Loading...
PC MINS 20090714 Approved September 22\, 2009 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING July 14, 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 Ruttenberg 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, Assistant City Attorney Snow, Principal Planner Mihranian, Senior Planner Alvarez, Associate Planner Fox, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission agreed to approve the Agenda as presented, with the exception of allowing item No. 8 to be heard after item No. 1 to determine if there was a consensus to continue the item as requested. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that the clean-up zone change related to Tract 16540 was continued by the City Council to August 4, 2009. Director Rojas distributed three items of correspondence related to agenda item No. 1, one item of correspondence related to agenda item No. 2, one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 4, eight items of correspondence for agenda item No. 6, and one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 7. Chairman Lewis reported that he had a conversation with Tom Redfield regarding agenda item No. 1 and a conversation with Jon Cartwright concerning agenda item No. 5. Commissioner Tomblin reported that he had a conversation with Rob Katherman in regards to agenda item No. 8. COMMENTS THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda i e sus None CONSENT CALENDAR 1 MaLiLmount College Facilities Expansion Project (Case No. ZON2008-00317, Conditional Use Permit No. 9 — Revision 'E , Grading Permit &Variance: 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Because there were public speaker slips for this item and because staff had some additional comments on the item, Director Rojas suggested removing item No. 1 from the consent calendar. The Commission agreed. Commissioners Ruttenberg, Tetreault, and Perestam recused themselves from the hearing and left the dais. Chairman Lewis reminded all speakers that the public hearing for this item has been closed and the sole purpose of these proceedings was to ensure the Resolution reflects the past votes taken on this matter. Principal Planner Mihranian presented the staff report, noting the late correspondence that has been received for the item. He explained that one of the letters is from Marymount's legal counsel noting some minor edits to the Resolution. Staff has gone through the items and accepted the proposed changes. He noted that under the Conditional Use Permit, condition No. 69, Mr. Davis had indicated a strike-out of "irrigation shall be prohibited in the geologic setback area." Staff modified the condition to read " Irrigation shall be allowed pursuant to the city geologist's approval." With respect to the Resolution, he noted a change on circle page 27, item 5.4.2, and explaining staff was recommending the condition say "The Planning Commission by a 2-2 vote could not make this finding." Commissioner Knight referred to page 74, condition No. 166 and asked staff if this condition was intended to require landscape screening of the athletic building from the street below. His concern with condition No. 166 was that the phrase "where practical" was included. It was his understanding that the athletic building was to be screened. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that this condition was intended to screen the building. He explained that the phrase "where practical" was included as there may be instances where the landscaping cannot be planted. Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 2 Commissioner Knight explained that he certified the EIR and conditions of approval with the assumption that they were guaranteeing the athletic building would be screened from below. He did not see anything in the conditions of approval that guarantees that. Chairman Lewis suggested adding language stating that with respect to the athletic building landscaping shall be planted and maintained to screen the athletic building as seen from below. Principal Planner Mihranian added the suggested language. Tom Redfield, speaking for CCC/ME, discussed the on-street parking restrictions discussed in the staff report. He noted that there are recommendations in the staff report that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council some type of on- street parking restrictions. Mr. Redfield did not think this was necessary, as there should no longer be any need for on-street parking by the college. He suggested changing the recommendation that the Planning Commission firmly state to the City Council that there is no need for any work by the City Council as far as parking restrictions on adjacent streets. Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Redfield if he is asking the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that they implement the off-street parking agreement that has been reached between CCC/ME and Marymount. Mr. Redfield answered that he did not want the City Council to open the issue up and possibly have months of discussion on the topic, when a resolution has been reached. Ted Whitehead stated he had spoken to the Planning Commission at previous meetings expressing his concern over the activities that take place on the campus during the night school. Since that time, the staff had recommended setting a time limit for the campus activities and/or requesting a Special Use Permit. He could not find in the recommendations any reference for provisions in regards to the need for a Special Use Permit. He also felt that any activities, other than classroom activities, be subject to a Special Use Permit so that the neighbors can have some notification and input. Principal Planner Mihranian referred to condition No. 136 which discusses the need for a Special Use Permit for events with amplified sound, and noted there are other conditions which discuss the need for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Whitehead felt that any activity on the campus, other than classroom activities, which may cause noise, parking, congestion, traffic, and other similar issues are activities that the community should know about before hand and be allowed to address. He suggested the best way to do so would be through a Special Use Permit. Chairman Lewis added that the public can also address their concerns with specific events held on the campus that did not need a Special