Loading...
PC MINS 20090908 Approved October 27, 200 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Fox, and Associate Planner Trester APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission agreed to hear item No. I after item No. 3. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that the City Council appeal hearing on the Marymount College project is scheduled for Saturday, September 12. He also reported that a joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop is scheduled for September 29th to discuss the upcoming General Plan update. Director Rojas disturbed four items of correspondence for agenda item No. 2 and one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (r2garding non-agenda i12Msi, None CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Appeal of interpretation Procedure for the Coastal Zone (Case No. ZON2007-00253): 24 Seacove Drive Director Rojas reported that staff has received a request for continuance of this item, noting that one of the reasons cited was a potential violation of the Brown Act. He stated that staff has discussed this allegation with the City Attorney and she affirms that there has been no Brown Act violation, as the Agenda was posted 72 hours before the scheduled meeting. After a short discussion the Commission decided that the item should be heard rather than continued, as there was no Brown Act violation. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and reason for the interpretation procedure and the appeal. Director Rojas added that staff believes that the ESA maps are the maps that were used to map the Coastal Setback Line. This position is also shared by the Coastal Commission staff. However, the applicant has raised the issue that there is an official land use map which has the Coastal Setback Line mapped on it. He noted that the location of the Coastal Setback Line on this map differs from the location of the Coastal Setback Line on the ESA map. Because of the ambiguity, staff felt that a minor amendment was needed which states that in cases of uncertainty as to where the coastal setback line is located, one is to refer to the ESA map. He noted that since the Coastal Commission staff supports this proposed minor amendment. He noted that the position of the applicant's line is based on a mapped line and is supported by approved geology reports, for the time being staff will accept the location of the coastal setback line as noted on the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Map. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if there has ever been an objection in the past regarding the use of the ESA maps. Director Rojas could not recall a past objection to the use of the ESA maps. Commissioner Ruttenberg recalled at a previous meeting that there was a discussion that the ESA map may not be the proper map to use because it has not been certified. He asked staff to comment. Director Rojas answered that the ESA map is mentioned in the Coastal Specific Plan, noting that the explanation in the Coastal Specific Plan of how the coastal setback line was mapped refers to the ESA report which then refers to the ESA maps. Commissioner Knight asked if the City has granted or denied previous permits based on the ESA maps. Director Rojas answered that was correct. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2009 Page 2 Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Brant Dvern (representing the Conroys) noted that the land use map is the map that was adopted in 1978 and is on file with the Coastal Commission. He stated that he agrees with staffs recommendation, however he does not agree with staff's reasoning. He stated that he agrees with staffs opinion that if the official map is used, a Variance is not needed. However, that does create some issues with the City. He also noted that it is not entirely correct that staff historically has used the ESA map, noting a 2000 Resolution related to 42 Sea Cove Drive which refers to the coastal setback line as identified on the City's zoning map. He explained that he used the official map in this case because it was his understanding that one was supposed to use the official map. He stated that when it came to his attention that the City uses the ESA maps, he was not able to find the authority to do so. He noted that the Municipal Code requires use of the zoning map and Specific Plan map. He agrees with staff that there is an ambiguity. Commigsioner Knight asked Mr. Dvern if he had a chance to discuss this issue with the Coastal Commission. Mr. Dvern explained that he went to the Coastal Commission to look for the ESA map in their files, however the only map they had was the map in the Coastal Specific Plan. He also explained that neither he nor Mr. Conroy has asked the Coastal Commission to take a position on this issue and that the Coastal Commission agrees that there is an ambiguity and a minor amendment is most likely needed to the Coastal Specific Plan. Brian Conroy explained that there was never detailed geology done for the ESA map, but rather a report was used and is contained in the bibliography section of the Coastal Specific Plan. He felt that this is a reference material only that was used by the City and not incorporated into the official certified document. He also noted that it was a reference material used by the City as a guideline as to where the coastal setback line should be located. He stated that it is even referenced as a preliminary coastal setback line and that there is no permanent line in the document. He felt that he has met all of the criteria in his application and there is no legitimate reason that the City cannot grant him his permit. Pamela Simes stated she has spoken to the Coastal Commission and they are in agreement with staff that an amendment is needed so that the ESA maps can be used, as they feel they are the