Loading...
PC MINS 20071211 Approved CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDESMarch 11, 2008 PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES 910 REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tetreault led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Karp, Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Perestam, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Alvarez, Associate Planner Fox, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas noted that the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a new residence on Via Victoria is scheduled to be heard by the City council on December 18, 2007, and that a Planning Commission decision on a view case on Rolling Ridge Road has been appealed to the City Council. He reported that interviews for the three Planning Commission seats are tentatively scheduled for January 16, 2008. Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 1, one item of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2, one item of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 3, and two items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 5. Commissioner Tetreault reported that he had received an email from the attorney for Agenda Item No. 1 but did not open the attachment. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. View Restoration Permit (Case No. VRP2006-00007) 3103, 3109, 3117, 3125, 3131, 3139 Dianora and 3102 Corinna Commissioner Ruttenberg and Vice Chairman Perestam recused themselves from this item as they live within 500 feet of the residences. They both left the dais. Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, explaining that two additional foliage owners have been added to this application since the October 23, 2007 meeting. He briefly described the additional information that has been included in the staff report, as well as the late correspondence that was submitted. He summarized the issues on the various foliage owners' properties, as described in the staff report. He explained that staff recommendations have not changed for the Liehr property. He discussed possible modifications to the staff's recommendations for the trees on the O'Melveney property that the Planning Commission may want to consider. He briefly explained the matrix that was included in the staff report showing the trees in question, a brief summary of staff's recommendations for the trees, and from which of the applicant's property the tree is affecting the view. He also showed several pictures taken from the applicants' properties. Commissioner Karp referred to the lengthy piece of late correspondence the Planning Commission received for this item. He was concerned that, because of the length, the Planning Commissioners would not be able to read it and give it the consideration. He therefore was not comfortable discussing the item at this time and felt the public hearing should be continued. Commissioner Knight agreed, however he felt that the public hearing should be opened to allow the speakers present at the meeting the time to express their views. Commissioners Tetreault and Lewis stated that they would like to attempt to move forward with this application at this meeting. Chairman Gerstner agreed that the speakers should be allowed to speak, however he was concerned about the length of this item and the other items on the Agenda. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the City Attorney had comments about the January 10th letter from the foliage owner's attorney, Mr. Parker and the red lined suggested changes to the Resolution. Planning commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 2 Director Rojas answered that the City Attorney has read both letters from Mr. Parker and saw nothing in the letters that raised a concern with regards to changing staff's recommendations. She did not feel a strong argument was presented on the issue of the statute of limitations. She felt the Planning Commission could move forward with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Knight asked Staff to clarify the viewing area. Commissioner Knight referred to tree No. 23, which Mr. Liehr has indicated was a view impairing tree at the time the lot was created. He asked staff if they agreed with that statement. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that during a site visit staff looked at certain tree stumps on the property. He stated that there is a tree stump near the public right-of- way which Mr. Liehr believes to be near 100 years old and Mr. Liehr contends the other trees that are in the area must be of a similar age. He explained that staff, however, feels tree No. 23 was not part of the original landscaping plan along Crest Road, and noted that looking at an aerial photograph of 1950, there does not appear to be a mature tree in that location. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the Planning Commission were to agree;with staff that tree Nos. 32 through 34 are not view impairing at this time, that the application can be denied without prejudice in regards to those trees. This would allow the applicants to submit an application in the future, if needed, for those specific trees. Director Rojas answered that if the Planning Commission finds those trees are not view impairing at this time, they can be excluded from the decision. He explained that does not preclude any resident from coming back at a later date with a new application for these trees. Commissioner Lewis asked staff for their opinion regarding the proposed language in the new Section 15 and Condition of Approval No. 27 of the Resolution as proposed by Mr. Parker. Director Rojas stated that the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed language and staff agrees that such a promise cannot be made, as it cannot be stated how the trees will grow and how circumstances can change. In reference to Condition No. 27, Staff doesn't believe the condition needs modification because the Guidelines allow such language to be incorporated when dealing with a large number of trees. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the matrix in the staff report, specifically tree Nos. 19 through 21 which staff considers exempt as they were view impairing at the time the applicant's lots were created. He asked staff if they were aware of any controversy regarding staff's statement that the trees were view impairing at the time of lot creation. He also asked whether trees 43 and 45 were impairing a view. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that, in reviewing the minutes of the October 23rd meeting, there is disagreement with that finding. He stated that there was testimony Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 3 from Barbara Hanlan that there were no view impairing trees at the time her lot was created, adding that Mrs. Hanlan has brought a photograph which she believes helps her case. He noted, however, that staff has not changed their opinion that tree Nos. 19 through 21 are exempt from the application. In reference to tree Nos. 43 and 45, he stated that based on previous height estimates and a view assessment taken a few years ago, it appeared that trees Nos. 43 and 45 have view impairing. Now that the front driveway eucalyptus tree screens tree Nos. 43 and 45, he cannot be certain. Commissioner Knight asked if there is any dispute between the owners as to ownership of the trees. Senior Planner Alvarez stated that at this time none of the owners have raised an issue. If an issue should arise, Staff would ask the Commissioners to order a boundary survey, at the applicant's expense, to resolve the issue. