Loading...
PC MINS 20091124 Approved January 26 2010 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Perestarn at 7:10 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, and Tomblin. Absent: Vice Chairman Gerstner and Chairman Lewis were excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Fox COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed three items of correspondence for agenda item No. 1 and eight items of correspondence for agenda item No. 3. He noted that part of the correspondence for item No. 3 is a request from both the Chairman and the Vice Chairman that the item be continued so that they may participate in the discussion. Commissioner Knight reported that he had spoken to a resident regarding agenda item No. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission agreed to discuss agenda item No. 3 first to determine whether or not the item will be continued. If it is not continued, they agreed the agenda would be heard in its regular order. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIEN� q �° �ardiflg_pon-agenda Tie ms)- None PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2009-00416) The item was discussed to determine whether or not to continue the item, as requested by the Chairman and Vice Chairman. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted he understood why the Chairman and Vice Chairman would want to participate in this discussion, however this was a properly noticed hearing and there is a quorum in terms of Commission members. He also noted that Vice Chairman Gerstner has submitted his comments regarding the item. With that, he felt that the public hearing should be opened and the item heard. Commissioners Knight and Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg's comments. Commissioner Perestam suggested putting this item back as item No. 3 and to open the public hearing at that time. The Commission agreed. I p Height Variation, Minor.Exception Permit & Site Plan Review ase No. ZON2009-0014 )a 4319 Palos Verdes Drive South Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. He stated that, as discussed in the report, staff believes most of the findings for approval of the height variation can be made. He discussed the potential view impact from various neighboring residences, noting staff's determination that the proposed addition does not significantly impair a view from these properties. He stated that staff has concerns with neighborhood compatibility in terms of architectural compatibility, bulk, and mass of the proposed addition. He noted staff's concerns that the addition has the appearance of a "pop-up" and the style is not compatible with any other style in the neighborhood and showed pictures of several of the homes in the neighborhood. He stated that staff is recommending denial of the project based solely on neighborhood compatibility. Discussing the Minor Exception Permit application, he noted that there are three findings that can be made to approve a Minor Exception Permit and only one of those needs to be made. He noted that staff does not believe any of the findings are applicable in this case. In conclusion, he stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested Height Variation, Minor Exception Permit, and Site Plan Review without prejudice, as staff felt the project could be redesigned and modified in a way that would address staff's concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility and could possibly eliminate the need for the Minor Exception Permit. Commissioner Tetreault noted that the Minor Exception Permit was requested so that, with the new configuration, the resident could use the garage and have a turnaround so that they can drive forward out onto Palos Verdes Drive South. He asked if that were possible with the current configuration of the garage and driveway. Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 2 Associate Planner Fox was not aware if the applicant could currently make that maneuver or not. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if staff's objection was more with the pop-up appearance of the proposed addition as well as the straight fagade along the side of the house, rather than the size of the addition or the size of the home. Associate Planner Fox answered that was correct. He noted that the house would become the largest home in the immediate neighborhood, however staff did not believe it was so far out of the range as to be unacceptable in terms of size. Commissioner Perestam opened the public hearing. Frank Stirling (applicant) distributed photographs showing the various homes in the neighborhood and the additions that have been built in the neighborhood. He noted that there are many additions that have been built in the neighborhood that are very similar to the addition he is proposing for his residence. He discussed his driveway and explained that l e currently cannot turn around in the driveway. He asked that the Planning Commission approve alternative 1 in the staff report, which is to approve the project in its entirety. In looking at the photographs, Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that several of the second story additions in the neighborhood have some articulation to them and are not flush with the first floor. He asked Mr. Stirling why he felt he couldn't move the second story of his proposed addition in a bit to add articulation so that the addition didn't have the appearance of a pop-up. Mr. Stirling explained that it is an issue of construction and the integrity of the building, but his builder is present and could explain the issue in more detail. He also explained that the appearance of the house was taken into consideration and he felt that the current alignment of the roof lines created a much more pleasing appearance. Ron Pineda (4276 Admirable Drive) felt that the hillside of the City constitutes a limited natural resource in their scenic view of the residents and visitors of the City. He stated that the hillside provides potential vista points and view lots. He noted that the General Plan protects hillsides in the City. He stated that his objection to the proposed project is the height proposed over 16 feet, as he felt his view will be significantly impaired and it will have quite an effect on his property value. He stated that when he bought his property 30 years ago he had a complete ocean view, and over the years little by little, he has lost most of his view. Ricardo Flores stated that he is the designer of this project and explained that the second story is not actually flush with the first story, but rather the porch roof extends forward approximately six feet. Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 3 Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Flores if there was any reason he could not incorporate some of staff's design suggestions into this project. Mr. Flores explained that changing the gable would mean that it would not match the roof on the other side, but he agreed it could be done. Mr. Stirling added that the deck was placed on a certain side of the house because that is where the maximum view is located. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the Planning Commission always looks very carefully at additions that resemble a pop-up situation. However, he noted that in the Seaview neighborhood there are a number of homes that have the general appearance of the house being proposed by the applicant. He was therefore a little uncomfortable applying a standard to a neighborhood like this which has quite a few of these types of homes with these types of pop-ups already in existence. Commissioner Tomblin agreed that there are other similar homes in the Seaview neighborhood, but recalled a past case where the Planning Commission approved a pop-up style home in this neighborhood and received quite a bit of negative feedback from the neighborhood. He stated that he would prefer to see more of an offset between the stories rather than one straight line. He felt that this would be more in line with other recent approvals granted by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Knight agreed with staff's recommendation in the staff report. He did not feel the pop-up fit in with the immediate neighborhood, noting there are no other similar styles within the closest twenty homes, Regarding the Minor Exception Permit, he agreed with staff as he could not make the findings to approve the request. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commissioner Knight's comments. He also stated that he visited Mr. Pineda's home at 4276 Admirable Drive and could not see where any protectable views were being impaired by the proposed addition. Commissioner Perestam agreed with the staff report, but also agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comments that there are many homes outside of the closest twenty that are of a similar design. However, the code does require that the Commission look at the twenty closest homes when considering neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Perestam asked the owner, after hearing the comments of the Commissioners, would he be willing to grant a one-time extension per the Permit Streamlining Act, so that he may have the time to redesign the project to address the Commission's concerns. Mr. Stirling agreed to the extension, noting that a continuation would be necessary to address the Commissioner's concerns. Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 4 Director Rojas noted that the first available meeting to hear this item would be January 25th. He asked the Commission if there was direction to re-silhouette the proposed project. Commissioner Tomblin did not think a new silhouette was needed since there are no view issues involved with the project. Commissioner Perestarn stated that he would prefer the project have a new silhouette if the project is significantly redesigned, and Commissioner Knight agreed. Commissioner Ruttenberg suggested that the project not require a new silhouette if it is no higher than currently designed and no more than 5 percent larger in size, otherwise a new silhouette would be required. Commissioner Tomblin supported Commissioner Ruttenberg's suggestion. Commissioner Tetreault suggested that the new silhouette be at the discretion of the Director, based on the redesigned project. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to January 26, 2010 to give the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project, and that the project be re-silhouetted unless the Director determines the re-silhouette is not necessary, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (4-1)with Commissioner Tetreault dissenting. 2. Conditional Use Permit Revision, Encroachment Permit A_gjSn_Permit (CaseNo. J ,ZON2009-22195 - Palos Verdes Drive West & Via Vicente _ Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the scope of the requested project and the need for the various permits. He stated that the Public Works Department has reviewed the plans and has no concerns. He stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed renovations, as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Tomblin noted on the plans that the heights of the decorative urns and the plants are not specified, and questioned if this would allow for plants that could eventually be tall enough in the urns to impair views from Hawthorne Boulevard. Associate Planner Fox explained that it is within the purview of the Commission to specify the heights of the urns or to not allow them. He pointed out that there are significantly fewer