planning Commission Minutes December 8,2015 Page 4 facilities they're using is compatible to what the neighbors want. They continue to do whatever they're going to do, and he questioned why the Rancho Palos Verdes site isn't held to a much higher standard. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Hanna if, when he purchased his home this past February, his real estate agent or anyone else disclosed to him the activities that take place at the Cal Water site. Mr. Hanna stated there was no disclosures. He knew that Cal Water operated at the site, however he was not made aware of how the site was operated or how much noise or pollution would come from the site. Joe DeVenuto noted there is currently a fuel tank on the site and the neighbors have made the recommendation that they utilize this tank, configure it into a split tank mode, and use it for gasoline and diesel. When they spoke to Cal Water and asked how much diesel fuel they needed, Cal Water did not have a good handle on how much diesel fuel they actually needed. He noted that Cal Water has stated they are moving from gasoline to diesel fuel for their trucks, and therefore one could reasonably assume that the amount of gasoline that they actually need for their trucks could be fueled by the gasoline at service stations in the area. Therefore, given there is not a definable need for the amount of diesel fuel as well as the amount of gasoline, that instead of installing a new tank and increasing the amount of fuel at the site, that they should utilize what they have at the site. With regards to the land use, he went back to the earlier CUP and noted there is nothing in the CUP that says this facility is to be used as a staging facility for construction material, as it talks about the administration building and the reservoir. He noted it is the neighborhood's objection that this site is being used as a staging area, and enforceable restrictions should be put into place to make sure certain activities do not occur at the site. He asked that the Commission respect the neighborhood requests when considering this project. Denise DeVenuto noted that at the local meeting a resident had asked Mr. Kang what Cal Water's plan is for the yard, and how much longer will they be working on the infra-structure programs. Mr. Kang's response was 100 years. Therefore, the residents will never get relief from the situation on the property. She read an email she sent to the Commission earlier in the afternoon in regards to the proposed project and how it affects the neighbors and omissions that may have been made by staff if their staff report approving the original CUP. She stated her concerns were that in 1992 the residents of RPV were not notified of the public hearing, only the Seaview Villa Townhomes and the ten most adjacent townhomes to the site were notified in writing. Therefore, any decisions made at that meeting were done without input from Rancho Palos Verdes residents. She was concerned about the storage of the materials on the site, and there is a big rush to move the gravel to make the site look better to the Commission. She questioned how the City can expect Cal Water to abide by any new rules that may be set if they don't abide by the rules in place now. Helen Li asked staff to play a video that she took from her rear yard showing a large truck and dust coming from the California Water Service property. She stated that most days they start work before 7:00 a.m. She stated that she cannot open her windows because of the large Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2015 Page 5 amount of dust coming from the neighboring property. She asked that Cal Water stop using that area to remove all of the construction material, and noted there are no trees blocking any view of this area. She asked that Cal Water add trees to screen this area, and to trim other trees that are currently blocking her ocean view. Commissioner James asked Ms. Li if she saw any relationship between the problems she just described and whether or not a diesel tank should be allowed on the property as requested by Cal Water. Ms. Li explained that nobody every tells the neighbors what is going on at the Cal Water site Kelly Sims invited the Commission into his backyard so that they can see what he sees every day. He explained that for the past several years there has been no problems with Cal Water, however for the past several months the amount of activity has increased dramatically. He stated the he does not want to see the diesel tank on the property, if for no other reason that for every moment the trucks have to leave the site to get fuel, it is time they are not working on the property. He also stated that he has a direct view of the property, and activity continues on the property until at least 7:00 p.m. every single day. He stated he respected emergencies, but questioned the definition of an emergency. He noted at one time there were many trees separating the properties, but for some reason those trees have been removed. In addition, there are now a very large number of trucks that enter and leave the site daily, and compared it to a construction zone. Commissioner Cruikshank noted the trees on the Cal Water property and asked Mr. Sims if he also has an ocean view. Mr. Sims answered that he does have an ocean view, and from time to time as the trees grow the view does get blocked. He felt that if the trees were replaced they would block some of the construction. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Sims if he has seen any form of dust control at the site. Mr. Sims responded that he has seen no dust control at the site in any form. Mary Rezk-Hanna stated she would like to speak from a healthcare provider's perspective. She stated her concerns was at the last meeting it was concluded that diesel is a safer alternative to gasoline fuel, and she did not feel this is the case. She explained that science is clear and she has studies that show that diesel fuel is as harmful, if not more harmful, than gasoline. She stated that from her perspective it does not appear the benefits of this proposal outweigh the harms. She made it clear that the neighborhood intention is not to put Cal Water out of business, however she was requesting the Commission reconsider this proposal and also look at an appropriate plan to revise the tanks that are currently on site. Commissioner James asked Ms. Hanna if she knew if these studies about diesel fuel were actually comparing apples to apples. He questioned how much fumes would be produced from this proposed tank or how much is being produced by the current tanks. Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2015 Page 6 Ms. Hanna explained that there were studies conducted on both, and diesel is a complex mixture of gasses. She stated the studies discuss the fumes from the burned exhaust which everyone breathes. She was also concerned with fuel that spills from the tanks when the trucks are refueling. Matt Kang (in rebuttal) explained Cal Water has been doing infra-structure improvement over the past several months, which is what the residents have been seeing. He noted that Cal Water had not been receiving complaints from the residents until the public notice for the tanks was mailed out, however once Cal Water started receiving complaints they did their best to address them or are in the process of correcting them. He did not feel the complaints and concerns are being neglected or ignored and Cal Water is trying to mitigate, reduce, and relocate items to reduce the amount of noise and dust at the site. In response to the safety concerns of diesel, he asked that the contractor that will be doing the design and installation of the tanks speak to the concerns. David Hoferer explained that diesel fuel is combustible and as a liquid it does not evaporate or produce fumes into the environment, which is why AQMD regulates gasoline but not diesel. In regards to the studies on diesel emissions, it is mandated that all diesel burning vehicles be outfitted with filtration systems that eliminate all carbons that pollute. He stated that law is fully in effect beginning in 2015. Commissioner Leon asked if the tank currently on site is a duel tank and is capable of being split and used for diesel on one side and gasoline on the other side. Mr. Hoferer stated he did not install that tank but it is his understanding from conversations with Mr. Kang that the tank could potentially be divided. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Kang about the trees that used to be at the site and why they were removed. Mr. Kang explained that the trees along the east and south sides of the property were mainly trees that weren't planted but rather were seedlings and volunteer trees. He explained they were not deeply rooted and winds could easily blow them down. He explained these trees caused problems and damage to the fencing. He stated that Cal Water is planning to replace the fencing and landscaping in the future. Commissioner Emenhiser stated many of the speakers have stated that Mr. Kang has made comments that the increase in activity at the site will most likely last for the next hundred years, and asked Mr. Kang to explain. Mr. Kang explained that Cal Water is now in the process of upgrading the infrastructure on the Peninsula and that type of work will cause an increase in activity at the site and that this type of work will most likely last for the next hundred years. Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2015 Page 7 Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Kang if Cal Water felt this was their best location for a light industrial staging area. Mr. Kang explained that the location is in close proximity to the work areas. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Kang what the implications might be to Cal Water if the Commission imposed a condition that prohibited staging of materials at the site for infrastructure projects. Mr. Kang answered that it would be very difficult and cost prohibitive to install these infrastructures and would reduce the amount of production that could be done on a given day. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Kang why there were no dust control measures in place at the site while gravel was being loaded and unloaded. Mr. Kang stated that Cal Water will be implementing dust control measures. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner James asked staff if what is currently going on at the site is consistent with the original CUP. Director Rojas answered that, based on testimony from the neighbors, it appears that the activity at the site is not consistent with the current CUP. He explained the CUP is fairly specific and does not address much of the work that the neighbors are describing at the site. He also explained that staff spoke to the applicant and suggested they amend the application to also address the current operations so that staff can do a proper analysis. Commissioner James asked what would happen if the Commission denied the current application. Director Rojas answered that if the Commission were not able to make the findings to approve the proposed project and denied the application, there would still be enforcement issues at the site that staff would have to investigate. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he would like to complete the discussion on the diesel tank, since that is what is before the Commission, and address the other activities and issues with a subsequent application. Commissioner Emenhiser felt there were several issues at hand, noting Cal Water is asking for a diesel tank at the site so that they can better support their efforts to rebuild the City's infrastructure and to respond to emergencies. He did not want to be partially responsible for residents waking up with no water because the Planning Commission put conditions on the Cal Water site that made it harder for them to respond to an emergency. On the other hand, the neighbors feel they are being thrown under the bus for the benefit of the other 65,000 neighbors on the hill. He noted the Planning Commission is being asked to either approve or Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2015 Page 8 disapprove the addition of a diesel tank at the site. He noted that, as of the last meeting, he felt the arguments were convincing that the diesel tank should be approved. He felt that the diesel tank should be approved, however conditions should be added and staff should look into whether or not Cal Water is in compliance with their existing CUP. Lastly, he felt the City should launch a comprehensive solution for both the neighborhood and Cal Water. Commissioner Gerstner felt that, in light of the complaints received, the CUP should be evaluated, it will most likely require some level of CEQA review. He stated that CEQA review is a comprehensive review which would most likely include the impacts of the diesel tank. Therefore, he felt it would be better to look at this all in one package as opposed to independently. He suggested a possible motion that, in light of the evidence before the Commission regarding the use of the facility that is not in conformance with the existing CUP, the public hearing be continued and ask the applicant to amend their application such that it addresses the current facility use as well as the addition of the diesel tank. Commissioner James agreed that reviewing everything at one time makes sense. He felt that requiring Cal Water to be in compliance with their CUP might take care of the problems at the site, and suggested making that a condition of approval to this application. Director Rojas felt the best way was for staff to work with the applicant to help them amend their application and to do the full CEQA analysis. Staff can then come back to the Commission with a recommendation on how to address all the issues raised by the neighbors. Commissioner James moved to continue the public hearing to an unspecified date to allow staff the opportunity to review the use of the site in regards to the current CUP, and if necessary ask the applicant to amend their application, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. CUP Revision/Grading (Case No. ZON2013-00174): 2935 Vista del Mar Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and noting the applicant is requesting to exceed the allowed lot coverage, exceed the grading limit and the pre-approved building envelope, and to construct a 6-foot tall wall and gate along the front property line. She noted that the proposed project has a similar layout to several of the existing homes on Vista del Mar. She also noted that 1,151 square feet of the proposed structure is basement space and will be located below grade and not visible. She explained the need for the proposed grading quantity, noting it is within the range previously approved for other properties and the majority of the proposed grading will allow the structure to be tucked into the existing slope in order to attempt to minimize the impact on neighboring properties. Regarding the Minor Exception Permit, she explained that staff believes the existing topography of the property, as well as the history of issues resulting from unsecured properties on the street poses an unnecessary hardship. Additionally Minor Exception Permits have been approved for similar structures on several of the properties on the street. She explained that staff performed a view analysis from the home at 2903 Vista del Mar in response to their view Planning Commission Minutes December 8,2015 Page 9 concerns, and determined only a small portion of the protected ocean view would be obstructed as a result of the proposed residence. She also noted that the view of the Trump Golf Course would be obstructed, however stated this is not a protected view. Staff also visited the property at 2923 Vista del Mar in response to their concerns regarding the location of the structure on the property as well as privacy impacts. She explained that it appears most of the residences on the street were constructed to maximize the lot width, as well as the views, and the residences are located towards the center of the property. Therefore, staff feels the project is consistent with the patter of setbacks in the neighborhood. Regarding the privacy impact, she explained the proposed structure meets the 16/35 building envelope which is required for upsloping properties and no privacy analysis is required per the Code. She stated that staff feels all of the required findings can be made and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned. Commissioner Emenhiser stated some of the correspondence received had concerns regarding illumination, and asked if staff had reviewed this issue. Associate Planner Seeraty responded that staff has incorporated conditions of approval regarding lighting, and that it does not exceed what is allowed in the Municipal Code. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Luis DeMoraes (architect) stated he was also the architect for the project next door to this one, for which he has received numerous compliments. He explained the initial discussions with neighbors that took place and the considerations in play before the current owners bought this vacant lot. He stated he has done many projects on the Peninsula and he is very sensitive to view impairment and privacy issues. He also wanted to make sure the lot coverage and design were consistent with others in the neighborhood. He explained the extra effort he took to address the neighbors' concerns with privacy and the placement of the windows. There will also be discussions with a landscape architect to figure out additional ways of mitigating privacy concerns. He felt that all concerns have been carefully considered and addressed and there are no significant impacts to the neighboring properties. Commissioner Cruikshank expressed concern that the engineering plan showed a wall at nine feet in height when the maximum height allowed is 42 inches. He asked Mr. DeMoraes to clarify. Mr. DeMoraes stated that no wall should be over 42 inches and that it was most likely an error that he would correct. Commissioner Gerstner felt it was important to clarify and make sure so that there are no questions down the road when the house is half built and the engineer states it is impossible to keep all of the walls under 42 inches in height. Mr. DeMoraes stated he would ensure all walls in this are under 42 inches in height. Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2015 Page 10 Commissioner Cruikshank stated he would want to be ensured that no wall was over 42 inches and suggested it be made a condition of approval. Daniel LeMay (2923 Vista Del Mar) stated his property is impacted the most with the building of this new house. He complimented the architect for the work he has done on this home and stated he wants the home to be built, as it will only raise the property values on the street. However, he was concerned that the proximity of the house will be seen from the most used portions of his home. He asked that the Commission consider the location of the proposed home and whether or not it can be moved over from his home, as he has received several professional opinions that the current proposed location will lower his property value. He added that he is requesting the home be moved 35 feet away from his home. Commissioner James asked Mr. LeMay where the property line is located. Mr. LeMay assumed it was at the wrought iron fence, but asked Mr. DeMoraes to clarify. Mr. DeMoraes agreed that it was at the wrought iron fence. Commissioner James noted that the uses on Mr. LeMay's property go right up to the property line, and there is currently a proposed 10 foot setback on the neighboring property. In addition, the architect has stated he can move the house an additional 10 feet. He asked Mr. LeMay if that was correct. Mr. LeMay responded that he believed that was correct. Neil Chhabria stated he is representing Mr. LeMay in the sale of his house, and agreed the proposed residence was too close to the LeMay property. He felt that if it were moved as much as possible, it would be beneficial to both parties. He noted that there was a potential buyer of the LeMay property but they backed out because of the location of the neighboring home. Commissioner James asked Mr. Chhabria if the buyer had expressed any concerns in regards to privacy. Mr. Chhabria answered that the buyer did address privacy concerns. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff why they chose the areas they did to consider the viewing areas at 2923 Vista del Mar. He noted the area chosen is clearly not the area with the big open doors and the pool, but rather the area more in front of the house. Associate Planner Seeraty explained that, in regards to views, staff takes the analysis from the area with the best and most important view, as instructed by the code. She explained that when there are multiple views in one house one view is chosen to protect. Staff also tries to balance the use of the room where the view is being taken with extensiveness and items in the view itself. She explained that staff felt the view from the living room was the most extensive Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2015 Page 11 view, noting there is coastline, Catalina, and ocean views from this room, and therefore was the room with the protected view. Chairman Nelson asked staff about the homes across the street from the subject property and the distances between these homes. Associate Planner Seeraty replied that, as noted in the staff report, the property at 2930 Vista del Mar has 12'6" setbacks on each side and the property at 2912 Vista del Mar has a 10 foot setback on one side and a 20 foot setback on the other side. She noted that she did not have the exact setbacks for the other properties, but it appears they are built close together. Raju Chhabria stated he is in support of the project, but his issue is how close it is to the neighboring property. He stated the issue is not so much regarding the views, but rather the issue is in regards to the privacy. He requested the house be moved farther away from the neighboring property, which he felt will be good for not only Mr. LeMay but also the applicants. Shinae Kim stated that she is speaking on behalf of the owner at 2903 Vista del Mar and distributed items of correspondence to the Commission. She explained the height of the proposed home will block a minor view of the Trump golf course and covers a portion of the ocean view. She felt a three foot reduction in height would allow the owners at 2903 Vista del Mar to continue to enjoy their view and will reduce the chance that the proposed home may negatively impact property