Loading...
PC MINS 20090825 Approved October\13, 2009 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:16 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Chairman Lewis 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, Deputy Director Pfost, Senior Planner Alvarez, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as modified to hear item Nos. 3 and 4 ahead of item No. 1. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the August 8t" meeting, the City council began the Marymount College appeal hearing, which they continued to Saturday September 12th He also reported that the City Council appointed Ken Dyda to temporarily fill the vacant City Council seat. .Director Rojas distributed 9 items of correspondence for agenda item No. 1, 4 items of correspondence for agenda item No. 5, and the staff report for the View Restoration item that is scheduled for the September 8th Planning Commission meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda ijgMs None CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. 20 314)° 30563 Calle de Suenos Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, noting that the applicant has withdrawn the application and that the item is on the agenda only because the public hearing was continued to this date. Jon Cartwright thanked the Planning Commission for the manner in which they handled this issue. He noted that the Planning Commission determined that the proposed addition would cause a view impact to his residence, and asked that the Planning Commission to memorialize that by take a formal vote that there was a significant view impairment from his home. Director Rojas explained that there is no application before the Planning Commission and therefore nothing to act on. He stated that the minutes will reflect what actions or opinions were made during the hearing and staff's determinations are memorialized in the staff reports, which staff will refer to if there is an application in the future. Chairman Lewis stated that he felt there was a significant view impairment to the Cartwright residence caused by the proposed project, and the Vice Chairman agreed. The Planning Commission unanimously accepted the withdrawal of the application. 4. Height Variation & Minor ExceDtion Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00048): 28614 Mt. Hood Court Director Rojas stated that there has been a request by the applicant for a continuance to allow time to redesign the project to address neighbor concerns regarding view. Staff supports the request and recommends the public hearing be continued to September 22, 2009. The public hearing was continued to September 22, 2009 without objection. CONSENTC L 1. Interpretation'-Heari�nq RequesifCase No. ZON2009-LO146): 6601 Palos Verdes Drive South Chairman Lewis explained that since the last hearing he has received numerous correspondences regarding this project with allegations of false statements by the applicant as well as allegations that improper notice was given regarding the last public hearing. With that, he stated it was his preference to remove this item from the consent calendar. Planning Commission Minutes August 25,2008 Page 2 Director Rojas stated that staff was recommending the item be removed from the consent calendar because of the number of speakers. Because of the correspondence received and the number of public speakers, he explained the options available to the Planning Commission. He explained that at the last meeting, the public hearing was closed, a decision was made, however the Resolution memorializing that decision has not been adopted and therefore the decision is not yet final. Therefore, a Commissioner present at the last meeting can change his vote, and a Commissioner not present at the last public hearing can participate provided he has reviewed the tape of the meeting and feels they have heard all of the testimony. Because the public hearing was closed, no new testimony can be heard and the Commission cannot ask staff questions without agreeing to re-open the public hearing. He also noted that staff has received a public request to reconsider this item. On that issue the Commission can hear from the speaker to understand what they are asking. He noted that if the Commission decides to rehear the item, no public testimony can be taken at this meeting, as a new public hearing must be duly noticed. He noted that there are several speaker slips for the item, however these speakers can only speak on the language in the Resolution and not present any new testimony this evening. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he was not at the meeting when this item was before the Commission, however he has reviewed all of the written materials and reviewed the entire tape of the meeting and feels confident that he can participate in any decisions and/or votes made on this item. Commissioner Knight stated he also reviewed the written material and the tape of the meeting. He also noted that he does live in the Portuguese Bend area, however he is not within 500 feet of the project and is not affected by issues or impacts of the project. He stated that he will address only the issue of a Conditional Use Permit relative to residential zoning. Commissioner Perestam moved to remove the item from the consent calendar, seconded by Commissioner Knight. The item was removed from the consent calendar without objection. Commissioner Knight moved to renotice the public hearing for this item to September 22, 2009, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Ruttenberg was strongly opposed to the motion. He explained that there was a properly noticed public hearing held two weeks ago, the Commission heard the item and made a decision. He noted that no decision was made as to whether or not Mr. York would be granted a Conditional Use Permit, only that he should be allowed the opportunity to present the application to the City. He stated he has read all of the written correspondence submitted since the last public hearing and all of the points in this correspondence were heard and addressed at the public hearing. He felt that because some people were not at this properly noticed public hearing and would now like the item reheard would be a terrible precedent to set. Planning Commission Minutes August 25,2008 Page 3 Chairman Lewis agreed that the last meeting was a properly noticed public hearing, however the notification was made to those who were on a listserve through the City. He noted that there were several people in the audience who did not sign up for this listserve and therefore were not aware of the last public hearing. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt it was rather ironic that the Commission was being asked to expand the public hearing to hear an argument such that the Commission would be convinced to not allow someone else to have a similar privilege. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he has made it clear that he is comfortable in taking part in any discussion and vote on this matter, however he cautioned that nobody should be assuming what his vote will be. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg's comment that this would not be a good precedent to set. He explained that his vote at the last meeting was predicated on the fact that the Planning Commission was only allowing Mr. York to bring forward his request for a Conditional Use Permit. It was not on the merits of the Conditional Use Permit. He also noted that the Resolution that is before the Commission does not grant a Conditional Use Permit, but only allows the applicant the right to submit a Conditional Use Permit application to the City. Director Rojas confirmed that the Resolution memorializes the Planning Commission decision that would allow any residential property owner to submit a Conditional Use Permit application for an "event garden"type use on their property. Commissioner Knight stated he has never seen this type of situation come before the Planning Commission, and acknowledged that Commissioner Ruttenberg had a good point about setting a bad precedence. However, he felt that this particular situation is a very unusual circumstance and is a very important issue that needs full discussion. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the proper procedure now would be for the matter to be appealed to the City Council rather than re-opening this issue before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if a Conditional Use Permit application submitted by Mr. York would come before the Planning Commission, thus allowing the public the opportunity to voice their opinions on this particular use. Director Rojas answered that all Conditional Use Permit requests require approval of the Planning Commission through a noticed public hearing. Commissioner Knight explained that the reason he made the current motion was because there is a fundamental issue as to whether or not a Conditional Use Permit for this type of use should be allowed in residentially zoned neighborhoods. He felt that the public has brought forward issues that need to have an additional public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes August 25,2008 Page 4 Commissioner Perestarn stated he was not in favor of re-hearing this item and would prefer the Planning Commission decision be appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Tetreault noted that at the previous meeting there were very few speakers opposed to this request. Tonight however there are several speakers who he felt would speak out against the project. He felt that this shows there was poor communication within the community as to the last public hearing. He noted that it would be unfair to vote on this item at this meeting, as the applicant is not present. He therefore favored a continuance of the public hearing. The motion to re-notice the public hearing for September 22, 2009 was approved, (4-3) with Commissioners Perestam, Rutters berg, and Tomblin dissenting. Chairman Lewis noted that there are speakers on this item, however he encouraged those speakers to save their comments for the September 22nd meeting. Commissioner Tetreault added that given the applicant was not present at this meeting, that the speakers save their thoughts for the newly noticed public hearing. Director Rojas reminded the speakers that their comments could not be in regards to the merits of the project, only to the words in the Resolution. Dana Ireland stated he received a letter from the Director stating that this issue was dead, and received no further notification that there would be a public hearing on the issue. He therefore felt the Planning Commission was doing the right thing in reconsidering this item. He felt that if Mr. York wants to run a commercial enterprise at the property, he should request the property be rezoned commercial. Shahzad Khaligh (6100 Arrowroot Lane) agreed that the applicant should apply to rezone the property to commercial. She did not think a Conditional Use Permit application was appropriate in a residential zone. Chairman Lewis reminded the speakers that any comments they make at this meeting need to be repeated at the September 22nd public hearing, as statements made this evening are not part of the record for the project. Claudia Gutierrez asked staff how the next public hearing would be noticed to the public. Director Rojas explained that because this interpretation hearing is city wide there is no 500 foot radius requirement, which is why staff used the listserve to notice the hearing. He noted that the listserve has over 350 subscribers. For the September 22nd meeting staff will put the notice on the listservce as well as notice all