Use Permit during the six month Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 3 review period before the Planning Commission, and at that time the Commission can readdress the issue. George Zugswith was concerned about the staffs recommendation and resolution in regards to certifying the EIR because of a significant impact which the staff has not recently addressed and the Planning Commission has not had an opportunity to discuss. He explained that this impact is the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive. He thought that maybe there was an assumption that because Marymount removed the dorms from the plans that the traffic signal and all of the issues pertaining to it are gone. He did not think the issues were gone because the athletic facility is still on the plan and this will affect the traffic at Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive. He also was concerned with the certification of the EIR, noting that because Marymount has excluded the dorms on the plans, the Resolution should specifically state that the EIR is not approved with respect to the dorms. With respect to the 3-1 vote that was taken before Marymount pulled the dorms, on page 11 of the staff report, staff correctly states they were correcting the 2-2 vote which was previously stated as a 3-1 vote. However, this conflicts with the vote noted on page 21, section 2.7, which states a 2-2 vote. Lastly, he address the statement of overriding considerations. He did not think the Resolution was very specific and in general terms, and did not think this was appropriate. Don Davis addressed the landscaping to screen the athletic building, and reminded the Commission that the EIR did not find that there was an impact from that building alone, and therefore it was not part of the environmental mitigation. His recollection was that the vote was split 2-2 in terms of additional landscape screening. However, the college is fine with adding the landscaping and is supportive of additional landscaping to screen the building. Regarding the parking issue, he explained it is the goal of the college is to have sufficient parking and to have no on-street parking. Regarding the comments on the Miraleste Drive signal, he stated that is still clearly in the mitigation measures, and the college does have the financial burden upon them to install the traffic signal. Assistant City Attorney Snow noted that mitigation measure TR2 requires signalization of the Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive intersection. Commissioner Knight discussed the suggested possibility of making a recommendation for the City Council to look into restrictions for on-street parking. Chairman Lewis did not see the value of making any recommendation to the City Council on this subject, noting that if this issue is appealed to the City Council parking will be discussed. He noted that the City Council is the only entity to make a decision as to whether or not on-street parking is to be restricted or prohibited. He also noted that the Traffic Safety Commission has already made a recommendation to the City Council regarding parking on Palos Verdes Drive East. Chairman Lewis moved to adopt staffs recommendations to include all of the Resolutions, as modified, and to not make any recommendation to the City Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 4 Council in terms of parking restrictions, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (4-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioners Tetreault, Ruttenberg, and Perestarn returned to the dais. 8. Interpretation Procedure JCase No. ZON2009-00206): 6100 Via Subida Senior Planner Alvarez presented a brief staff report, explaining that after staff noticed the public hearing for this item the applicant requested a continuance, as the property owner of 6100 Via Subida could not be in attendance at this meeting. Staff is recommending continuance of this public hearing to August 25, 2009. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Rob Katherman (applicant) explained that the Foster family has every intention of compliance, however is in need of clarification in terms of the trimming. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked why it is crucial to have Mr. Foster in attendance when he came after the fact and did not own the property when the initial decision was made. Mr. Katherman explained that Mr. Foster believes he has complied with the condition and that the staff has asked for additional trimming above and beyond what was required. He felt it would only be fair to allow Mr. Foster to present his side of the story and his evidence to the Planning Commission. He also felt that it would benefit the Commission to visit the Foster property before the hearing. Commissioner Perestarn asked if there was an earlier date available to hear this item. Director Rojas answered that there is room on the July 28th agenda. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to August 25, 2009, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Ruttenberg explained that he would reluctantly support the motion, but that he would not be as reluctant if the last year of trimming had been done. He did not think the trimming would have in any way affected his right to request an interpretation from the Planning Commission. The motion to continue the public hearing to August 26, 2009 was approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS Commissioner Ruttenberg suggested amending the Agenda to hear item No. 7 next, as staff's recommendation is to continue the public hearing. There was no objection. Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 5 7. Height Variation and Minor 28614 t® Hood Court Director Rojas explained that the applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to allow time to redesign the project. He stated that staff supports the request and is recommending the public hearing be continued to August 25, 2009. He noted there were no speaker slips submitted for the item. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to August 26, 2009, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). 6. Appeal of Coastal Permit& Lot Line Adjustment (Case No. ZON2008-00326 & SUB2008-gPI04 1: 3 Yacht Harbor Drive & 4194 Maritime Road Associate Planner Fox explained that staff had received a request from the representative of the applicant for a continuance of the matter to the July 28, 2009 meeting. He stated that staff supports the continuance request. Director Rojas noted that three speaker slips had been submitted on this item. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing® Lisa Wineberger (applicant) explained that she made the request for the continuance because she was concerned that because of the length of the agenda and the possible length of this matter that the item may not be heard. She noted that most of the concerned parties are in attendance, and if the Planning Commission feels that this item will be heard this evening, they will be happy to wait. Chairman Lewis felt that the Commission would be able to hear the item at this meeting, and suggested that item No. 6 be heard after item No. 5. There was no objection from the Commission. 2. Reconsideration of Height Variation, Grading Permit& Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00593: 6 Case Lane Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining these plans are the fifth iteration of the proposal. He gave a brief history of the project and the concerns expressed by the Commission. He stated that the current revised project is now 68 percent larger than the average home in the immediate neighborhood and 2 percent smaller than the largest home in the immediate neighborhood. He explained that staff met with the applicant's architect at the site as well as with several neighbors, and the revised plan is the result of the discussions held at the site. He explained the revisions made to the plans. He stated that staff believes all of the required findings for the Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Conditional Use Permit can be made for the revised project. Therefore, staff is seeking direction from the Commission as to whether Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 6 or not this revised proposal achieves compatibility with the character of the immediate neighborhood. If the Planning Commission believes they can make all of the required findings, the Commission may elect to adopt the draft Resolution included in the staff report. However, if the Planning Commission finds the project remains incompatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood, there is an alternative Resolution prepared recommending denial of the project without prejudice, for adoption at this meeting. He noted that the decision deadline is two days from today's date. Shakil Patel (architect) felt that most of the concerns of the neighbors have now been addressed. He noted that at the April 28th meeting the Planning Commission had indicated the project was basically approvable, except for the privacy issue to 1 Cayuse Lane. He stated that this privacy issue has now been addressed. Riad Itani (architect and project manager) stated that his client has gone the extra mile to ensure the neighbors will be happy when this home is built, as it will improve the neighborhood and will protect their privacy and the environment they live in. Craig Edgecumbe stated he represents the owners of 3, 9, 13, and 17 Cayuse Lane. He stated these homeowners all object to the development of a 5,300 square foot project at 5 Cayuse Lane. He stated these four properties will be the most affected by traffic driving by, and therefore it will be a substantial impact on their lives and the visibility to the properties to traffic and noise. He felt the proposed project is grossly incompatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood, which is all composed of small homes on a lot, and no lots have a second unit. He stated his clients primary objections are on the basis of bulk, mass, privacy impacts, as well as the threat to public health, safety, and welfare arising from the size of the main structure and the second structure on the property. He felt the staff report contains a fundamental error by the use of the 5,485 square foot care facility at 22 Cayuse Lane as one of the properties used to establish the character of the neighborhood. He noted that 22 Cayuse Lane predates the incorporation of the City and is not a single family residence. Commissioner Tomblin questioned how building a house on a residential street impacts traffic. Mr. Edgecumbe explained that there are currently 10 cars that travel into the small one lane cul-de-sac. Adding this size of project, which has seven bedrooms, will add at least five additional cars traveling onto this small cul-de-sac. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Edgecumbe if he had a traffic study which showed there will be five cars added to neighborhood with this new home. Mr. Edgecumbe answered that he did not have a traffic study. Commissioner Perestam asked if the project were 1,000 square feet less, if Mr. Edgecumbe's clients would be supportive of the project. Planning Commission minutes July 14,2009 Page 7 Mr. Edgecumbe stated that his clients felt the project should be approximately the same size as the neighboring properties to be compatible, which is approximately 3,000 square feet with no second unit. LaVon Malin (9 Cayuse Lane) stated the house at 22 Cayuse Lane that staff has been using as a comparison for the proposed project has 60 percent lot coverage, while City code states lot coverage should be no more than 40 percent. She therefore felt this was an unfair comparison. Mr. Patel (in rebuttal) stated that per the zoning code, this lot is allowed to have a second unit, and other homes in the neighborhood are allowed to construct a second unit as well. He stated that this current proposal meets all of the zoning codes and he felt it is compatible with the neighborhood. He noted that the lot coverage is 27 percent. He felt that the applicant has done their due diligence in complying with the Planning Commission's concerns and requested approval of the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the owner of 3 Cayuse Lane attended the meeting at the site. Associate Planner Fox answered that Mr. Washington, the owner of 3 Cayuse, was in attendance at the site meeting. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestarn asked if staff was satisfied with the results of the site meeting. Associate Planner Fox clarified that the purpose of the May meeting was to meet with the neighbors at 1 and 7 Cayuse at the site to discuss the specific issues raised in regards to bulk and mass and privacy. The property owners at 3 Cayuse and 1 Bronco became aware of that meeting and elected to attend. He did not feel the owners of 3 Cayuse or 1 Bronco would be supportive of any of the proposed changes. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that Mr. Edgecumbe had noted privacy issues to 3, 9, 13, and 17 Cayuse, and asked staff if any of these properties were contiguous properties in which privacy would be a consideration. Associate Planner Fox answered that 3 and 9 are contiguous properties. He noted that in a previous staff report there was a discussion on staffs belief that there were no privacy impacts upon 3 Cayuse and staff had made some recommendations for the windows to address any privacy impacts to 9 Cayuse. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the applicant has made the effort the Commission requested be made with the neighbors and he felt that the changes made to the plans are the types of changes the Commission focused on at the last meeting. Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 8 Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt a Resolution approving the proposed project as conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Perestarn was pleased that the applicant met with the immediate neighbors and that the five points indicated in the staff report were addressed to the immediate neighbors' satisfaction. He stated that his concerns have been satisfied and could now support the project. Commissioner Knight understood that this is a very difficult lot to build on, however he has had concerns with neighborhood compatibility from the beginning. He felt that great improvements have been made, however could not support the project based on neighborhood compatibility concerns. He felt that the care facility that has been included in the compatibility findings is an anomaly. He felt this proposed project would be too large for the neighborhood and has a strong vertical element that is too bulky and massive. He also explained that he looks at a second unit as part of the entire structure, and would do so for any other property proposing a second unit. He therefore could not support the motion. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the city guidelines say that new development is to be compared to the twenty closest homes. In this case, in order for him to do a fair comparison, he subtracted the square footage of the second unit from the home. With that, the proposed house is 4,240 square feet. He noted that 11 Cayuse is 4,050 square feet. He also stated that he would discount the care facility, as it is a bit of an anomaly and drives the numbers upward. He therefore felt it was difficult for him to say that this proposed house is too large for the neighborhood, as it is only 200 square feet larger than the next largest home. He felt that the applicant has worked very hard to address the concerns of the neighbors and he was now able to support the project. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he supported Commissioner Tetreault's statements and could also support the project. Chairman Lewis complimented the architects, as he felt that they have done all they can on this difficult piece of property and given the direction by the property owners. However, he cannot support the project due to neighborhood compatibility issues. He felt the proposed house will change the character of the neighborhood and could not support the motion. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-29 to approve the proposed project as presented by staff was approved, (5-2)with Commissioner Knight and Chairman Lewis dissenting. 3. Revision to Master Sign Program (Case No. ZON2008-00637): Westmont Plaza 128368 Western Avenue Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the proposed revision to the Master Sign Program. She stated that staff forwarded the request to the City's Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 9 Traffic Engineer for review, and a concern was noted that the sign should be a minimum of 3 'h feet above grade. She showed pictures of the proposed sign, and stated staff was recommending approval of the project as proposed. Commissioner Perestarn noted that an existing tree seems to cause more obstruction to the traffic visibility than some of the signage, and asked if there was a condition that addressed this tree. Associate Planner Mikhail answered there was no condition included that addressed the tree. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Iqbal Zaieli stated he is the owner of the property. He stated that in designing this sign he has tried to address the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission in their denial of the sign two years ago. He explained that he is trying to help the tenants in the center attract business and asked the Commission to approve the sign. Commissioner Perestarn noted there is a private property sign on the property and that it appears that it will be at traffic obstruction. He asked Mr. Zaieli if he intends to remove or relocate the sign. Mr. Zaieli answered that the private property sign will be removed and relocated if this new sign is approved. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestarn asked staff if the Commission can determine where the private property sign can be relocated to ensure that it will not obstruct the view of traffic. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff can consult with Public Works before the sign is placed to ensure that it does not create any problems. Commissioner Perestarn asked that be made a condition of approval. Commissioner Peres tarn moved to adopt PC Resolution 2009-30 thereby approving the revision to the sign program, as amended to require the Private Property sign be removed from its current location. Seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (7-0). 4. Height Variation (Case No. Z 86J- 26326 Birchfield Avenue _ Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and explaining the revised proposal. He noted that the property does have a new silhouette which reflects the current project proposal. He explained that based upon the revised proposal staff has reassessed the project for neighborhood compatibility and felt that Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 10 the revised project is still highly visible from the street, the revised second floor addition is still located almost entirely over the east end of the house, and the proposed second story addition is still close to the street. Therefore, staff continues to believe the proposed project appears excessively bulky and massive as viewed from the street. He stated that staff continues to recommend denial of the project, without prejudice. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Shawn Rabbani (Designer) stated that at the last meeting the two outstanding issues were privacy and bulk and mass. He noted that the privacy issues have been addressed in this redesign. He explained that there is a problem in moving the addition farther back on the lot and away from the street. He noted that the area in question is a bedroom, and to move the area back away from the street there-will no longer be room for a bed and table and the room will no longer be a bedroom. To move the addition back eight to ten feet will require him to not only redesign the second floor, but the first floor as well. Man Cho expressed his concerns regarding his privacy. He understood that according to the Code his home is not an abutting property and therefore does not fall under the scope for a privacy analysis. However, he felt that he should have a right to voice his concerns regarding his privacy. He noted that this addition will look into his master bedroom and his front yard area. He requested more time to study this issue and understand his rights in this area. Rollin Sturgeon stated he agrees with staff that the bulk and mass of the proposal is unacceptable. He also felt that the fagade, the roof, the open space, the number of stories, the square footage, and the lot coverage are all unacceptable. James Jue (property owner) stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Perestam explained that the existing block wall on the street side property line is unique to the neighborhood, and asked Mr. Jue if he would object to lowering the wall so it will be in compliance with the current code. Mr. Jue answered that he did not have an objection to lowering the non-compliant wall. Director Rojas explained that Mr. Jue may agree to lower the wall, but because it is considered a legal non-conforming wall and therefore is not in violation of the code, the City cannot require, through a condition of approval, that the wall be lowered. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he supports the revised plan, as moving the addition in 5 to 6 feet made quite a difference. He felt that the applicant has done what he requested be done. Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 11 Commissioner Perestarn stated that this redesign is a significant modification over the previous plan, and he too was in support of the project. His concern, however, was with the non-compliant wall. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated he was still concerned with the two-story structure in this neighborhood. He agreed that the mass has diminished by the changes, but did not think the current design compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Knight also did not think the structure was compatible with the neighborhood, noting that it did help, however, to have the added articulation. In regards to the wall, he did not see a nexus between the wall and the house to require that the wall be brought into conformance. Chairman Lewis did not support the project. However, he would support a motion to add a condition of approval to lower the wall, especially given that the applicant has stated he would be willing to bring the wall into conformance. He stated he could not make the neighborhood compatibility findings. Commissioner Tomblin stated he still has concerns with the design and the two-story element, however was pleased that so much progress has been made. Commissioner Tetreault felt that the character of the neighborhood is made up of smaller single story homes, and it was difficult to make the neighborhood compatibility finding for this project. He stated that if the Commission is going to allow a second story, he would like to see much more articulation. He also noted that it would be difficult to deny a second story addition, as he felt that would say that this is only a single-story neighborhood. Commissioner Tomblin moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of August 11, 2009 to all the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address the concerns of the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Chairman Lewis asked the applicant if he was agreeable to attempting another redesign, or if he would rather the Commission vote on the current design. Mr. Jue stated he would prefer a continuance to attempt a redesign. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated he would like to see the wall in question be more in compliance, however he did not think there was a nexus between the addition and the wall. He felt that putting more effort into trying to more broadly solving the neighborhood compatibility problem will result in something that is more amenable to the Commission. The motion to continue the public hearing to August 11, 2009 was approved, (4-3) with Commissioners Rutters berg, Knight, and Chairman Lewis dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 12 S. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2008-00314): 30563 Calle de Suenos Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and the reason for the continuance. He explained that staff was able to obtain more clear photographs taken the Cartwright residence, showing the view that is currently in place. He stated that staff continues to believe there is significant view impairment to the Cartwright residence from their main viewing area caused by the proposed project. He stated that staff did a view assessment from 30573 Camino Porvenir and determined that any view being obstructed by the proposed project would be of the sky, which is not a protected view. Staff has also recently been contacted by the owners of the property at 30605 Calle de Suenos, regarding view impairment as a resulf of foliage. He showed photographs taken from this address, but noted that unless the project is approved there is no mechanism for the City to require the foliage in question be removed. He stated that if the project is approved staff will recommend the appropriate condition of approval to