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Ava Shephard (representing the Dianora Drive applicants) reminded the Planning Commission that this is a view restoration ordinance, and not a tree protection ordinance. She stated that at the October 23rd meeting the Planning Commission heard testimony from three original homeowners who all stated that they purchased lots with unobstructed views. She therefore disagreed with staffs determination that tree Nos. 19 through 21 were view impairing at the time the lots were created. She distributed a photograph and a blow-up of that photograph which she felt clearly shows what staff had previously identified as a tree is actually ground cover. She disagreed with any reference to thinning the pine trees, as thinning will not restore the views. She also felt that the pine trees will grow back faster because of the stimulation from the thinning. She felt that the issue of viewing areas is still unresolved and needs to be cleaned up in the Resolution. She did not think the issue is as complex as it appears, explaining that if the trees are all cut to ridge line of the Roza property, everyone will get their views back. Finally, she stated that she has some major issues with the late correspondence and has not had the opportunity to thoroughly review this correspondence. Commissioner Lewis asked Mrs. Shephard if she could briefly explain her issues with the late correspondence. Mrs. Shephard explained that the timing was a major issue and that it was unfair to submit a letter filled with legalese that neither the Planning Commission or the applicants have had a chance to thoroughly review. She objected to the maintenance language, longer than one year, that the Commission should not protect a tree should it harm the trees, and the percentage of crown reduction or trimming on each tree. She felt thinning to a percentage is too subjective to enforce. William Scar 3154 Deluna Drive, stated that he is in favor of the application, and showed a photograph which he felt shows that he is impacted just as heavily as the other applicants by the trees in question. He stated that he and his neighbors on Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 4 Deluna Drive were also interested in filing a view restoration application with the City, but are waiting to see how this current application is resolved. He stated he would like that the Commission order trimming to the red line levels. Mr. Liehr stated that the longer this issue goes on the more confused he becomes, as there are so many trees, issues, opinions, and controversies surrounding this application. He felt that the fundamental starting place for all decisions should be what the height of the trees were in 1961 compared to the houses on Dianora Drive and then establish whether they were view impairing or not. He stated that based on his mathematical calculations and tree stump rings, he believes the subject trees were impairing views in 1961. He did not think it was fair that staff drew a line and stated that everything that grows above that line is view impairing. He discussed a Eucalyptus tree that was cut on his property and that he was able to count growth rings on the stump which he felt showed the tree to be approximately 100 years old. He also felt that pictures submitted by Mrs. Shephard which shows a view should not be considered, as one is taken towards the east while the other is taken more towards the south west. Mrs. Liehr stated that two years ago she visited Mr. Hillinger's property, and at that time Mr. Hillinger insisted to her that he had no complaints about his view and her trees. She also visited Mr. Rosa and his property and was also told that the trees were not a problem. Mr. Rosa also stated he had his view and he had no problem. She questioned how they can now say the trees are causing a problem. She felt that the leaders on Dianora Drive went around gathering neighbors signatures so that they could have more applicants and appear stronger. Regina O'Melveny 3071 Crest Road (foliage owner) stated that one of the major reasons she and her husband purchased their home was for the trees on the property and the surrounding properties. She felt that the manner in which the view restoration ordinance has been implemented over the years has been heavily biased towards view owners resulting in bitter divisive battles within the community. She felt in her case the abuse was particularly egregious. She explained that her neighbors had gone through mediation and had cut and trimmed their trees according to the agreement, however only months later the applicants had requested more trimming work, which she felt showed that mediation was futile and any agreement non-binding. She stated that the substantial shade from the trees on her property cools her house so that she has never had to use an air conditioner. Therefore, the climate of her home would be drastically altered if heavy thinning and crown reduction were to occur, in particular with tree Nos. 46, 47, 48, 42, 38, and 41. She was very concerned that trimming and thinning would put the conifers at risk for the bark beetle. She stated that the redwoods are the major focus of her apprehension, as they are the most beloved trees in her yard. She did not want to risk losing the redwoods, as such she requested they be exempt from trimming entirely. She stated that she was willing to remove tree No. 36 to be replaced by a 24 inch box tree. She has also agreed to reduce the crown on tree Nos. 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, and 45. She concluded by stating that she is willing to give the applicants what they want with regards to the majority of the trees, but asked that the redwoods be exempt. Planning commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 5 Jeff Parker (attorney representing the O'Melvenys and the Wymans) stated that the Wyman's have asked he speak on their behalf. He stated that much of what is written in his second letter was alluded to in the first letter. In his communications, he discussed the statute of limitations. He asked which statute of limitations applies to View Restoration permits. He submits that Section 338 of the Civil Code applies rather than the View Restoration Code language that reverts back to when an "applicant's" lot was created. With that in mind, he also stated that his clients want to be good neighbors to the extent possible. He stated that the trees in question are, for the most part, close to 1,000 feet away. He felt that a balance must be reached between views and conifer trees. He discussed the proposed maintenance schedule, explaining the high cost of annual maintenance to his clients, and the harm to the trees maintained frequently, which is why he is requesting a five year maintenance schedule for the redwood and three year maintenance schedule for the pines. He discussed Condition No. 27 which he felt says that if a previously undetected tree is found it will be cut down to the view height, without any regard to the type of tree or right to appeal. He did not feel that was the correct way to handle any unidentified trees, especially if they are conifers. Rick Wheeler (arborist) stated that he is in disagreement with the City Arborist in regards to the proposed annual pruning, noting that nowhere in the ISA Standards does it recommend trees be pruned annually or reduced by one third. He stated that all of the recommendations found in the ISA Standards are for the health of the tree in question. He stated that the recommended trimmings, especially on the conifers and redwoods, will prove to be a problem with respect to beetles and other insect problems, which are already showing on certain trees. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Wheeler if he felt an annual pruning schedule for a Canary Island pine would result in the tree's demise. Mr. Wheeler answered that from what he has seen in the past, he believes an annual pruning schedule would lead to the trees demise. Ava Shephard (in rebuttal) stated that a 1950's aerial photograph in the previous staff report shows there were no trees in the area. She stated that all trees in the application are within 1,000 feet, which is what is called for in the Ordinance. She discussed the conifer tree trimming, and stated that the Ordinance does not address the health of the tree, only that if the tree dies because of the trimming the applicant can have the tree replaced. She stressed that this is a view restoration ordinance and it is not an ordinance to preserve trees. She stated that the agreement to allow Mr. Issacson to lace the larger pine tree has proven to be a mistake, as he does not maintain the tree. Charles Hillinger 3131 Dianora Drive, stated that from his bedroom the subject trees are blocking his view, and that the bedroom should be considered part of his viewing area. He refuted Mrs. Liehr's earlier statement that he did not have an issue with her trees. Mr. Liehr (in rebuttal) stated that the aerial photographs definitely show tree growth. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 6 Mr. Parker (in rebuttal) stated that to make this Ordinance work one has to be reasonable with the application. He stated it is unreasonable to apply the same standards to a tree that is nearly 1,000 feet from the applicant and a tree that is right in the face of the viewing area. He stated that to make it reasonable one should look at what is being imposed in terms of maintenance frequency and costs to the foliage owner who is barely within the limits of the Ordinance. He also felt that the mediation process was faulty and that mediation did not truly take place. He pointed out for clarification that beetle infestation is occurring on tree Nos. 26 and 27. Commissioner Karp moved to continue the public hearing to the first available meeting in January, 2008. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Commissioner Tetreault noted that the other items on the Agenda have action deadlines that must be met, while this view restoration item has no action deadline. He made a suggested continuing discussion of this item to 10:30, at which time the item will be tabled until Agenda Items 2, 3, and 4, with action deadlines have been heard and resolved in some manner. Commissioner Lewis felt that the Planning Commission should continue the discussion of this item until some sort of decision has been made. Commissioners Knight and Karp felt this was a reasonable proposal and supported Commissioner Tetreault's suggestion. Chairman Gerstner also agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's suggestion and it was agreed that this item will be discussed until 10:30, at which time the other agenda items will be discussed. Commissioner Karp asked staff to clarify the mediation process that took place with this item. Senior Planner Alvarez explained how the mediation process in this case took place. He explained that Staff felt it would be a more productive and efficient mediation effort if Mr. Liehr's trees were separate from the Wyman and O'Melveny's trees. To bring all the parties into one room, one mediation would be counter productive. Commissioner Knight noted that the Liehr's have requested a stump removal for one of the trees, but it is not in the Resolution. He asked staff to clarify. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that the tree Mr. Liehr is requesting stump removal does not currently impair a view and staff is not recommending any action on that tree at this time. However, the applicants may be inclined to help Mr. Liehr privately with stump remediation. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 7 Commissioner Lewis asked staff to clarify what type of maintenance schedule they were recommending for the pine trees and the redwood trees. Senior Planner Alvarez clarified that staff was recommending staying with the one year trimming cycle for the Canary Island pine trees and to have some flexibility to allow a longer maintenance period for the redwood trees per the City Arborist's suggestions, which was not specified. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they had seen the photograph submitted by the applicants and if they had any comments regarding the photo, and if that photo changed the ultimate conclusion regarding those trees being pre-existing. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that it does appear that what staff originally thought might be a tree appears to be now ground cover. He added, however, that was not the basis for staff making its determination in respect to tree Nos. 19 through 21. He stated that the basis for staff's determination of those trees being view impairing was based on the 1964 aerial photograph and the rapid growth rate of the eucalyptus trees. Chairman Gerstner suggested the Planning Commission begin by discussing the issue of the trees that staff has determined to be pre-existing and therefore exempt from the application. Commissioner Lewis began by saying that at the last hearing he had stated the photograph of the ground cover submitted didn't carry any weight with him, however he did find that the photographs supplied by staff on circle page 136 is compelling evidence, and if asked to vote he would support staff's findings that those three trees are exempt. Commissioner Knight felt this was a difficult issue, given the conflicting testimony. However, given the photographs submitted by staff, he too would agree with staffs findings that the trees were view impairing and therefore exempt from the application. Commissioner Karp did not think these trees should be exempt from the application. He felt the trees were planted at some point in time and were not view impairing when the lots were created. Commissioner Tetreault was having difficulty with the copied 1964 aerial photograph on page 136, and asked staff if they had anything that was clearer, such as the original photograph, as he would like to see it for clarity. He felt that he was being pressured to make a decision based on what he felt was not the best evidence available. Chairman Gerstner felt it was impossible to tell if a tree was existing on a lot and was view impairing or not view impairing at the time based on an aerial photograph. Therefore, he was relying on the testimony of people who stated that when they bought their lots there were no view impairing trees present. Planning commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 8 Chairman Gerstner suggested discussion on the trees that are infested with the bark beetle and whether or not, if the Planning Commission finds these trees to be view impairing, if the trimming of the trees should be deferred so that the trees can recooperate. Commissioner Knight noted the issue raised of infestation is a good one, and felt that to trim the trees with the infestation would be adverse to the tree's health. He therefore would be inclined to go along with the delay in trimming, if trimming is recommended. However, he did feel a definite time limit should be placed on the delay. Commissioner Tetreault pointed out that deferment may not be a lesser issue because the applicants are requesting crown reduction rather than thinning. Commissioner Lewis felt that whether the trees have the crown reduced