values. She hoped that Mr. Yamaguchi and the Planning Commission will assist the property owners in finding an amicable solution. Dwight Hanger (2938 Vista del Mar) stated he was surprised by the staff report and the recommendation to approve the project. He explained that the proposed house is quite wide with a lot of glass along the front, and noted that when he built his home the Planning Commission was very strict on how much glass could be on the home. He stated the house at 2923 Vista del Mar, designed by the same architect, also has a large amount of glass along the front, and that glass causes quite a bit of reflection in the afternoon. He didn't think this type of design fits into the neighborhood. In addition, when the house at 2923 Vista del Mar was built there was concern about the lighting, and the neighbors were assured that it would not be an issue. He stated the house now lights up like a Christmas tree. With that, he does not trust anything this architect says. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they addressed the glass and the reflection issues. Associate Planner Seeraty answered that staff spoke to the architect to see if there was anything that could be done to address this issue, however she noted that the Code does not address reflectivity. It was her understanding that the architect was looking into additionally minimize ways to reduce glare and reflection off of the proposed windows. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff how this could be conditioned if the Commission were to approve the project. Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2015 Page 12 Director Rojas explained that the Code does not address the reflectivity of glass or the amount of glass used on a residence and there are no guidelines that address the issue. If this issue was addressed in a past project, it was most likely addressing a compatibility issue. Therefore, if the Commission feels there is too much glass on one side they would have to come up with a condition that quantifies the amount of glass allowed to make it compatible. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if there was a way to quantify the amount of outdoor lighting at this proposed residence. Associate Planner Seeraty explained the Code does address the amount of wattage allowed on exterior lighting, and that condition is incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval. Vicki Hanger felt the architect has been very considerate during this process and she is looking forward to having the Yamaguchis as neighbors. She reiterated the concern with the amount of glass that is proposed, and noted she has been blinded by the sun reflection off of the neighboring house when she is in her car. She stated she asked the architect what could be done to mitigate this problem, however he never got back to her with an answer. She questioned the need for the over-height fence and gate in the front, noting that she is very involved with the HOA and there have been no burglaries in the neighborhood. She felt that higher fences and electronic gates changes the feel of the community. Mr. DeMoraes (in rebuttal) explained he designed this house for a family and the living room, dining room, and master bedroom were all situated to take advantage of the primary view. He stated this lot is an odd shape and there isn't much that can be done with it, stating that if you go up higher you will block the neighbor's view and he noted that the house is currently designed 14 feet below grade. He explained he has been working very hard to address everyone's concerns and he noted that when the house below is built it will also block some of the views. He also noted that he can move the house over 10 feet on the lot if that is the desire of the Commission. Mr. Yamagouchi (owner) stated he is anxious to be part of this neighborhood, and felt his architect had addressed all of the concerns raised by the neighbors. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he was still concerned with the amount of glass and reflection, as well as the exterior lighting, and asked Mr. DeMoraes if he had any solutions to these two problems. Mr. DeMoraes was not sure there is a perfect solution to the glass, noting one of his proposed solutions was to provide grey tint on the windows. He stated that unless the glass is opaque or frosted from the outside there will be some glare, however this is not a viable solution when looking at the views involved. In regards to the lighting, he explained he has met with a lighting representative that has provided all of the lighting for Vista del Mar, and questioned why, if it is a problem, the lighting at 2923 Vista del Mar can't be replaced to shielded fixtures. He felt the lighting is an easy issue to address and shouldn't be a problem with shielded fixtures. Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2015 Page 13 Commissioner Leon stated there was a request to lower the height of the structure three feet, and asked Mr. DeMoraes if that was possible. Mr. DeMoraes noted the height is eight feet above grade and the house has been pushed fourteen feet below grade. He stated to lower it another three feet would tremendously increase the amount of grading and he did not think the current amount of view that is obstructed was anywhere near significant. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon moved to accept staff's recommendation as modified to require the house be moved ten feet to the left, seconded by Chairman Nelson. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend the motion to include a condition that tinted glass be used on the windows. Commissioner Leon accepted the amendment, seconded by Chairman Nelson. Commissioner James was troubled by the original lot line adjustment to create this lot, as well as the continual modifications allowed to build larger homes and to take advantage of all of the buildable area of the lot. However, he felt the ten feet being offered to move the home will give the neighbor more privacy and will move the house about as far away as is reasonable in this area. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he has been looking over the architect's plans and the walls depicted on the plans are definitely over 42 inches in height. A copy of the plan was displayed on the overhead and Commissioner Cruikshank noted on the plan where he was questioning the height of the wall, as it appears the wall is eight to nine feet in height. He understood why the walls had to be built that way in this area, and asked staff if it would be possible to add a condition to allow this height of wall as he did not feel that would change the character of the neighborhood. Director Rojas stated that staff will have to check the Resolution to make sure there is nothing that has to be modified to allow such a condition. Mr. DeMoraes stated that the 42 inch limitation only applies to walls in the front yard setback area. Director Rojas explained that there is not only the limitation of the height in the front setback but Commissioner Cruikshank is also pointing out the depth of cut that will have to happen. Commissioner Cruikshank again stated the he completely understands why the wall has to be built the way it is proposed to be built, and only wants to make sure that the plans and all conditions reflect what is actually happening at the site. Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2015 Page 14 Commissioner Gerstner agreed that the height of the walls along the driveway needs to be addressed in detail. In regards to the glass, he felt that tinted glass will not get rid of the glare, but speculated that the glare problem for the Hangers is more one of geometry rather than one of reflectivity. Because of that, he suggested the architect do a sun study and see where the reflections hit. This might give the neighbors confidence that there won't be this same problem with this house. In regards to the lighting, he felt all of the extra lighting should be on dimmers and indirect so that it is shielded so that nobody off of the property can see the lamp. Commissioner Gerstner moved to amend the motion to include a requirement that the lighting be indirect so that nobody off of the property can see the lamps, and that all exterior lighting be on dimmers. In addition, the architect will do a reflectivity or sun study to show there is no reflection, and if there is reflection the architect can design overhangs or sunshades to minimize the problem. Commissioner Gerstner was not sure how to address the height of the wall, noting that if there is a wall at 9 % feet something needs to happen since there is nothing in the code to allow a wall at that height. Commissioner Cruikshank was also concerned with being presented with something and now realizing that it's not 42 inches in height but rather 8 or 9 feet in height. He would not be comfortable voting on this as is and would rather take the time to make sure it is done correctly. Chairman Nelson noted that there is an action deadline of January 15, 2016, which is coming up very quickly. Director Rojas suggested an option to continue the item so that the architect can present a plan showing the new location of the house on the property as well as the current height of the wall. Commissioner Gerstner agreed, noting currently there is a plan of the house and driveway, neither of which is currently accurate. Director Rojas stated the item can come back on the Consent Calendar so that the Commission can look at the revised plan, noting however, that the public hearing would remain closed and items on the Consent Calendar are not open for discussion unless they are specifically removed from the Consent Calendar. Mr. DeMoraes asked if it was the Commission's intention that the sun study be included with the resubmittal package. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the sun study was more extensive and not intended for January 12th, and could be something the Director could address. Chairman Nelson asked staff to read back the motion. Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2015 Page 15 Director Rojas stated the motion is to close the public hearing and approve staff recommendations with the following amendments: 1) The structure is to move ten feet as depicted by the applicant; 2) That there be a condition regarding tinted glass; 3) There be a condition that a reflectivity or sun study be done by the architect and submitted to the Director for review; 4) That findings be submitted to allow for the 8 to 9 foot tall retaining wall; 5) Exterior lighting be on dimmers and shielded in such a way that the lamp cannot be seen from off the property; and 6) The resolution be placed on the Consent Calendar for the January 12, 2016 meeting. The motion was approved, (6-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on January 12, 2015 Director Rojas noted the pre-agenda for January 12th will not have the Cal Water item, as it has been continued to a date uncertain. He stated staff was hoping to get the exterior light item on the agenda to discuss the progress, and this last item will be on the Consent Calendar. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. in memory of those who lost their lives on December 7th at Pearl Harbor and December 8th in the Philippines. Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2015 Page 16