have the foliage trimmed. He stated that staff continues to recommend denial of the project, without prejudice, as there is significant view impairment from the Cartwright residence. Steve Lee (representing the applicant) questioned the best and most important view from the Cartwright residence. He noted that a previous staff finding regarding the best and most important view from the neighboring Rice residence was determined to be the view that was due west. Therefore, any view from the Cartwright residence other than the view due west, which is of the ocean and Catalina Island, should be considered a secondary view. He stated that the most prominent feature of the Cartwright's nouth facing view is the Santa Monica mountains. He felt there could be a compromise found between the proposed ridgeline and the view of the mountains. With respect to the bulk and mass and compatibility, he stated that he would be open to any suggestions from the Commission. Raleigh Steinbach stated he is a neighbor of the Cartwrights and has had the opportunity to be in their home many times. He felt that the view out of the living room looking north is a very fine view, as it looks out over the Santa Monica Bay, the coastline, the mountains, and the skyline. He felt it was a view that should be preserved. Jody Rice objected to the photographs that have been presented that represent the view from the Cartwright residence. He questioned why the Cartwrights; do not have better pictures to support their claims regarding their view. He felt the Planning Commission was allowing pictures to be presented that were not proper and therefore making it very difficult for the applicants to design and build a house on their property. Commissioner Tetreault took exception to Mr. Rice's comments and felt his comments misrepresent the truth. He stated he has been on the Cartwright property and looked at the view. He has also seen photographs taken of the view, and can verify that these Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 13 photographs were taken from the viewing area. Therefore, to say there are no proper photographs is not correct. He also did not think the Planning Commission had done anything other than give deference to the arguments in favor of the applicant by continuing the public hearing to allow the Commissioners to verify the claims in the field. Director Rojas added that staffs analysis and recommendations are made based on physical site visits, not photographs. Photographs are used for illustrative purposes only. Jon Cartwright stated he was requesting the Planning Commission approve the staffs recommendation to deny the proposed height variation, as it significantly impacts his view of the ocean, the coastline, city lights, and the mountains. He also felt the current design is incompatible with the neighborhood. He showed a bribf power point presentation which he felt showed when and how his view was documented as well as showing how he could replicate the November 2006 picture that was introduced at the previous meeting. He showed a copy of an application filed with the City filed almost immediately after Prop M was approved which documented foliage. He noted that the application gives a description of what he considers his best and most important view, which is of the ocean and Santa Monica mountains. Commissioner Knight noted that the View from the Cartwright's home to the west, which is the ocean view, is not a protected view since it is below 16 feet and a neighbor could theoretically build a structure that would impair that view. Therefore, the protected view is the northern view. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt the Cartwright's view to the north is their most significant view, and anything the applicant proposes over 16 feet in height will compromise that view in a significant way. He felt the applicant needs to find a way to not exceed the 16 foot line that staff drew across the Cartwright property. Chairman Lewis agreed with the Vice Chairman's comments, and asked if any of the Commissioner's felt differently. No Commissioners disagreed with the Vice Chairman's comments. Commissioner Knight added that the issue of compatibility has not been discussed, and stated that, aside from the view issues, he did not feel the proposed residence was compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Chairman Lewis stated to the applicant that he has heard the Commissioner's comments, and asked if he would like to take the opportunity to redesign the proposed residence to try to address these concerns. Mr. Lee asked if he would be allowed to build up to 16 feet in height, even if it blocked some of the Cartwright's views. Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 14 Chairman Lewis answered that an applicant is allowed to build up to 16 feet in height by right, however he reminded Mr. Lee that there are also neighborhood compatibility issues that must be taken into account. Mr. Lee stated that he would like to have the opportunity to redesign. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to August 26, 2009 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address the concerns of the Planning Commission, seconded by Vice Chainnan Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). 6. Appeal of Coastal Permit & Lot Line Adiustment (Case No. Z 0 - 326 11 2 0 -0 4)a 3 Yacht Harbor Drive & 4194 Mailtime Road Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and the reason for the appeal. He explained that the Hearings Officer made the necessary two findings for the approval of the Coastal Permit. He also explained that, in regards to the Lot Line Adjustment, the Hearings Officer considered the consistency of the Lot Line Adjustment request with the City's Zoning and Building Codes. He explained that, pursuant to the Government Code, this request is exempt from provisions of the Sub- Division Map Act. The City Engineer'reviewed and approved the proposed lot line adjustment. He discussed parcels A, B, C, and D and how they would be affected by this lot line adjustment, as outlined in the staff report. He explained that part of staffs recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearings Officer's decision is to modify the Lot Line Adjustment so that the size of Parcel D is less than 16,000 square feet. This would mean the parcel would be too small to be subdivided, thereby addressing concerns raised by the appellants regarding increased development potential. He discussed the basis for the appeal and the different concerns the appellants raised. He stated that staffs recommendation was to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearings Officer's decision and to modify the Lot Line Adjustment as discussed in the staff report. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that as a result of this lot line adjustment there will be a 16 foot height limit rather than a 12 foot height limit on parcel C. However, he felt this was a by-product of the reasons for the request, and not one of the expressed reasons for the request. With that, he asked staff if other ways to do this were considered that may not have led to these added rights on parcel C. Associate Planner Fox explained that staff was not aware of any other alternatives looked at by the applicant. He added that given the goal of trying to create a lot that contains the road right-of-way, and given where the road right-of-way falls on the property, it would be difficult to create a lot that encompasses the road right-of-way that didn't result in splitting parcel A and parcel C. Commissioner Ruttenberg also noted that if parcel C is created the way it is being requested, the rock mesa area would then have a right to build to 16 feet rather than 12, Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 15 and questioned if the 2 percent down language changes the 16 feet to something lower than 16 feet. Associate Planner Fox answered that it could require that the property be graded down so that if someone wished to build a 16 foot high structure they would have to lower the grade to accomplish that, depending on where the structure would be placed on the property. He added that the 2 degree down arc is not intended to protect private views and is not measured from the viewing area of private property, but rather is a viewing station from a public vantage point in the right-of-way on Palos Verdes Drive South. Commissioner Tomblin referred to an area on the map and asked why deeding this area of land to another owner is not classified as a subdivision. Associate Planner Fox explained that it is not considered a subdivision because in this instance there are two properties and the boundaries are being moved between these two properties. Chairman Lewis referred to the conditions of approval in the staff report, and asked staff if the City Attorney has given any input on the enforceability of the landscape conditions. Associate Planner Fox answered that the City Attorney had not explicitly commented on that condition. Chairman Lewis noted that it appears only the landscape conditions that were imposed on the Johnson property are being imposed on the other parcels, asked why more of the conditions imposed on the Johnson property are not being proposed to be imposed on the new parcels. Associate Planner Fox stated that most of the conditions of approval for the Johnson property were related to the construction of the house, and the house has been constructed. The remaining on-going maintenance conditions for the property are the ones related to the landscaping and fencing. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff if the City has the legal right to deny a lot line adjustment application on the basis that the new lots may be able to make legal application for development. Associate Planner Fox referred to the Government Code section noted on page 57 of the staff report. Joe Lindorfer (appellant) stated one of the reasons for the appeal was the belief that lot C is not formed by a Lot Line Adjustment but rather by an administrative decision. He discussed the Subdivision Map Act and noted that in order to be exempt from this Act there must be an exchange between existing adjacent parcels. Further, the City Code states that sub-division property shall be considered as continuous units, even if it is separated by roads. He showed several slides which he felt depicted the existing Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 16 parcels and the proposed parcels after the Lot Line Adjustment, and noted that Parcel C will share no boundary with the adjacent lots at all and is a subdivision of remains of Parcel 1 after the lot line adjustments. Therefore, he did not think that Parcel C should be allowed. Paul Gamsgaard (appellant) stated he was very concerned about the creation of Lot C, as it will made a buildable lot. He was also concerned that this rock mesa area is even higher now than it originally was. He felt that the reason for this proposed lot line adjustment was so that Mr. Johnson could see the lot as a buildable lot. Debra Hansen (appellant) stated she lives across from the Johnson property and her concern also centers on the real purpose of this proposed Lot Line Adjustment application. She questioned why Mr. Johnson couldn't just deed the road to the HOA without making them two separate parcels. Lenee Bilski distributed a map to the Commissioners which she stated shows the buildable area of the Johnson property, taken from a map on file for the 2001 project on the Johnson property. She stated that by approving this application, the Hearings Officer is creating the potential for increased lot coverage and development in the coastal zone. She felt that if the property wanted to subdivide the lot, that would be fine as long as the application is processed through the State Subdivision Map Act. She asked that the Commission uphold the appeal or condition the approval to keep Parcel 1 as one unit, correct the encroachment of lot 41 with a small amount of land, meet the requirements of the coastal permit, and change the objectionable conditions Nos. 3 and 4. She also stated that there are currently only two developable lots and the other two lots are in the landslide moratorium zone. If this proposal is approved there would be four developable lots resulting, and asked if this is consistent with the goals of the General Plan and the Coastal Plan. She also stated that this application includes a transfer of a residential unit currently used by the Portuguese Bend Club, which is currently called the maintenance shack. She asked if this transfer is exempt from the Subdivision Map Act. She noted that the lot called Parcel C is taken from Parcel 1 but is not being added to any other lot. She