accurate maps. She also stated that the Coastal Commission had stated they would rather wait on making a decision on the Conroy property until this amendment was made. She felt that if Mr. Conroy is allowed to do what he is proposing then it will have citywide ramifications. Jaccoma Maultsby read pages 24 and 25 of the staff report to the Planning Commission which discusses the historic use of the ESA map in determining the coastal setback line. Planning commission Minutes September 8,2009 Page 3 Brant Dvern (in rebuttal) stated that this is a legal issue. He stated he has followed the Municipal Code which says to use the official zoning map. He understood staffs concerns and the ambiguity in this situation, but felt that he strictly followed the code and did what was required. He felt that with the work done by his engineer he can show that the improvements done are landward of the structural setback line. Commissioner Tetreault asked if someone wants to make an improvement on their property and the development is landward of the coastal setback line, is there a process in the City that may show the development is actually not landward of the line and is in a geologically unstable area. Director Rojas explained that for development in this area a geology report would be required from the applicant and the report would identify any issues found on the property, irrespective of where the line is located. Commissioner Knight referred to a letter from the Coastal Commission which states that until Local Coastal Plan has been amended the City shall not change the methodology used to determine the setback line. Therefore, if the Commission were to make a decision that is contrary to the Coastal Commission view, what would be the implications with the Coastal Commission. Director Rojas explained that staff anticipates an appeal of any decision made by the Planning Commission, and therefore the City Council will make the final decision. The City Council decision can be appealed to the Coastal Commission. He noted that both staff and the Coastal Commission agree that the ESA maps are the correct maps to be used. He also noted that the letter from the Coastal Commission is a reaction to the staff report. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated his belief on the proper way to handle this issue was to start with the zoning map, use the ESA map when more specificity is necessary, and use site specific information when further specificity is required. He felt this is the most logical and appropriate way to approach this situation. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the zoning map is currently the official map and the ESA map, though it may be a better scale and more detailed, is not the official map. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt staffs recommendation as reflected in the Resolution presented in the staff report. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Commissioner Knight felt it was the original intent of the Coastal Specific Plan to use the geologic report that is referenced in the document. He did not think it was their intent to take the map and specifically extrapolate a particular setback zone on a specific property, but rather use site specific geology reports. He also noted that staff has been historically using the ESA maps, which further shows the intent of the Coastal Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2009 Page 4 Chairman Lewis explained that he could not support the Resolution as presented, as he felt it suggests the Planning Commission blindly follow a procedure that he did not feel has been adequately justified. He added that he was struggling to craft a motion that would address this particular property and their concerns. At this point in the meeting Commission Tomblin arrived. Director Rojas noted that because the public testimony was already provided, Commissioner Tomblin could not participate in this vote but could participate in any future discussions on this issue. Commissioner Perestam asked staff if they have reviewed and agreed with the findings made by Mr. Conroy's engineer, Ross Bolton. Director Rojas answered that staff was in agreement with Mr. Bolton's findings. Commiisioner Perestarn recommended not using the ESA map as the official map, as the Coastal Specific Plan map is the map of record, and use site specific geology to get a more accurate and detailed mapping of the specific property. Senior Planner Schonborn referred to Part B of staffs recommendation in the staff report. He suggested that the language in Section 3 of the draft Resolution which says "based upon the evidence provided by the property owner of 24 Seacove Drive" be deleted and replaced with the language in Part B of the recommendation. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed with the suggested change, but he would also like to give a specific recommendation to the City Council that they seek changing the Coastal Specific Plan to do what is being suggested. Director Rojas explained that staff is in the process of recommending a change to the Coastal Specific Plan. Commissioner Ruttenberg suggested leaving the beginning portion of Section 1 of the draft Resolution, then deleting the portion which says it concurs with the historic use, then what is left of Section 1 is consistent with what staff read for Section 3. Section 2 could then be omitted. Director Rojas agreed. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the ambiguity with which map to use, and because of the ambiguity he felt that, until the matter is cleared up and the City declares which of these two maps is the official map, both maps have to apply. He explained he is raising the issue of ambiguity versus which map is correct. He therefore felt that the way the Resolution is written may cause a problem. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed. He suggested modifying Section 1 to delete the reference to ambiguity and instead say because of the large scale the map cannot be Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2009 Page 5 relied upon to accurately determine this and therefore it is recommended the City Council and Coastal Commission take the action necessary to address the situation, and then continue on to the recently modified language in Section 3. This would say that the land use map is the official map and the one to be relied upon until the situation is remedied. However, it is also saying that the Commission feels the map has inaccuracies in it based upon its large scale. Therefore this map is the map to be used in the interim and the Commission is recommending the interim be as short a period as possible. Commissioner Knight felt that if the Commission were to go with the recommendation that a site specific geology report be used, that a separate section is needed in the Resolution that says if a geology report is presented that is in conflict with the maps, then the applicant can go forward with a zone change application and a coastal setback change application process. Commi�sloner Ruttenberg moved to modify Section I of the Resolution to read: "The Planning Commission finds that the large scale of the zoning map and the maps that are set forth in the City's local Coastal Plan cannot be relied upon to accurately determine the location of the coastal setback line on individual properties and recommends that the City Council and Coastal Commission address the situation." Section 2 would then be eliminated and Section 3 would be changed to Section 2 and would read: "However because the local coastal pIan does not currently specific the process and maps that will be used to determine the location of the coastal setback line on individual properties, the Planning Commission concurs that due to the variation in location of the coastal setback line on different city maps, until the issue can be further clarified by amending the LCP, the location of the CSL on properties shall be based on a site specific geologic study and the Coastal Specific Plan map." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Perestam® Approved, (4-2-1)with Commissioner Knight and Chairman Lewis dissenting and Commissioner Tomblin abstaining. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Residential Development Standards code amendment and zone change (Case No. 7® 377) Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Jay Hatefi stated that shrubs, hedges and plants are the only defense residents have against heavy smoke coming out of the tailpipes of cars and trucks going up the street. He stated he lives on a very busy street where the street and house level are the same and is constantly bombarded with dust and dirt from the street. Cutting the level of the hedges and walls will create a very bad problem for many residents. Chairman Lewis tabled the item to hear the view restoration case. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2009 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. View Restoration Permit (Case No. V 0 0r 28831, 28827 and 28803 Leah Circle Commissioner Tomblin stated that he was out of town and not able to make the site visits for this application. He therefore recused himself. Director Rojas confirmed that all of the other Commissioners had made site visits to the three applicant's properties. Associate Planner Trester presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the view restoration permit application. She gave a brief background of the case and showed photos taken from the viewing area of the three applicant's properties, as well as photographs of the trees included in the application. She explained staff's recommendation as discussed in the staff report and staff's recommendation that the Commission adopt the Resolution presented in the staff report. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted Exhibit F from 1979 shows tree Nos. 13, 14, and 15. He felt it was clear that the trees encroached into the view area in 1979. He asked if the fact that they encroached then limits what staff proposes to do, or are there other photographs that demonstrate that the applicants are entitled to full restoration. Associate Planner Trester explained that the applicants' lots were created in 1968. She stated that she spoke with the City Arborist to try to determine if it was possible the pine tree were not impairing the view in 1968, and he explained it is feasible as juvenile pine trees can grow between 3 and 5 feet per year. Therefore, staff concluded that the tree could have been at a lower height below the view when the lots were created in 1968. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if this extrapolation is sufficient evidence for the Planning Commission to use. Director Rojas answered that this is evidence the Planning Commission can use. Commissioner Knight referred to tree No. 2, and staff's recommendation for crowning. He noted that a substantial amount of the tree is to be removed and asked if was still considered crowning. Associate Planner Trester acknowledged that substantially reducing the height of this tree would better be referred to as topping. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they had discussed the health of tree No. 2 if it were to be cut to the line suggested by staff. Planning commission Minutes September 8,2009 Page 7 Associate Planner Trester stated staff did not specifically discuss the health of the tree, however it was discussed that Canary Island Pines can survive an extensive amount of trimming. She noted that staff has given the option to remove tree No. 2 rather than trim it down. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Alon Hartuv (foliage owner) explained that one of the important reasons he purchased his home was for the backyard and the trees in the yard. He was unaware of any view restoration ordinance when he purchased his home. He questioned why the applicants waited so long to file for the view restoration permit, as filing this permit at an earlier time could have saved the trees. He felt that trimming the trees as recommended by staff would most likely destroy the trees on the property. He also noted that one of the applicants purchased his home after he had purchased his home, and therefore knew the trees were in place. He felt this application is merely a way for the applicants to increase the value of their house. He was concerned that the removal of the trees, especially trees 4, 6, and 8, would seriously impact the privacy to his property. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Hartuv if there are any trees on his property that he feels he could remove or lower that would not affect his privacy. Mr. Hartuv answered that trees Nos. 1, 2, 11 and 12 do not affect his privacy. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Hartuv if he has discussed tree replacement. Mr. Hartuv could not recall a discussion about tree replacement during the mediation period. Karen Hartuv stated she agrees with her husbands comments. She added that she is extremely worried about her children's privacy. She stated that she would like replacement trees for any trees removed as well as additional foliage planted against the wall. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the Commission has the authority to ask for additional foliage to be added to the property to help protect privacy. Director Rojas answered that the Commission does have this leeway. Commissioner Perestarn generally agreed with staffs report and recommendations. He felt that in the foliage owner's back yard the privacy may actually be enhanced with replacement trees and foliage. Vice Chairman moved to trim and/or remove foliage as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Peres m. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2009 Page 8 Commissioner Knight stated he would like to have some additional conditions to add foliage to increase the density in the back area for privacy for the foliage owner. Chairman Lewis agreed with the idea in concept, but questioned how such an amendment would be worded that would be practical. Commissioner Knight suggested wording that would require additional foliage, beyond the replacement foliage, be offered to the foliage owner that would create privacy for them in their backyard that would be as good or better than what they currently have. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that was too ambiguous, and the wording would need to be more specific. Commissioner Knight suggested that there be a consultation with the City Arborist to determihe what foliage would be best placed in the backyard that would achieve this particular goal of privacy. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to amend the motion to replace the language in the draft Resolution which says that with the consent of the foliage owners that for each of the trees removed they shall replaced with one 24-Inch box size tree be amended to say the tree removed shall be replaced with two 24-inch box size trees, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Tetreault felt that for the Commission to order additional replacement trees, some type of affirmative finding must be made, and that finding should be reflected in the Resolution. Director Rojas noted that to order the applicant to replace trees that will be removed, a finding must be made that removal without providing replacement foliage will cause a significant adverse impact on the privacy of the foliage owner. This finding is already being made to justify the provision of the replacement foliage identified by staff. Therefore, it is not necessary to amend the language in the Resolution if the Commission decides on a two to one replacement. The motion to amend the original motion to read that each tree removed shall be replaced with two 24-Inch box size trees was approved, (6-0). Regarding the motion, Commissioner Knight stated that he supports the motion and can find that there is significant view impairment caused by the existing trees. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-37 approving the View Restoration Permit to trim and/or remove foliage on properties located at 28822 and 28804 Lomo Drive in order to restore the applicants' views was approved as amended, (6-0). Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2009 Page 9 CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. 'Residential Development Standards code amendment and zone_2ban_qe Jase No. ZON2007-QO3771 Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the remaining issues to discuss are tandem parking spaces in garages and considering allowing tandem parking in the Mira Vista Overlay District. He explained that the Committee had recommended permitting tandem parking spaces, however staff recommended permitting tandem parking spaces only for enclosed off-street parking spaces in excess of the minimum code requirements. He also explained that in regards to the Mira Vista Overlay District, staff agrees that the unique circumstances of the Mira Vista area makes it the one area of the City where tandem parking should be allowed to satisfy the minimum off-street parking requirements, thereby allowing property owners to provide additional off-street parking without having to demolish a significant portion of their existing residences. Staff is also suggesting allowing the construction of new detached garages to encroach into the 15-foot rear setback as another means to increase off- street parking in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked if the City currently specifically prohibits tandem parking for