interested parties, which are those who have spoken or written letters. Staff will also put the notice in the newspaper. Planning Commission Minutes August 25,2008 Page 5 2. General Plan Consistency Finding (Case No. ZON2009-00313): 30369 Hawthorne Blvd. Assistant Planner Kim presented a brief staff report, explaining the item before the Commission is whether or not a small acquisition by the City is consistent with the General Plan. She noted that staff has found the acquisition is consistent with the General Plan, as outlined in the staff report, and is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-34 thereby finding the City's use of the property at 30359 Hawthorne Boulevard is consistent with the General Plan, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 5. !IngLeArretation Hearing (Case No. ZON2009-00206): 6100 Via Subida Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and explaining that this is an interpretation request for the conditions of approval of a Grading Permit and a Conditional Use Permit that was approved in 1993. He explained there were several conditions of approval related to the trees on the property, and that the applicant's main issues are the interpretation of the conditions of approval. He reviewed condition No. 14 of PC Resolution 93-46 which discusses the trees on the property. He also showed a mature tree diagram from 1996 in regards to the Foster property and condition No. 13. He stated that staff felt that the conditions of approval specific to the foliage owner's tree trimming maintenance responsibilities are clearly outlined in condition No. 13 and that the tree trimming requirements asked of the foliage owner are similar to the requirements of any approved view restoration or view preservation decision. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the Planning Commission was being asked to interpret existing conditions of approval, or if they had the ability to add to or modify these conditions. Director Rojas answered that this item cannot be reheard and that this is a hearing to clarify an existing condition of approval. Commissioner Knight noted that there has been a statement made that new trees have been planted that have grown into the view corridor, and asked if these new trees are to be taken into account. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that there were conditions of approval that discussed how the trees are to be trimmed and which trees were to be included. He stated that staffs focus was on whether or not the language of the conditions of approval, specifically condition No. 13, is ambiguous. He stated that staff's opinion is that the Planning commission Minutes August 25,2008 Page 6 language is very clear in how staff is to evaluate view impairment and whether or not trees are required to be trimmed. Commissioner Knight noted that Mr. Katherman raised an issue that the interpretation of the original Resolution was not consistent with the 2006 view ordinance guidelines. He asked if the 2006 guidelines apply to an interpretation of a Resolution made before the 2006 guidelines. He asked if the Commission should be looking at guidelines from 1993 or guidelines from 2006. Director Rojas explained that the Commission previously took an action based on public testimony, the guidelines in affect at the time, and practice. Staff feels they understand what these conditions of approval mean, but the applicant feels the conditions are ambiguous. The Planning Commission is now being asked if the language is ambiguous as opposed to interpreting what decision was made in 1993. Commissioner Tetreault requested that the speakers explain to the Planning Commission where specifically they feel there is an ambiguity and specifically which conditions of approval are ambiguous and why. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing, Rob Katherman (representing applicant) stated that there is ambiguity and uncertainty in the conditions of approval, and noted that the Planning Commission at the time felt there would be ambiguity and uncertainty in how this case would be handled in the future. He questioned how the mature pine trees and mature eucalyptus trees would be handled where topping them is deleterious to the health of the tree. He questioned what a protected view is, noting that when the Planning Commission was hearing this case in 1993 the Guidelines were not formally adopted. Therefore the Planning Commission took the view that mountain views not normally seen were not protected. He stated that when he was on the Commission he looked at all of the properties in question and were trying to balance the protection of views with the protection of the aesthetic and environmental value of these 60 to 80 year old trees. He stated this was the basis for the interpretation request, noting that the Fosters felt that the rules had shifted with respect to the mature trees. He felt that the Fosters are questioning how best to deal with these mature pine trees ,Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Katherman what it is about condition No. 13 that he feels is ambiguous. Mr. Katherman explained that the interpretation is in regards to ambiguity and uncertainty. He regards to uncertainty, he noted that staffs request to trim the pine trees is the first time in the past 15 years this has been requested of the property owner. He also felt that the rules, as looked at by the Commissioners in 1993, were different than the rules today. In his mind, this made the interpretation ambiguous. Planning commission Minutes August 25,2008 Page 7 Commissioner Knight referred to the photographs of the 1994 documented baseline view and the June 2009 view, and asked Mr. Katherman to point out which trees he felt were now being required to be trimmed which were not originally required to be trimmed. Mr. Katherman