urns in this proposal than there currently exist at the site. Commissioner Knight asked how tall the urns currently at the site are. Associate Planner Fox estimated they are approximately six feet in height. Commissioner Perestam opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 5 Deborah Richie-Bray (Landscape Architect) stated she has been working with the Association to make this an appropriate application for the community, as well as something Oceanfront Estates can be proud of. She explained that over the years the existing water feature and lawn have been very high maintenance items for the Association and they want to remove these features and make a very elegant yet open entrance, She explained that the central urn will be approximately six feet high and the urns on the ends will be six to twelve inches higher than the center urn. She stated that she has read staffs report and agrees with the recommendations. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt PC Resolution 2009-50 thereby approving the Conditional Use Permit Revision, Encroachment Permit, and Sign Permit as conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Tomblin suggested that language be added to the Resolution that specifies the height of the urns and the maximum height of the plants in the urns. Commissioner Tetreault agreed that some type of dimension should be added to the Resolution. He asked Ms, Richie-Bray if she had an idea of the dimensions of the urns. Ms. Richie-Bray recalled that the urns are 32 inches in height, but would have to double check. She added that the plans are drawn to scale. Commissioner Tetreault moved to amend the motion to require that the plans specify the height of the urns, seconded by Commissioner Knight. The motion to approve PC Resolution 2009-50 thereby approving the application as modified was approved, (5-0), 3. Code Amendment JCase Pao® ZON2009-OQll 6 1 Director Rojas explained that this code amendment is an item that came about because of discussions at the City Council level. He stated that the code amendment is citywide and the intent of the code amendment is to simply codify what staff has been doing for 30 years. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief history of this proposed code amendment and explaining staff's recommendation that the maps to use when determining the location of the coastal setback line be the ESA maps. As discussed in the staff report, he explained staff's reasoning for recommending the use of the ESA maps. He explained that the ESA maps are more detailed, more accurate, and are at a better scale than the zoning map and the Coastal Specific Plan land use map. He stated that staff believes the Development Code should be amended to add language that specifies that the location of the coastal setback line on individual property should be based on the ESA maps that are attached to the geology report that was prepared by Earth Science Associates. Finally, he explained that this proposed Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 6 change does not change the options available to property owners proposing to change the coastal setback line nor does it disregard any geology that has been prepared. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if, to their knowledge, Mr. Conroy was the first resident to challenge the use of the ESA map to locate the coastal setback line on his property. Director Rojas answered that Mr. Conroy is the first resident to make such a challenge to the City Council. He added that what staff is bringing to the Commission is essentially a codification of a decision previously made by the Planning Commission to use the ESA maps. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if the ESA maps have ever been certified. Director Rojas answered that the ESA maps have no stamps on them. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked where Earth Sciences Associates is now, noting that a representative has never been to any of these hearings. Director Rojas did not know where Earth Sciences Associates is now. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the coastal setback line that is on the map in the Coastal Specific Plan and on the Zoning Map based on the same information or do they have different sources in locating the coastal setback line. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that staff feels that the Zoning Map and the Coastal Specific Land Use Map show the CSL line in approximately the same location. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the ESA maps were drawn using the same data as the Zoning Map and the Coastal Specific Land Use Map, or was it drawn using independent data. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the ESA maps are the genesis for what is placed on the other two maps, however there are discrepancies between the maps. Staff felt these discrepancies are most likely due to transferring the data from the ESA maps to the less detailed maps. Commissioner Tomblin referred to a letter written by the Vice Chairman in which he states he is uncomfortable supporting the ESA maps as he would like to know how the ESA maps came about. He asked staff if the Commission should be looking at how the ESA maps actually were created. Director Rojas clarified that the Commission is only being asked to make a decision on which map the City should be using as the official map when determining the coastal setback line. The City Council would have to give staff direction if they felt that the maps should be studied or updated. He also explained that whether the ESA map is Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 7 used or another map is used in determining the coastal setback line, there is a code process in place to request a change to the coastal setback