non-required spaces. Associate Planner Fox answered that the City does not currently prohibit tandem parking. However, he noted that there was an interpretation procedure in 2002 where the Director made an interpretation that tandem parking was only allowed for surplus parking spaces. Commissioner Perestarn moved to adopts 's revised recommendation regarding tandem parking, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. The motion was approved without objection. Commissioner Knight referred to page 12 of the staff report, item No. 8, which discusses driveways adjacent to the property line and the need for a minimum 18 inch landscape area between the property line and adjacent driveway. He discussed properties in the city where it would not be possible to conform to this code and asked staff how those would be handled. Associate Planner Fox explained that in those cases they could be considered legal non-conforming, or if they want to do improvements they could apply for a Variance or a Minor Exception Permit. Associate Planner Fox continued to the recommendations from the Committee in terms of fences, walls, and hedges. He explained the three recommendations made by the Committee as outlined in the staff report. He explained that staff is recommending modifying a committee recommendation to allow for 6-foot tall fences, walls, and hedges at the street side property line of corner lots rather than at the setback line. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2009 Page 10 Staff felt this would be most equitable to corner lots and reduce the number of nonconformities that were created when the code language was last amended in 1997. Vice Chairman Gerstner supported staffs recommendation to allow the fence, wall, or hedge at the property line, as he felt that recommendation is more consistent with what is already happening in the City. He did not feel this would create any compromise to the street and would allow residents on corner lots much more flexibility. Commissioner Perestarn stated that the City has been enforcing the reduction of walls along the property line for quite some time, and to now allow a 6-foot wall out to the street seems to be in conflict with what the City is currently trying to enforce. He felt it was more appropriate to allow corner lots a 6-foot wall at the setback line rather than the street line. Commissioner Knight acknowledged that corner lots are at a disadvantage, but was not sure he*agreed with the 6-foot allowance at the property line. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to adopts 's recommendation regarding the 6- foot fence, all or hedge on the corner lot at the property line, rather than the committee's recommendation to allow the 6-foot fence, wall, or hedge to the setback line, seconded by Chairman Lewis. The motion was approved, (4-2) with Commissioners Knight and Perestarn dissenting. Associate Planner Fox continued with the next issue regarding hedges. He explained that the committee's recommendation was to discontinue the use of the "barrier" test as part of the definition of what constitutes a hedge. He stated that staff disagrees with the recommendation, explaining that the definition of a hedge is that it is foliage that creates a physical barrier and the determination of whether a hedge is a barrier is important because if it is a barrier the historical premise of the Development Code is to treat a hedge the same way fences and walls are treated. He also noted that redefining hedges to allow the consideration of view impact below the 16 foot level would be contrary to Proposition M. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission reject the committee's recommendation and continue to use the "barrier" test to define a hedge. Director Rojas added that there are instances where a wall of shrubs has been planted that impairs a view or is too high. The foliage owner will go in and trim between each plant so that a person can walk between each tree, but there is a wall of shrubs still blocking a neighbor's view. He explained that if one had individual trees that were planted in that way that formed a canopy that are connected, anything over 16 feet in height would be regulated by Prop M. He explained that this is one reason for staff's recommendation. Commissioner Perestarn recalled that the committee was advocating a visual barrier test rather than a physical barrier test. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2009 Page 11 Chairman Lewis agreed with staffs recommendation that a physical barrier test was more appropriate, and the Commission unanimously agreed. Associate Planner Fox continued explaining there is a list of streets that back up to major streets where the City does not allow chicken wire, chain line, or fiberglass fences. Palos Verdes Drive West is not included on that list, and the recommendation of the Committee is to add Palos Verdes Drive West to that list. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with the recommendation to add Palos Verdes Drive West to the list. Associate Planner Fox stated that the last issue was a staff recommendation that would allow six-foot fences and walls outside of the front setback area. The Commission unanimously agreed with staffs recommendation. Associate Planner Fox explained that staff will now compile all of the recommendations into one Resolution and present the Resolution to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. The Commission agreed to continue the public hearing to October 13, 2009 without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of July 28, 2009 Commissioner Perestam moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Knight abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. re- Benda for the meeting of September 22, 2009 No changes ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2009 Page 12