indicated a group of trees shown on the 1994 documented baseline view photograph. Mr. Foster stated that the reason he is before the Planning Commission is to discuss these trees in question. He assured the Commission that he has no intention of skirting the spirit or the letter of the view requirement. He noted that on the two pictures it is very obvious that there is a much better view today than there was in 1994. He explained that this interpretation request was brought about as a result from a letter he received from staff which was asking him to trim these pine trees in a way that they had never been trimmed before. He stated that he was asking the Planning Commission to look at this and decide if what the staff was requesting is reasonable or not. Commissioner Knight noted that for many years it appears the trimming has been working and satisfactory, and asked Mr. Foster at what point the trimming was not working. Mr. Foster answered that every year he reviews with the arborist which trees must be trimmed to keep the view corridor open, and every year he receives a letter from the Lorenzens telling him that the trimming was not sufficient. Staff will come out to verify the trimming and he will do additional trimming if directed by staff. This year, however, it was noted that there are mountains behind the pine trees that are being impacted and the Lorenzens want the trees cut so they can see the mountains. Richard Stern stated that from his standpoint Mr. Foster has chosen to ignore his concerns regarding the trees, and explained that what has changed is his view over the past 40 years. He felt that the rules were well known before construction started, but they haven't been adhered to. He also stated that there have been additional trees planted on the property that further limit neighbor's views. Andy Lorenzen began by stating that he felt Mr. Katherman's comments are being made by a paid consultant, and Mr. Foster is the one paying him. He discussed the 1994 documented baseline view photograph and explained how he disagreed with the 1994 benchmark established by staff. He also explained that cutting a few branches from a tree will not harm the tree, but rather trimming mature trees is actually good for them. He stated that his concerns and comments are included in the written material that was included with the staff report. Commissioner Knight noted that for many years the 1994 baseline established by staff has worked for the purposes of trimming, and asked Mr. Lorenzen what has changed to cause this problem. Planning commission Minutes August 25,2008 Page 8 Mr. Lorenzen answered that since 1998 he has been trying to work directly with the Fosters to have the trees trimmed. In 2002 he wrote a letter to the Fosters in which he indicated that the Fosters were not doing their job in maintaining the trees per the city Resolution. From that point on he has had a series of city staff work with him and try to explain to the Fosters what has been needed. He explained that on various occasions one or two trees would be trimmed, however not all of the trees would be trimmed so that they were at or below the baseline. Commissioner Knight explained that he was not concerned with compliance or non- compliance. He stated that he was being asked to interpret condition No. 13, and asked Mr. Foster if the interpretation of the baseline photographs has recently changed. Mr. Lorenzen did not think that the interpretation of the baseline had changed. Gail Lorenzen discussed the baseline view and how she did not feel Mr. Foster was in compliance with condition No. 13. Mr. Foster (in rebuttal) explained that he has an arborist hired who gave an opinion about topping his pine trees, and said topping the trees will harm them. He stated he would like an opinion from the Planning Commission regarding the small group of mature pine trees, and was hoping that the Commission would agree that the height of those trees is not blocking anyone's view. He stated that he is 100 percent committed to having his trees trimmed and maintained to the baseline established by the City. Director Rojas explained that staff has been using the 1994 baseline photograph for many years to judge whether or not additional trimming is necessary on the Foster property. He explained that staff had not required Mr. Foster to trim down the mature pine trees since staff thought they were impairing a view of the sky. He stated that in the last year staff was presented with evidence that there are mountains behind the pine trees, and mountains are a protected view. Thus, staff is now asking that the mature pine trees be trimmed. Commissioner Knight noted that Mr. Katherman had stated when the Resolution was adopted the Commission did not take the mountains into account as a protected view. Senior Planner Alvarez stated that there was no mention in the staff report or the minutes of the 1993 meeting that they were trying to protect the mountain views. He noted that the minutes indicate they were specifically concerned with the harbor and city lights views. Commissioner Knight questioned if the introduction of the mountain view is a new interpretation of the original condition. Senior Planner Alvarez responded that the mountain view is staff's interpretation of what view is to be protected. Planning Commission Minutes August 25,2008 Page 9 Director Rojas added that the condition requires the foliage be maintained at the baseline so that it does not significantly impair a view. To be consistent with what staff believes was the Planning Commission's intent which is to eliminate any significant view impairment, staff feels the foliage owner needs to have all foliage trimmed to the baseline. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if what they were saying was that in regards to the particular area in question with the mature pine trees, even though the 1994 baseline photograph indicated that the area of trees should be trimmed, staff felt that there wasn't a protectable view behind the trees and therefore didn't make the property owner trim the trees. Now that staff realizes there are mountains behind that area, staff is requesting the trees be trimmed to the baseline shown in the photo. Director Rojas answered that was correct. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the photograph shown is the baseline photograph for the Lorenzen property, and asked if there is a similar photograph for the Stern property or any other property on Diamonte Lane. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that he used the baseline photograph from the Lorenzen property because from this property there is a view of all of the trees on the Foster property. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the Ordinance in 1993 listed the distant mountains as a protected view. Director Rojas explained that the code said then, as it says now, that the protected view shall not include vacant land that is developable under the city code, distant mountain areas not normally visible, or the sky. Staff felt that there is room for interpretation in determining what distant mountain areas not normally visible includes. He added that staff was asking Mr. Foster to trim his vegetation to the baseline in the documented photo, which would alleviate the issue of whether or not the trees are actually blocking a mountain view. Commissioner Tetreault referred to Mr. Foster's comment that his arborist had stated topping the mature pine trees could hurt or kill the trees. He asked staff how the Commission should consider that factor when making their determination. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that based on previous discussions with the City Arborist on mature Aleppo pine trees, generally speaking, topping an older tree may be harmful to the tree. However, because this matter is not considered a new view restoration permit request, before the Commission the Commission really does not have the latitude to make a decision as to whether or not the trees will be harmed. Planning Commission Minutes August 25,2008 Page 10 Commissioner Knight moved to affirm the conditions of approval of P.C. Resolution 93-46, namely condition No. 13 which ensures compliance for foliage trimming, as interpreted by staff as presented in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Commissioner Knight felt that the mistake that happened was that there was a certain amount of leniency of the years in regards to the tree trimming. However, he felt the conditions of approval are clear and the owner is now being asked to trim the trees to conform to the baseline photo. He felt that the City has a right to enforce the baseline photo. He also noted that it was made clear that the Commission cannot change any component of the conditions of approval, only render an interpretation on existing conditions. Commissioner Tetreault felt there were elements of ambiguity in the conditions of approval, however the ambiguities are not significant. He did note that it was clear that the trees should be trimmed to the baseline shown in the documented photograph. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he sees no ambiguity in condition No. 13 and supported the motion. The motion affirming staffs recommendation was approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Height Variation ase No. Z 2 - 0143)' 28816 Rothrock Drive Commissioner Perestam recused himself from this item, noting that the arch itect/applicant has done work for him on his property in the past. Commissioner Lewis excused Commissioner Perestam from the meeting. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the height variation. 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. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if staff had received any comments from the neighbors regarding the project. Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff had received no comments regarding the project. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing, there being no speakers, he closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes August 25,2008 Page 11 Commissioner Knight moved to adopt PC Resolution 2009-35 thereby approving the Height Variation and Site Plan Review as conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff if allowing the tree to be taller than 16 feet or the ridgeline would block a view. Staff showed several photographs of the trees to illustrate the height of the existing trees and where the view of the ocean begins. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that allowing the trees to be cut to an elevation of 124 feet, as shown on the survey, would allow the trees to remain a bit taller but not significantly impair the view from any neighboring property. Chairman Lewis re-opened the public hearing. The applicant stated that recently his neighbors asked that the trees be trimmed or removed, and he has since removed all of the trees in question. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission approved PC Resolution 2009-36, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 7. Topic for the September 29, 2009 iioiint workshop of the City Council and lane Commission Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining staff's recommendation for a discussion on the General Plan updates as a topic at the joint workshop. He asked the Planning Commission if they had any input on other topics for discussion at the joint workshop. The Commission had no additional topics for the joint workshop. ITEMS TO BE PLACED FUTURE AGENDAS e Pre-agenda for the meeting-.on., September 8, 2009 The pre-agenda was discussed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 25,2008 Page 12