or are thinned, such an action could stress the trees because of the presence of the bark beetles, and more damage could be caused than is intended. He therefore agreed to the portion of the declaration that refers to deferring, however he would not agree with the portion that talks about something different than what staff recommended. Commissioner Tetreault agreed with staff's recommendation that the deferral be no more than one year. Commissioner Karp also agreed that the trimming of the two infested pine trees be deferred because of the bark beetle. Chairman Gerstner suggested discussing Staff's recommendation for certain trees and whether they are significantly impairing a view. Discussing the significant view impairment, Commissioner Lewis stated that he agreed with staffs recommendations as to which trees are significantly view impairing and which are not as identified in the Resolution. He added that he felt tree Nos. 19 through 21 should be exempt from the application, but for different reasons than those stated by staff. He asked Staff to produce a "significant view" matrix. Commissioner Knight stated that with all of the testimony heard that he would have to review the staff report again before he could comfortably make a decision on which trees he feels are significantly impairing a view and which are not. Commissioner Tetreault agreed with staff regarding the view impairing trees on one of the properties however, he was not sure about the trees on the two recently added foliage owner's properties, in particular the redwood trees. He was not able to say whether or not the redwood trees caused significant view impairment to the applicant's properties or not. He added that there are options of lessening the maintenance costs imposed on the foliage owners should they elect to remove trees or reduce the crowns. Planning commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 9 Commissioner Lewis suggested that the Commission give to Staff a wish list so that more information can be provided at the next meeting. Commissioner Knight requested that staff present to the Planning Commission at the next meeting a written response from the City Attorney with respect to the attorney's letters presented to the Planning Commission. He asked staff for a clarification on their recommendations for a trimming schedule for the redwood trees. He also asked for a clarification on the recommendation for tree No. 36. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they could produce the best available photograph of the 1964 aerial photograph on page 136. He also asked staff for further clarification from the City arborist as to the ages and heights in 1961 of tree Nos. 19 through 21. He stated that the burden of proof is on the applicants to prove no view impairment existed when their lots were created. Commissioner Lewis requested the City arborist provide a maintenance cycle between the first year and 5 years later. Before making a motion, Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the motion should be to continue the public hearing to a date certain. Director Rojas explained that the Commission can close the public hearing and deliberate, with no additional public testimony, at the February 12, 2008 meeting He added that he did not recall the Chairman closing the public hearimg Chairman Gerstner stated that he had intended to close the public hearing, and at this point he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the discussion of this item to the meeting of February 12, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5- 0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No ZON2006-00631)• 32228 Schooner Drive Commissioner Ruttenberg and Vice Chairman Perestam returned to the dais. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She explained that the project does block a portion of the view from 32214 Schooner Drive, however staff felt that when looking at the entire view exclusive of foliage, as the finding requires, it is not significant view impairment. She stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 10 Commissioner Knight referred to correspondence from the residents at 32206 Schooner Drive, and asked staff if they addressed the question of view impairment from this residence. Assistant Planner Kim showed photographs taken from 32206 Schooner Drive and explained that staff did not feel the proposed addition caused significant view impairment from that residence. Commissioner Ruttenberg referred to the photograph taken from 32214 Schooner Drive, and asked staff if the trees on the applicant's property will be trimmed down to the ridgeline. Assistant Planner Kim answered that there is a condition of approval which states that all the ficus and fruit trees on the subject property will be trimmed down to the 16 foot height limit or the ridge line, whichever is lower. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted a large tree in the photograph and asked if that tree was also to be removed. Assistant Planner Kim explained that the tree was seen from the master bedroom and not considered, since the master bedroom was not considered part of the best and most important view. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Paul Hobus (applicant) stated that he has read the staff report and is in agreement with the staff recommendations, and will do whatever it takes to get this project approved. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Hobus if he would be willing to remove the large tree that blocks the view from his neighbor's master bedroom. Mr. Hobus answered that the tree has never come into question, however he would be willing to remove it if necessary. Jure Sestich (architect) gave a brief history of this project, the design of the project, and the steps taken to make the proposed addition as low as possible. Commissioner Knight asked what type of roofing material is planned for the new roof. Mr. Sestich answered that at the portions of the roof where the pitch is only 1:12 there are not many choices in roofing material and it will have to be some type of rolled asphalt or cap sheet. Prim Hamilton stated that the second story addition at an 18 foot height does impact and diminish the view from her home, especially from a sitting position. She felt that Catalina Island is an important view from her living room and that the view will be Planning commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 11 significantly impacted by the addition. She questioned why the addition could not be put at the other side of the residence where it will not impact her view. Commissioner Ruttenberg pointed out in a photograph taken from Mrs. Hamilton the trees that will be removed as a result of this project, noting that a portion of the view will be restored once these trees are removed. He asked Mrs. Hamilton if she had taken this into consideration and if she still felt that the addition will impair a significant portion of her view. Mrs. Hamilton answered that she was aware of the trees that would be removed, however she felt that every inch matters when it comes to an ocean view. Commissioner Ruttenberg then showed the picture of the tree as seen from the master bedroom and asked Mrs. Hamilton if she would like to have that tree removed. Mrs. Hamilton answered that she would like to have that tree removed. Commissioner Lewis asked Mrs. Hamilton if the tree seen from the master bedroom were removed, would she still oppose the project. Mrs. Hamilton replied that she would like to see the height of the project lowered, as seen from her living room. Jure Sestich (in rebuttal) felt that he has done everything he can to lower this project and still make it a viable project. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Sestich if he had considered lowering the grade to lower the overall height of the house, but still maintain the height desired by the owner. Mr. Sestich answered that he had not considered that option, however it may be a viable option. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Sestich if he had considered putting the addition on the other side of the residence, as suggested by Mrs. Hamilton. Mr. Sestich explained that putting any addition on the other side of the residence will make the overall height much taller than currently proposed, and would affect the views from four to five of the neighbors. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight referred to neighborhood compatibility, and asked staff if they had an opinion on whether or not the proposed roofing material for the flat portion of the roof would be compatible with the other roofing materials found in the neighborhood. Planning commission Minutes December 11, 2007 Page 12 Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff felt that the roofing material would be compatible, as the types of roofing material throughout the neighborhood are very diverse. She added that even if the applicant uses a roofing material that does not exist within the 20 closest homes, staff felt that mitigating the view impairment would weigh more than having a roofing material that is slightly different from those on the 20 closest homes. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staffs recommendations as presented with the added condition that the tree viewed from the Hamilton's bedroom be removed, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Karp felt this house blocks somebody's view and the house can be lowered by two or three feet without any major engineering problems. He also did not like the rolled roofing material and did not think it was in keeping with the neighborhood. He stated he was not in favor of the motion. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that this proposed addition does create a significant view impairment to the Hamilton home. He stated that he was not in favor of the motion, but would rather see the public hearing continued to allow the architect time to,consider and work with some of the suggestions and comments made by the Planning Commission to see if he can reduce the view impairment from the Hamilton residence. Commissioner Tetreault felt that the proposed addition is compatible with the existing neighborhood, as there is such a wide variety of styles found in the neighborhood. He was concerned, however, with the loss of view from Mrs. Hamilton's residence, and felt the proposed addition does cause significant view impairment of the ocean. Concerning the tree seen from the Hamilton bedroom window, he did not feel it was appropriate to require the applicant to remove that tree, as the master bedroom is not part of the viewing area. He did not think the Planning Commission should be making these kind of decisions that he did not feel was in their purview. Commissioner Knight agreed with Commissioner Tetreault in terms of the tree seen from the Hamilton's bedroom window. He agreed with the suggestion that the public hearing be continued to allow the architect time to explore the idea of lowering the grade on the property. Vice Chairman Perestam stated that he was not comfortable with the amount of view loss from the Hamilton's home. He asked that if the item is to be continued that the silhouette and flags be checked for accuracy. He felt that the fruit tree seen from the Hamilton's bedroom should be removed, as the view from that bedroom is the same as the view from the living room. Commissioner Lewis withdrew his motion to approve the project, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 13 Chairman Gerstner re-opened the public hearing to ask the applicant if they would be willing to grant a 90 day extension per the Permit Streamlining Act. Mr. Hobus felt that the Planning Commission was asking him to look into going sub- terranean, which is something he would rather not do. He explained that it has been very difficult trying to appease all of the neighbors, and noted that even building a home to the 16 foot level will cause some view impairment to the neighbor. He agreed to the one-time, 90 day extension. Jure Sestich asked the Planning Commission to give him some type of guideline with respect to how much more they would like to see the height of the proposed home lowered. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to February 26, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Knight asked staff how far the ridgeline would have to be lowered to reach the 16-foot height level. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the difference between what was being proposed and the 16 foot level is approximately 1.84 feet. Commissioner Knight asked if the ridge was lowered by 1.84 feet if the project would even have to come back to the Planning Commission. Assistant Planner Kim answered that it would because there is another portion near the middle of the structure that is proposed at 20 feet in height. She noted, however that if the portion in question is lowered to 16 feet it would not be subject to a view analysis. Commissioners Tetreault and Ruttenberg both felt that the current addition blocks a significant portion of Mrs. Hamilton's view and agreed that lowering the structure by some amount will help restore a portion of that view. However they could not say how much the structure should be lowered without seeing the proposed re-design. Commissioner Knight asked staff for a clarification on the tree seen from the master bedroom and if that is an issue the Planning Commission can address. Director Rojas clarified that staff has determined the primary viewing area to be from the living room, not from the bedroom, and views are protected from the primary viewing area. Vice Chairman Perestam suggested the applicant may want to trim some of the trees that are currently blocking the view to give the Planning Commissioners a better idea of the view that will be opened up once those trees are removed. Planning commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 14 The motion to continue the public hearing to February 26, 2008 was approved, (5- 2) with Commissioner Lewis and Chairman Gerstner dissenting. 3. Grading Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2007-00506)• 2 W Pomegranate Commissioner Knight recused himself from hearing this item as he personally knows the parties involved. He left the dais. Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining the history and scope of the project. He explained that the City Geologist agrees with the applicant's geologist that the additional grading done at the site is necessary, and beneficial and therefore staff is recomrnending the Planning Commission approve the additional remedial grading that has been done at the site. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-67 thereby approving staff's recommendations as presented, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Knight recused. Chairman Gerstner noted that the grading done is a significant amount of grading, and was disappointed with the Pony Club for doing this work without the necessary City approvals and permits. 4. Height Variation Permit, Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (Case No 2ON2007-00209): 32415 Nautilus Drive Commissioner Knight returned to the dais. Chairman Gerstner left the meeting. Director Rojas distributed a later item of correspondence for the item. Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, briefly describing the scope of the project. He explained that staff was notable to contact the neighbor at 32410 Nautilus Drive, where staff believes there may be a potential view impairment. Therefore, staff estimated that there would be a partial view impairment of the ocean from the second floor, however staff did not feel that view impairment would be significant. He also reported that staff has received a phone call from an attorney for an adjacent homeowner, asking that staff take photographs from his client's second story living area, which staff displayed. He explained that the silhouette is impairing a portion of the Trump golf course, which staff determined was not significant. He stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings for the project, and was recommending approval as conditioned in the staff report. Planning commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 15 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to clarify why only four homes were used in the neighborhood compatibility analysis, noting that there are several other homes abutting the subject home that were not taken into consideration. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that Nautilus Drive is a cul-de-sac and the sizes of the homes on this cul-de-sac vary greatly from the existing ranch style houses that are nearby on Conqueror Drive and Sea Raven Drive. He also explained there had been a previous Height Variation on Nautilus that was approved by the Planning Commission that mainly focused on neighborhood compatibility on the other houses on Nautilus Drive. Therefore, for consistency, staff focused on the homes on Nautilus Drive for this Height Variation request. Director Rojas also noted that the homes in the Sea View tract are in a different zone than the ones on Nautilus Drive and, per the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, they cannot be included in the neighborhood compatibility analysis. He stated that staff felt this cul-de-sac functions as its own neighborhood. He added that if the Planning Commission disagrees with the staff's analysis, they can ask staff to reanalyze the homes and include the twenty closest homes. Commissioner Knight discussed the new proposed roof deck and asked if it was at a higher elevation than the existing roof deck and therefore created a privacy issue. Senior Planner Alvarez affirmed that the proposed deck is higher, but though the existing roof deck is at a lower elevation, staff did not feel the proposed roof deck would cause any additional privacy infringement to the neighbor. Vice Chairman Perestam asked staff if the zoning on Forrestal Drive is the same as the zoning on Nautilus Drive. Director Rojas answered that he believed the zoning on both streets is RS-3. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Jerry Duhovic (applicant) stated that he has gone to great lengths to work with his neighbors on this project, and at the eleventh hour an adjacent neighbor has raised an objection. He explained that the neighbor has a balcony from his master bedroom from which he had concerns that the proposed addition would block some of his view. Mr. Duhovic stated that he modified his plans to lower the parapet to accommodate his neighbor's concerns. He also noted that the existing silhouette is not currently accurate, and he was never told to modify the silhouette. He also explained that the current staggered garage is being pushed back 3 Y2 feet. He stated that he has talked to his neighbor who states that his only objection is the parapet, which he has already modified. He therefore was not sure what the neighbor's attorneys were going to raise as objections to the project. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he explained that the homes on Nautilus Drive were built 30 years after the homes in the Sea View tract and are in no way compatible with those homes. Planning commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 16 Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Duhovic if he received a copy of the legal brief that was distributed to the Commission. Mr. Duhovic answered that he did not receive a copy of the legal brief. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Duhovic if the silhouette was accurate in the areas other than the area of the tower. Mr. Duhovic stated that everything is accurate except for the garage area. Commissioner Knight asked if the changes to the parapet and the garages are reflected in the plans distributed with the staff report. Mr. Duhovic answered that the plans should be accurate. Ralph Asher (appearing for Vladamier Riles) stated he is the one who prepared the legal brief that was distributed to the Planning Commission. He explained that the view being discussed is from the master bedroom balcony and is the same view,that is shared from the large windows in the living room at the front of the house. He stated that the proposed addition creates more than an interference with the golf course view, but also interferes with the ocean view. He discussed the picture in the staff report, and noted that the ocean view that is directly behind the garage will be completely blocked. He also noted that if there is to be a deck above the garage, that deck will further interfere with the view. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Asher if he understood that the second floor bedroom view is not a protected view under the Ordinance. Mr. Asher disagreed, explaining that the view from the master bedroom is the same vantage and same angle looking out from the house. He felt that this is a significant viewing area in this case, and could not see how staff could have come to any conclusion without having physically reviewing the property and the views from the property from all vantage points. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Asher if he felt there is a blocked view from the first floor of the house. Mr. Asher stated that there is a blocked view from the first floor, however he did not take pictures from the first floor to show the Planning Commission. He stated that he did not understand the significance of the view from the first floor when he was taking pictures and would like the opportunity to supplement the pictures provided. Fred Safford (attorney for Mr. Riles) stated that Mr. Riles concerns with the proposed addition are the deck, his privacy, and the parapet blocking a view and sunlight to his residence. He felt that this proposed project is clearly an over-build. He noted that Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 17 nobody on the cul-de-sac has an observation deck, and this proposed observation deck is extremely close to his client's master bedroom. He stated that his client is very willing to work with the applicant to find a solution that is satisfactory to both. Mr. Duhovic (in rebuttal) stated that there are houses on his cul-de-sac that clearly have very large viewing decks and encouraged the Commission to come out and look. He stated that it is 100 percent false that there is any view blockage from Mr. Riles living room, and again explained how the garages are going to be recessed back. He also noted that the proposed parapet is no higher than the existing roof line of the garage. He felt the attorneys were here only to create negotiating points and that the issues they brought up are in fact non-issues. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp stated that he would like to go back out to the property, as Mr. Duhovic suggested, however to do so will require a one-time 90 day time extension. Commissioner Tetreault noted that according to the staff report, staff has conducted a site visit to 32405 Nautilus Drive and determined what the viewing area of the home was and what his view was. He also noted that staff found the view came from the first floor and this project did not impact the view from the first floor. Senior Planner Alvarez stated that staff looked at the areas of the proposed addition from the Riles property and it was not apparent to staff that there would be any view impairment of any portion of the proposed structure. Director Rojas added that the Guidelines are clear that views from the second floor are not protected unless the area constitutes a primary living area. Further, the viewing area may be located in the master bedroom if a view is not taken from one of the rooms comprising the primary living area. Commissioner Knight discussed neighborhood compatibility, stating he understood the logic that these homes on the cul-de-sac are very much different than the homes in the other surrounding neighborhoods, however he asked staff where in the Code it allows for using only four homes in the analysis rather than the closest twenty homes. Director Rojas answered that precedent has been set in past cases where smaller number of homes have been used to determine a neighborhood, pointing out the recent case on Nantasket Drive as an example. He added that it is not the Development Code that discusses neighborhood compatibility, but rather the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook. He read from the Handbook that for the purposes of neighborhood compatibility the immediate neighborhood is normally considered to be the 20 closest residences within the same zoning district. He explained that this was interpreted that normally 20 homes are looked at, but staff or the Planning Commission was not bound to 20 homes in every case. Planning commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 18 Commissioner Ruttenberg did not think that the project on Nantasket set a precedence, noting that this project backed up to several different zoning areas. He did not feel the homes on Nautilus Drive should ever have been approved, as they are not compatible with anything nearby, and did not think that the Planning Commission should now be compounding that error. He felt the current home is too big, does not meet mass and bulk considerations, and when the proper neighborhood compatibility analysis is done it will not meet the neighborhood compatibility requirements. He stated that even if these four homes were considered their own neighborhood, this home is already 25 percent larger than the four homes it's being compared with. He stated that he does not support this project and will vote against the proposed project. He also stated that he would not support a motion to continue the project. Commissioner Lewis agreed with much of what Commissioner Ruttenberg said, however if this were to come back he would like to see the additional information from the surrounding neighborhoods. He felt that in this type of case, where the Planning Commission has the discretion to consider a small sub-set of homes or a larger set, staff should try to err on giving the Commission more information so that they could filter it out for themselves. He stated that if he had to vote tonight, he would not be able to support the project based on neighborhood compatibility, but not on view issues. Commissioner Tetreault felt that the homes on Nautilus Drive meets the criteria for being considered their own neighborhood, noting that the zoning in the surrounding tracts is different, that this cul-de-sac has a single access to it, the street has a decidedly different look to it, is detached from the other streets surrounding it, and none of the homes on the street could be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated, however, that in terms of neighborhood compatibility even in it's own area, this project is very ambitious for the size of the lot. He was troubled by the scope of the project, noting that is right on Palos Verdes Drive South, and will be very prominent. He stated that he was not concerned about the view from 32405 Nautilus Drive, and agreed with staffs determination in that regards. Commissioner Knight agreed with Commissioner Tetreault in terms of the neighborhood compatibility and the surrounding neighborhoods. He also was concerned that if these homes are to be grouped with the Sea View homes in terms of neighborhood compatibility, that there may be an issue when a home in the Sea View tract requests an addition and the homes on Nautilus Drive are considered in the neighborhood compatibility analysis. He felt that the neighborhood compatibility analysis is currently set up in such a way that this shouldn't happen, and that is why the homes on Nautilus Drive should be considered their own neighborhood. He also agreed with staff's analysis concerning the views from 32405 Nautilus Drive. He was concerned about the bulk and mass of the proposed project. Vice Chairman Perestam referred to the table on page 1 of the staff report, and noted there are some inaccuracies in that table. He questioned if the data in the chart was accurate, and asked staff to take another look at the numbers in the chart. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 19 The Planning Commissioners agreed that the numbers did not appear to be accurate, making it very difficult to make a decision on the project, and asked staff to revise the chart with the accurate numbers. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the staff's recommendations to approve the project, seconded by Commissioner Karp. The motion failed (0-6). Vice Chairman Perestam re-opened the public hearing to ask the applicant if he would be willing to grant a one time 90-day extension per the Permit Streamlining Act. Mr. Duhovic stated that he would grant the one time 90-day extension. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault stated again that this proposed house appears to bulky and massive and is in a prominent location where the bulk and mass is not hidden. He stated that this proposed addition is too much, and suggested to the applicant that he take another look at this addition and attempt a re-design to hide the bulk and mass. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to February 12, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he was a little uncomfortable about this project and the inaccurate information that was presented in the staff report. Commissioner Karp felt that the Planning Commission owed the applicant the opportunity to present his case based on the true facts of the project. He stated that the Planning Commission has, up to now, formed opinions and made decisions based on information that was incorrect. Commissioner Lewis stated that he was confident that the Planning Commission does not have enough information to make a decision on this application at this meeting. He questioned the February 12th date, wondering if that would allow enough time if the Planning Commission had further questions at that meeting. He felt that if the applicant is going to re-present his case to the Planning Commission using the correct numbers, that it should be done in January. Commissioner Knight felt that staff was appropriate in making the Nautilus Drive its own neighborhood in terms of neighborhood compatibility. He reminded the Planning Commission that to include homes in the Sea View tract in the neighborhood would then allow the homes in the Sea View tract to include the Nautilus homes in their neighborhood compatibility analysis. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he would like to see an analysis include the 20 closest homes in the R-3 zoning district. Planning commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 20 Commissioner Karp agreed with Commissioner Knight's argument, however he stated that the homes are there and he would like to see a neighborhood compatibility analysis which includes the 20 closest homes. Commissioner Tetreault questioned what the Planning Commission is asking the applicant to do. He asked if they were asking for a redesign of the project, or if they were simply asking the applicant to re-present his case with the correct numbers. He agreed that if the Commission wanted to hear the case again, it should be done in January. Commissioner Lewis stated that he had not yet made up his mind whether or not the homes on Nautilus Drive make up their own neighborhood. He asked Commission Knight if he would be willing to amend his motion to request that staff provide the information on the twenty closest homes as part of the neighborhood compatibility analysis to give the Planning Commission a better feel for the situation. Commissioner Knight asked staff if, by providing this requested information, this would then become the neighborhood compatibility analysis. Director Rojas answered that staff can provide the requested information and the Planning Commission can then make the determination as to what constitutes the neighborhood for the neighborhood compatibility analysis. Commissioner Knight amended his motion to include the request that staff provide the Planning Commission information regarding the twenty closest homes and that the public hearing be continued to January 8, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Vice Chairman Perestam re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Duhovic commented that there is no golf course view from his neighbor's home, that staff did go to his neighbor's home and determine that there was no view impairment, and requested that the Planning Commissioners all come to his home to see how it is situated in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. The motion to continue the public hearing to January 8, 2008 was approved, (6-0). 5. Appeal of City Tree Review Permit (Case No VRP2007-00018)• Adjacent to 29040 Palos Verdes Drive East Chairman Gerstner left the meeting at this point. Planning commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 21 Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining where the tree is located and how it blocks the views from three residences. She explained the process of the City Tree Review and why staff felt the tree should be removed rather than trimmed. She stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission uphold the Director's opinion and deny the appeal. Commissioner Knight asked staff if Mr. Kluck has been maintaining the tree. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that staff was not aware that Mr. Kluck has been maintaining the tree, and that he is proposing to maintain the tree if it is left in place. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he has had communication with the Director regarding the standing of this appeal, but after discussion with the City Attorney he was convinced that this is an appropriate action for these people to take. Vice Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Dave Kluck 29040 Palos Verdes Drive East (appellant) showed on a photograph how he felt the sycamore trees did not create significant view impairment to the;applicants. He noted that a significant portion of the trees block only a portion of the sky view. He questioned how much ocean and harbor view the applicant's would gain by the removal of the trees. He also questioned whether or not the picture was taken from a standing position, and that the picture should be taken from a sitting position. He felt that removing the trees would not be to the benefit of the public, but rather a benefit only to a select few private individuals. He stated that removal of the trees would be a detriment to himself and to his neighbors, as he explained in his letter. He also felt that removing the trees would interfere with the natural cycle involved with the septic systems in the neighborhood and could lead to potential law suits against the City if there is land failure. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Kluck if he has been maintaining these sycamore trees. Mr. Kluck answered that when he moved in four years ago he trimmed the trees significantly, but has not done so since because he has been awaiting the results of this decision. Carol Sue Kluck stated that the trees provide significant shade and cooling to the property and the interior of the house. Linda Zimmerman stated that the appellant is her brother and she is a frequent visitor to the house. She did not think that the slight view impairment these trees may cause outweighs the significant benefits they provide to her brother's home. Kenneth Zimmerman stated he is also a frequent visitor to the appellant's home and that the trees add significant shade to the home. Planning commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 22 Vice Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg understood the appellant's concerns and felt the points raised were very good points. However, he stated that he has to follow the City code in regards to this case, and he felt that the code places a high value on view impairments. He felt that in this situation, the Code tells him that that the trees do cause a significant view impairment. Therefore, he will be voting in favor of staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg. He stated that, while he has great sympathy for the appellant he must follow the Ordinance. He stated that maybe one day the Ordinance will be amended to take other factors into consideration, but until that time he must uphold the Ordinance. Commissioner Knight also agreed that the Sycamore trees are beautiful trees and are probably a benefit to the applicant's property. However, he also noted that he has to follow the Ordinance. Commissioner Karp moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-68 thereby upholding the Director's decision and denying the appeal, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (5-0). NEW BUSINESS 6. Selection of a date for a site visit to Marymount College Director Rojas explained that Marymount College is erecting silhouettes and flags for a short period of time and that this item was placed on the Agenda to determine a date the Planning Commission would like to meet at the site to view the silhouette and tour the area. He added that the Planning Commission can also decide to not set a date to view it as a group, but rather view it individually. Commissioner Karp noted that there may not necessarily be a quorum for this item, as he and Commissioner Ruttenberg must recuse themselves from this item. He and Commissioner Ruttenberg then left the dais. Director Rojas agreed that there is not a quorum and the matter was automatically continued to the January 8, 2008 meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. Minutes of November 13, 2007 Commissioners Ruttenberg and Karp returned to the dais. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0). Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 23 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of January 8, 2008 The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:53 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2007 Page 24