questioned how that can be exempt from the Subdivision Map Act. Lisa Weinberger (representing the applicants) stated that Mr. Johnson is obligated to deed this property over, and in order to do so the property it must be a separate legal lot. She recognized this Lot Line Adjustment request is a complicated one, however it is still a Lot Line Adjustment which starts with four individual lots and ends with four individual lots. She clarified that with respect to the rock mesa parcel, it does become a separate lot. However, the property is heavily encumbered by easements and there are no plans to sell that parcel. She stated that it is merely a by-product of the lot line adjustment. She understood the appellants concerns about the views from their properties, however she did not feel that contemplating what potential development may occur on these parcels was within the purview of the Planning Commission. She stated that the neighbors have concerns regarding the landscape requirements imposed on Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 17 Mr. Johnson's property, and he has agreed to record covenants against the new parcels to make sure that those conditions carry forward. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated he has questions with regards to Parcel C and the language in the Government Code in regards to lot line adjustments and what is exempt from the Subdivision Map Act. He noted that the language states a lot line adjustment is applicable when the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel. He questioned what has been taken and what has been added, as he did not think Parcel C is not being added to Parcel 2, Parcel 3, or Parcel 4. Ms. Weinberger explained that the new Parcel A was formed by merging a portion of Parcel 3 with a portion of Parcel 1. She stated that the new Parcel B was formed from all of Parcel 2, portions of Parcel 1 and the reminder of Parcel 3- The new Parcel D was formed from all of Parcel 4 and a portion of Parcel 1. Parcel C is essentially what is left from the moving around of all of the parts, and takes property back from the newly created Parcel B. Commissioner Ruttenberg argued that to him, this still constitutes a sub-division rather than a lot line adjustment. Ms. Weinberger felt that this analysis has become much too technical and explained that they have started with four parcels and are ending with four parcels, which is within the law for a lot line adjustment rather than a sub-division. She also noted that these are existing adjoining parcels, as stipulated in the law. Commissioner Ruttenberg disagreed, quoting the language which says "where land taken from one is added to an adjoining parcel." He stated that what is at Parcel C is not being added to any of the four original parcels. Ms. Weinberger understood Commissioner Ruttenberg's point, however explained that when looking at the order in which the lot line adjustment is done it all makes sense. She explained that initially the road has be created into a new lot and Parcel C used to be all of Parcel 1 but is now a new, smaller parcel. Commissioner Knight noted that part of this application is driven from the requirement that Mr. Johnson is required to create Parcel B, the road access. He questioned why that particular parcel can't be encompassed in Parcel C. Ms. Weinberger answered that Mr. Johnson is not required to deed that property to the Portuguese Bend Club and does not want to do so at this time. Steve Stewart stated that he owns Parcel D. He explained that given a portion of the road on the parcel as well as the required setbacks and the restrictive CC&Rs in the tract, he would not be able to build anything over 12 feet in height. The land is also very steep and is all fill and has had geology reports done which conclude that the land is not feasibly buildable. Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 18 Debra Hansen (in rebuttal) stated that she did not have a problem with the adjustment to the Stewart property, as that is a true lot line adjustment. She stated her issue is with Parcel C. Lenee Bilski (in rebuttal) stated that the Rancho Palos Verdes and the State Code are the same and read that properties shall be considered as continuous units even if separated by a road. She stated that the secondary unit transfer is of concern and asked if it was legal to transfer a unit in a lot line adjustment. Director Rojas explained that one of the aspects that adds to the complexity of this application is the issue that there is a moratorium line running through some of these parcels. He suggested the Commission look at this application as if there is no moratorium line, since the Subdivision Map Act was not written with the idea that there is a moratorium area. With that, he explained that there are four parcels, two of which are developed and two of which are undeveloped. If there was no moratorium, two new homes could be built. The same holds true if the application were approved, two new homes could be developed. Commissioner Ruttenberg was very concerned with Parcel C. He suggested that this item be continued so that the City Attorney can answer the questions raised by the Planning Commission as to the reasons this application is considered a lot line adjustment rather than a subdivision. Chairman Lewis added that in his mind this is not a lot line adjustment but rather it is a subdivision, and unless the City Attorney can convince him otherwise, that is how he will continue to consider this application. Commissioner Ruftenberg moved to continue the public hearing to July 28,2 2009 to allow staff the opportunity to consult with the City Attorney to answer the legal questions raised by the Commission, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 9. Re-ordering of the Planning Comm!§sion ends Automatically continued to July 28, 2009 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 10. Minutes of March 31, 2009 Automatically continued to July 28, 2009 11. Minutes of April 14, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 19 Automatically continued to July 28, 2009 12. Minutes of April 28, 2009 Automatically continued to July 28, 2009 13. Minutes of May 12, 2009 Automatically continued to July 28, 2009 ITEMS TO BE PLACEDUT 14. Pre- en a for the meeting of July 2 , 20 No discussion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 14,2009 Page 20