line location on a property. He added that a zone change request in this area will also be reviewed by the Coastal Commission, and the Coastal Commission has indicated they will not support such requests. He pointed out that the Coastal Commission believes the ESA maps are more restrictive in terms of the coastal setback lines, and they have stated that if there is an attempt by the City to use anything but the ESA maps they will require the City to amend its coastal specific plan. Commissioner Guttenberg asked if staff knew as to how many properties these maps would lead to different results. Senior Planner Schonborn answered there are approximately seventy properties that the coastal setback line traverses, however staff could not determine how many of those properties would have varying results. Commissioner Perestarn opened the public hearing. Brian Conroy felt that there were several errors in the staff report and in staff's presentation. He stated that he had made a written request to staff that the large zoning map in the Planning Department office be brought to the Planning Commission meeting, however he noted that staff did not bring the map. He felt this would have helped the Commission see that the scale on the map can be used. He stated that the zoning map, the land use map, and the maps inside the Coastal Specific Plan are consistent and congruent with each other and the only one that is in variance is the ESA map that staff chooses to use at its own discretion because it is easier to read. He stated that the code does not allow staff to use a different map just because it is easier to read. He felt that residents deserve better than this and staff has a duty to the residents to uphold the law and to follow the Ordinance. He also strongly objected to the fact that he had requested being included in the meeting with the Coastal Commission and staff absolutely would not allow him to attend that meeting. Bill Swank stated that resident on Seacove Drive that has had geology done on their property has shown that the coastal setback line is in the wrong location. The reports have shown that residents can build closer to the setbacks and the hazard zones are not hazard zones and are underlain by solid geology. He did not feel the scope of this meeting is to choose one map over the other, but rather the scope of the meeting is to choose the correct map or to identify and acknowledge that both maps are wrong and that there is a better way to proceed that way. He stated that these lines the City draws have an impact on people and impacts their lives, explaining that obtaining financing can be very difficult with a coastal setback line erroneously placed on a property. He felt that the way to fairly handle this problem is to give the Commission broader authority to grant Variances based on the actual site condition with site specific approved geology reports until maps can be drawn showing a coastal setback line that is accurate and based on proven geology. Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 8 Thomas Hartman felt that it was a bit scary that the City was taking a fairly significant issue and trying to do an emergency Resolution to codify what has been done for 30 years, rather than step back and figure out what the right solution would be. He encouraged the Commission to do just that, step back and find the correct solution rather than memorialize what has been done in the past. He was also concerned with what this decision could do to property values. Pat Clark agreed with Mr. Swank's comments. She added that each property has their own geologic issues and therefore each property should be judged on its own. She hoped the Commission would take into account the affect this ruling could have on their property values. Robert Haase stated that the objective of this entire exercise is that homes be built on stable ground and that the coastal bluff not be cluttered with unsightly buildings built too close to the bluff. He felt that the bigger concern is where the top of the bluff is located and the building distance to the top of that bluff. Rudy Maus did ;not think anyone knows where the coastal setback line should be located on the Seacove properties and it should be completely studied and resurveyed with the correct information. Richard Martin (Coastline Geotechnical Consultants) stated he has worked on at least eight of the bluff top lots on Seacove Drive and established the setback line for the properties along Seacove Drive, based on site specific drilling, sampling, and laboratory testing. He stated that the site specific setback for the bluff is at the top of the bluff plus the structural setback is an additional 25 feet from the bluff. He was aware that the line has been moved on two properties by the City Council. He felt that it was a mistake to get the Coastal Commission involved in any setback issues in this area. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Martin his opinion on how this existing coastal setback line was established. Mr. Martin felt that these lines were drawn using very conservative values from the base of the bluff upward. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Martin if the geotechnical reports he prepared for these lots were reviewed and approved by the City Geologist. Mr. Martin answered that all of his reports have been reviewed and approved by the City. Jacgoma Maultsby stated he was representing the owners of 24 Seacove. He discussed the importance of the stability of the bluff and hazard areas discussed in numerous geologic reports. He felt that this is an issue of public health, safety, and welfare. Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 9 Jim Huston stated he was in support of staffs recommendation to confirm that the ESA maps should be used to determine the coastal setback line. He stated that the ESA reports are part of the law and were issued based on specific geology. He read excerpts from the Coastal Specific Plan that speaks specifically of the geologic conditions on Seacove Drive. He noted that what is written in the ESA reports is also written in the Coastal Specific Plan and the Municipal Code, and therefore is currently the law of the City. Pamela Simes stated she supports staff's recommendations since it is upholding the law that has governed the City since 1976 by memorializing the use of the ESA maps to determine the location of the coastal setback line. She felt that the use of the ESA maps by staff has been continuous and uninterrupted since that time and therefore has already set a precedent. Dana Ireland felt that if he came to staff with a map for one of his projects that wasn't certified by an engineer he would be told to go back and get a wet stamp from the engineer. He noted that the ESA maps have no wet stamps and he did not think there was any guarantee that the map was thoroughly reviewed by anyone at the City and it is indeed the exact map as produced as related to the report. He also explained that he has not been able to find any genesis that links the ESA map as the original map and every other subsequent map was drawn from that. He felt the City should honor the maps that have been adopted, Lowell Wederneyer stated that he was not speaking as president of the HOA, but rather as an individual resident. He stated he was shocked at the casualness by which City staff was proposing to move a line which prohibits use of property by 25 feet on many properties, only for administrative convenience. He stated that staff has no data to support using the ESA maps and he felt that moving the line would be a taking of property, and there would be no justification for it, He added that the City cannot just point to a line on the map and say you cannot build beyond that line. Rather, the City must be able to justify that line because there are safety problems or other problems that create a nuisance. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Wedemeyer what he would advise the City to do. Mr. Wedemeyer answered that a City law should be established which says that any property owner who comes to the City and says the City has imposed upon me a standard which takes away a use that I would have had on my property, that question then places a burden upon the City to do one of two things; prove the nuisance or give a constitutional minimum. He suggested the City adopt an ordinance that says every owner is entitled to a constitutional minimum and the Planning Commission shall be empowered to determine that constitutional minimum. He stated this is feasible and required by law. Rick Carl stated that the coastal setback line was successfully moved on his property approximately 20 feet. He agreed with the comments that the City needs to come up Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 10 with a new system in determining the coastal setback lines and how that line applies to each individual property. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Carl is he applied for a Variance or a Zone Change, and if he was required to go before the Coastal Commission. Mr. Carl answered that he was able to apply for and receive a zone change, and was not required to go before the Coastal Commission at the time of his application. He felt that if he were to submit the same application today, the Coastal Commission would not grant that zone change, Director Rojas explained that the Coastal Commission staff's concerns began with Mr. Carl's project. He stated that there was an appeal to Mr. Carl's project submitted to the Coastal Commission that was eventually withdrawn and not acted upon. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if the City Attorney has expressed an opinion on the subject of takings or burdens upon the property owners to establish safety lines on their property. Director Rojas explained that this is not a moratorium area and there is not a prohibition on development, but rather a regulation on how much of the property can be developed and what is safe. Further, there are opportunities to develop these areas through a Variance application. From that perspective, the City Attorney does not feel there is a taking issue. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Martin to return to the podium, and asked him if city staff had given him a coastal setback line to work with when he did his geotechnical reports for the eight properties on Seacove Drive. Mr. Martin explained that he did site specific studies for each lot, and he then presented his findings to the City. These findings indicated where the coastal setback line should be located, based on geologic findings and the building setback would be located 25 feet from that line. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted a number of speakers commented that the ESA map was the law, and asked staff if they believe that because they have historically used the FSA map that makes it the law of the City. Director Rojas answered that staff does not believe use of the ESA map is the law of the City,, Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff what they believed was the legal basis for allowing the staff to use the ESA map, as it is not an official map. Director Rojas answered that the ESA map is an official map, and is referenced in the Coastal Specific Plan, Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 11 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the City has an official map. Director Rojas stated that the City has a zoning map. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff why they choose to use the ESA map when there is an official map. Director Rojas stated that the City uses the ESA map to determine the coastal setback line, as staff believes the ESA map is the genesis for the coastal setback line placed on the zoning map. Commissioner Perestam asked staff if there are ever other uses of the ESA map than something specific to the coastal setback line. Director Rojas answered that the ESA map is only used for coastal setback lines. Commissioner Tetreault felt that the coastal setback lines seem to be rather arbitrary, as many times they do not appear to represent the true geologic line of safety for building. He noted that in geologic studies done on individual properties have determined the line drawn on the map is too conservative and that there is room for safety seaward of that line. He felt that the City needs to establish some sort of procedure by which the line of safety can be determined. He also felt that the Coastal Commission may be a stumbling block, as their staff seems to look at this line somewhat rigidly and restrictively. He therefore did not know if adopting any of the maps would solve the problem because what the City is trying to do is restrict building based on safety, which will not be accomplished by adopting any of the three maps. He suggested that the City consider doing interpretations of areas up to thirty feet from the coastal setback line, rather than the five feet that is used now. He felt that this would take quite a bit of burden off of the property owners. Commissioner Knight felt that there have been quite a few questions and issues raised throughout this meeting and he was not comfortable with going along with the staff report. He felt that there were a lot of issues that needed clarification by the City Attorney, and was inclined to continue this public hearing to get some feedback from the City Attorney. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated ESA is a long defunct company, it didn't certify its map, and reached certain conclusions but didn't offer support for those conclusions. He also felt there was substantial evidence that the ESA map is seriously flawed. Since the request before the Commission is to amend the Code to adopt the ESA map, he suggested the Commission deny that request and recommend to the City Council that the City needs a new study. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to deny staff's request to adopt the ESA map and to recommend to the City Council that a new study be performed. Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 12 Commissioner Knight stated that was a motion he could not support, as such a motion would open up problems in terms of amending the Coastal Specific Plan to have a new study, a new map, and new standards. He also felt that there were too many unanswered issues that needed clarification, and would rather see this matter continued. Commissioner Ruttenberg clarified that his motion is to deny staffs recommendation to adopt the ESA map. He would then like to make it clear to the City Council that the City very much needs to focus on and review this situation. Commissioner Tomblin seconded Commissioner Ruttenberg's motion. He explained that he has heard enough to determine that right, wrong, or indifferent, a precedent has been set by staff on how they evaluate the location of the coastal setback line with the ESA map. He also noted that there is a process by which the property owner can supply site specific geology to amend that coastal setback line. He was concerned that this precedent has been set. He was also concerned that if the City were to do a new study, what would the City be opening itself up to in terms of the Coastal Commission. He stated that even though he seconded the motion, he would be more in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Ruttenberg did not think that the reaction of the Coastal Commission was something that the Planning Commission should take into consideration when making their decision. He also did not think there was any legal precedent set because staff has used the ESA map, noting that staff has even acknowledged that even though they have used the map does not make it the law. He stated that he is comfortable with his motion because he cannot see any way in which he would vote to support using the ESA map. Commissioner Tetreault felt that there is not a lot of evidentiary support for use of the ESA map or any of the other maps used to establish a coastal setback line. He therefore did not think the Commission should vote in favor of any of the maps at this time. He also felt that a vote of denial was a bit premature. However, because of all of the discussions with the public and with staff, he suggested this matter be sent back to staff and to the City Attorney for review and to render back to the Commission an opinion on what they feel is the appropriate thing to do next. Commissioner Perestam was in agreement with a continuation, as he too felt there were many unanswered questions. However, he was also in agreement that the Coastal Specific Plan Map was the more appropriate map to use. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to amend his motion and to recommend denial of the request to amend the code, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Knight asked Commissioner Ruttenberg to clarify where the City will stand if the recommendation is denied. Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 13 Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the City will be where it was before the request came to the Commission. He felt that Coastal Specific Plan map, even though it may have issues with scale, is the official map adopted by the City. The motion to deny the proposed code amendment was approved, (3-2)with Commissioners Knight and Tetreault dissenting. Director Rojas stated that Resolution will be brought to the next meeting for adoption. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked why staff could not change the draft Resolution in the staff report to read that the proposed code amendment was denied. Director Rojas answered that in order to adopt a resolution this evening the Commission will have to read into the record the reasons for denial of the proposed change. He also noted that the motion was to deny the code amendment and staff did not hear a motion to continue. Thus, without a motion to do so, the future discussion of that coastal setback line issue will not be put on a future Planning Commission agenda. Commissioner Perestarn did not think this was the Commission's intent when taking their vote. He thought that the intent was to continue the other part of this discussion to a future meeting. Commissioner Tetreault suggested a motion of reconsideration. Commissioner Perestarn moved to reconsider the decision, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned why reconsideration was necessary. He explained that the Commission agrees on one thing, they all have objections to all of the maps being used. He stated that the motion that was just passed says that the Planning Commission has denied the proposed amendment on the grounds that the ESA map should not be specifically adopted as the preferred map for use in determination of the location of the coastal setback line. Commissioner Tetreault asked Commissioner Perestarn what his concerns were with the motion that was passed. Commissioner Perestarn explained that his concern was that what was done was incomplete, as a part that what was before the Commission was for a recommendation to the City Council and the Commission did not reach a conclusion on this recommendation. Director Rojas noted that the item before the Commission was a code amendment. It was noticed as a specific code amendment dealing with the ESA maps and there was no notice of any other changes to any other documents. Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 14 Commissioner Tetreault felt that adopting the motion to deny staffs recommendation to adopt the ESA maps is, in effect, an affirmative action stating which map should be used. He noted that most of the Commission feels that none of the maps are appropriate maps to use. He would be more in favor of continuing this item to try to find a solution rather than sending this off to the City Council as is. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comments, however his motion addressed what was before the Commission. He suggested that further items be placed on a future agenda for staff and the Commission to address. Commissioner Perestam withdrew his motion to reconsider the decision, and Commissioner Tetreault agreed. Senior Planner Schonborn read the changes made to the draft Resolution. He noted on page 7 the heading would change to read "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes recommending that the City Council not amend Chapter 17.88 end 17.90 of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code and to not add language that specifies which maps to use to determine the location of the coastal setback line on individual properties." He referred to page 10 where Section 1 would be changed to read "The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered amendments to Chapter 17.88 and 17.90 of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code." Section 2 is modified to read "The Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.88 and 17.90 of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code regarding which maps to use to establish the location of the coastal setback line on individual properties are not necessary and the proposed amendment should be denied on the grounds that the ESA Map should not be specifically adopted as the preferred map for use in determining the location of the coastal setback line." Section 3 would be modified to read "For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the staff report, minutes, and other records of proceedings the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council not amend Chapter 17.88 and 17.90 of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code." Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 would then be deleted. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt the Resolution as read into the record, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Knight's stated he was still in favor of trying to incorporate other possible changes to the procedure before forwarding the package on to the City Council. The motion to adopt the PC Resolution as read into the record was approved, (3- 2) with Commissioners Knight and Tetreault dissenting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of October 27� 2009 Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 15 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0), ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on December 8, 2009 Commissioner Perestarn noted that the Planning Commission would like to add an item to address the broader issues of the recommendation regarding the coastal setback line. Director Rojas stated that this can be added to the December 8th Agenda, however he did not feel that would give staff enough time to prepare a complete staff report. He noted that the Commission may want to wait to see what the Council does on December 1 5th with this item. The Commission agreed to agendize the item in February. The Commission agreed to place an item on the December 8th agenda on whether to cancel the December 22, 2009 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:32 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 24,2009 Page 16