Loading...
PC MINS 20131008 Approved November 12, 2013 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2013 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Emenhiser at 7:05 p.rn, at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present., Commissioners Gerstner, Lewis, Nelson, Tetreault, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman Leon, Chairman Emenhiser Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Kim, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Emenhiser suggested moving agenda item No. 2 to be heard first, followed by agenda item No, 3 and agenda item No. 1. The Commission unanimously agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their October 18t meeting the City Council adopted the Ordinance expanding the notification for City Tree Review Permits, approved the final content of the draft Housing Element, and agreed to purchase open space in Malaga Canyon, which is related to an item on tonight's agenda. He also reported that at the upcoming October 15th meeting the City Council will consider a possible code amendment related to modifying the construction hours. Director Rojas distributed sixteen items of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 3. Commissioner Tetreault reported the he responded to an email related to agenda item No. 3, but with no substantial comments. Vice Chairman Leon reported on his attendance at the Mayor's Breakfast as well as the PBCA meeting. Commissioner Nelson reported that he attended the CJPIA meeting with the City Council on Saturday, October 5Ih COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Heic Iht Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2013-00317): 29137 Covecrest Drive Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the two applications. She stated that staff determined that, given the additions are not very visible and the entry addition will be recessed back from the garage fagade, staff felt the bulk and mass of the resulting residence will be relatively the same as the existing residence. She noted there are no substantial changes proposed to the setbacks and the height will remain the same. Therefore, staff was able to make all of the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the Height Variation and Site Plan Review. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the project as recommended and conditioned' by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. The motion was approved, thereby approving PC Resolution 2013-22 (7-0). 3. Revision to Coastal Permit, Grading Permit, & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2012-00141): 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Vice Chairman Leon disclosed he is in the process of inheriting a home on Via Cambron, but believed it is more than 500 feet from the subject property. He noted he does not own the property at this time, and he did not think this would have any bearing on his decision on this hearing. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, beginning with a background of the project and the previous approval. She discussed view corridors outlined in the City's Coastal Specific Plan, noting the subject site is not within one of the identified view corridors. She also explained that properties outside of a view corridor are subject to a Guideline in the Coastal Specific Plan that discusses a two-degree down arc from a viewing station. She displayed several photos of the new, revised silhouette on the property as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West and the walking trail along the public Planning Commission Minutes October 8,2013 Page 2 right-of-way. She briefly discussed the previously approved project at the site, and the Commission's reasons for approving the Coastal Permit. She displayed a site plan of the revised proposed project, noting the size of the residence is the same, however the ridgeline is lower and the garage has been reduced in size. She noted the increase in grading quantity due to the proposed revisions. She stated that staff feels the increase in grading quantity is minimal compared to the reduction in impacts the applicant has proposed in reducing the ridgeline and increasing the front setback. Director Rojas explained that this project was previously before the Commission, a decision was made, and there was no appeal of that decision. Because this is a Coastal Permit, the City is required to give notice to the Coastal Commission of all final City decisions. As a result of that notice, the decision was appealed by the Coastal Commission, explaining at that point it is out of the City's hands and between the applicant and the Coastal Commission staff. He noted that in this case a solution was worked out that addressed the Coastal Commission's concerns. Staff was notified of the changes and the applicant submitted a revised project that is back before the Planning Commission. He explained that since this is a de novo hearing the entire project is before the Commission, not just the revisions. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff why the Coastal Commission had concerns about this particular project. Director Rojas answered that their concern was the blockage of views from the public right-of-way. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the viewing station and viewing plane that is referenced in the Coastal Specific Plan, noting it is a guideline and not an actual part of the Development Code. He questioned what this guideline refers to. Director Rojas explained this property does not fall within a view corridor, and the Coastal Specific Plan discusses protecting views from viewing stations. The guideline is to help guide the City to meet the goal of minimizing views from public rights —of-way. Commissioner Tetreault asked where the two degree downward arc is calculated from in relation to this particular property. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that it would be from a standing position on an adjoining public trail, explaining that when driving on Palos Verdes Drive West this property only impacts a small percentage of the total view. Thus, staff felt that walking down the trail on Palos Verdes Drive West was a more applicable viewing station. Commissioner Tetreault questioned how staff determines a viewing station. Director Rojas read from the August 2012 staff report which explained how staff determined the viewing station for this project and how the down arc was calculated. Planning Commission Minutes October 8,2013 Page 3 Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Louie Tomaro (applicant/architect) explained he has revised the plans by lowering the building and pushing it back ten feet. He briefly discussed his communications with the Coastal Commission, noting that clear findings by the Coastal Commission were made that the home will not be in a specific view corridor, that there was an original home on the property that blocked views from Palos Verdes Drive West, and there have been a number of projects recently approved in the area that are similar in scale. He noted the Coastal Commission asked him to provide a clear horizon view over the structure, which he has done. He noted that the Coastal Commission is now in support of the proposed project. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Tomaro what the elevation of the two degree down arc was in regards to the maximum ridgeline of the residence. Mr. Tomaro answered that he did not calculate that, as the house has moved ten feet further back on the property. He estimated the elevation to be approximately 268.5. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the silhouette currently on the property was adjusted to reflect the current proposal. Mr. Tomaro answered that the silhouette on the property reflects the current proposal. Commissioner Tetreault noted that none of the photos presented by staff shows a view from the street looking straight across the property. He felt that from Palos Verdes Drive West, heading south, this project does not appear to provide a clear horizon view over the structure. He noted the top of the silhouette is above the horizon line when he was standing on the walkway along Palos Verdes Drive West, noting all he could see was the very tops of the peaks on Catalina Island. He asked, if the Coastal Commission asked that he provide a clear horizon view over the structure, from what or where they were referring to. Mr. Tomaro explained that Coastal Commission staff visited the property and spent quite a bit of time on this subject. He stated the viewing station was directly in the middle of the property from the view of a person walking on the decomposed granite walking path on Palos Verdes Drive West. Commissioner Tetreault took exception, noting that he went to the property specifically to see the horizon line from the position Mr. Tomaro just described, and he could not see the ocean or the horizon line at all due to the proposed structure. Mr. Tomaro stated he has communication from Coastal Commission staff confirming they were in support of the project with the ridgeline at the current proposed height. He added that he would not want to go through this process again without the support of the Coastal Commission, and if the Planning Commission approves this project the Coastal Commission will once again be notified. Ptanninq Commission Minutes October 8,2013 Page 4 Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Tomaro to discuss the proposed landscaping. Mr. Tomaro explained the Coastal Commission asked for a condition to address and control the height of the landscaping. He referred to condition No. 41 of the Resolution. Raju Chabbria spoke in support of the project, noting the architect and owner have worked very closely with the Coastal Commission to get this far with the project. Ramesh Khosla stated that he is the father of the owner and that they have taken almost everything into consideration with this design. He assured the Commission that everything will be taken care of and they will build a good house that everyone will be proud of. Jason Sikola did not feel this house conforms to the Coastal Specific Plan guidelines. He questioned why the lot could not be graded lower. He felt rules were stretched for this project and questioned if the City has done their due diligence. He referred to the homes built at Oceanfront Estates, and noted they are built at a level quite a bit lower than the street level. He stated he did not previously contest this project, however if the Planning Commission approves the current project he will contest it with the City and the Coastal Commission. Nick Stiassni pointed out on a photo where he lives, noting there is nobody who is more affected by this project more than he and his family. He noted the owners have met with him several times and been very concerned about maintaining his privacy. He stated he is very comfortable with the proposed project and was in favor of the project as presented. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if there was anything in the existing conditions of approval that documents the requirement that someone standing on the trail at a given point can see the horizon, as required by the Coastal Commission. Director Rojas answered there is currently no such condition. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they would object to a condition being added that said following the completion of construction, someone standing at a specified point on the trail should be able to see the horizon. Director Rojas answered the Commission can add that condition of approval, noting that can most likely be verified during the framing process. Shamita Khosla (owner) distributed a photo of the property to the Commission to view and stated they have worked very hard to get to this point and would like to build their home in this community, Planning Commission Minutes October 8,2013 Page 5 Commissioner Tetreault stated he had a question for the person who took the photo the Commission was currently viewing, Ravi Khosla (owner) stated his dream when he purchased this property was to build a two-story home like the one on the neighboring property. However, going through the process he realized it was not right and therefore chose to build a home that does not require any type of variance from the Development Code. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Khosla where he was standing when he took the photo that was distributed. Mr. Khosla answered he took the photo while they were going through the process with the Coastal Commission staff and he was standing on the walkway on Palos Verdes Drive West. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Khosla if he would be agreeable to a condition of approval that the final structure be below the horizon line from the viewpoint documented in Mr. Khosla's photograph. Mr. Khosla answered he would be agreeable to such a condition. Commissioner Lewis asked that a copy of the picture that was distributed be given to staff to be part of the record. Lenee Bilski stated she sent a letter in with detailed comments about the project, and was happy the Coastal Commission had the same concerns. She stated she was not opposed to the owner building on his property, but was opposed to the project as presented as it protrudes into the public views. She stated the City has a Coastal Specific Plan, and this project site being within the coastal zone, is therefore subject to that program. She saw no indication that the grade has been lowered to comply with the appeal to lower the ridgeline to preserve and protect the public views. She felt if the Commission allows this developer to put aside the foundations that are the policy of the Coastal Specific Plan they will be setting a precedent for not only the City but coastal properties throughout California. She stated that all of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South are considered a visual corridor and therefore should be observed as such, and the developer should follow the standards in place. She also questioned the measurement from eye level, and felt that the measurement should be lowered to be eye level from a vehicle. She felt the property should be graded down lower to bring it into compliance. Louie Tomaro (in rebuttal) stated that the Coastal Commission saw that the original proposal did not meet the intent of what they wanted, while this current proposal was approved and meets the intent of the LCP. He also noted that the view provided with this proposal is far improved from what it was when the original house with large trees were on the property. He stated the Coastal Commission acknowledged the view is Planning Commission Minutes October 6,2013 Page 6 being enhanced and also acknowledged they are trying to be consistent with their approvals, noting the three previously approved projects on Palos Verdes Drive. Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis stated he had voted to approve the project when it was previously before the Commission and he hasn't heard anything at this meeting to change that vote. He noted that the applicant has stated the Coastal Commission was in support of the project if the ridgeline of the home were lowered sufficiently to make the horizon visible. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendation, with an additional condition added that the final ridgeline be lower than the horizon from the point where a pedestrian is standing on the path on Palos Verdes Drive West at the mid-point of the lot looking out towards the ocean. Director Rojas clarified that staff will write the condition so that the ridgeline cannot be higher than the ridgeline level depicted by the existing silhouette on the property, as shown in the submitted photograph. In addition, he felt that the height of the pedestrian should be clarified. He explained that in the August 2012 staff report, staff took a five foot measurement from the 268 elevation on the path, Coastal Commission staff was at the site, and others may have taken pictures from the site, all at different heights. He did not want to set up the situation where someone walks by the property and complains they cannot see the horizon and therefore the house has to be lowered. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion to clarify the measurement be taken from a six foot point above the path level, and that the photo displayed by staff be added as an attachment to the Resolution as a reference, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Tetreault briefly reviewed the history of the approvals on this property, and noted that when this project was before the Commission in 2012 he voted to approve the project. However, looking back to a 1999 City approval, he felt that if this was the basis by which the Planning Commission approved the project, they were factually incorrect with their reasoning, explaining that at a ridgeline height of 275.75 feet, which is what the ridgeline would have been, there is no view of the ocean. He felt he established that with his site visit when he stood on the path, at a point at the center of the property, and could not see the horizon over the silhouette. He noted that is at the 272.5 elevation, which is lower than the original 275,75 feet. He also referred to staff's presentation, noting staff did not present a picture of the silhouette from the point being described. However, staff did present pictures of the silhouette taken from different angles and staff did comment that the flags on the silhouette were above the horizon line and remained that way consistently while walking the pathway. Therefore, he felt this is a project that appears, by the evidence before the Commission, to allow for no ocean view and very little Catalina Island view for anyone walking along this pathway. He felt the City has Ordinances, the Coastal Specific Plan, and Guidelines to Planning Cornmssion Minutes October 8,2013 Page 7 help protect the shared public resource of views. He stated that, when looking at the Coastal Commission's appeal of this project and their reasoning behind it, he made a mistake when he voted in favor of this project last year. He felt that more things could be done to help restore the horizon line and therefore could not support the project as presented. Commissioner Lewis asked Commissioner Tetreault if the condition he added in his motion would give him a level of comfort that there would be a horizon view. Commissioner Tetreault understood, however he also knew how things get built, and felt that once the structure was at the point where one can actually see that there is a problem, they will most likely be hundreds of thousands of dollars into the construction. He questioned what the City will do at that point if the structure is too high. He stated the plan before the Commission shows a structure at 272.5 feet and he cannot approve that. Vice Chairman Leon stated he looked up the average height of women and men in the United States, and felt that a five-foot viewing height, as opposed to a six-foot viewing height, would more closely reflect the average height. He felt the condition suggested by Commissioner Lewis is draconian enough to ensure that the public view is protected and would encourage the applicant to check the height a bit more thoroughly during construction. Therefore, with this condition he felt he could support the project. Commissioner Nelson felt the applicant has exercised extreme patience under a situation of maximum duress. He noted the applicant has support of the neighbor most affected by the construction, there are other homes nearby at a similar or higher elevation, and there was a home previously on the property that offered less of an ocean view as the currently proposed project. He can therefore support the project as conditioned by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he voted to support the previous project, and would vote again to support the current project. He stated he also supports Commissioner Lewis' amendment to help mitigate the view discrepancies. Commissioner Gerstner stated he also supported the previous project and will again support this project. He appreciated what the Coastal Commission has done in appealing this project and the eventual outcome, and felt this is a better project because of it. As to the proposed condition, he explained he is always concerned that conditions do not have enough teeth to them, and if there is a condition that says the horizon line must be maintained then he would expect that to be the case. If it means additional work must be done to meet this condition he would put it on the architect and owner to make sure that happens. Commissioner Tetreault asked for what purpose the displayed photo would be used. Planning Commission Minutes October 8,2013 Page 8 Commissioner Lewis explained that the photo represents what the Coastal Commission would approve if it goes back to them. Therefore, he felt the photo would be used as a benchmark and what it is compared with is a photo taken of the project as built. He agreed with the Vice Chairman's comment about the average height of people and was comfortable lowering the viewing height by two inches. He stated that his intention with this added condition was to make it a draconian condition and require the viewing line be strictly complied with. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion that the view be taken from a standing height of five feet ten inches on the path, rather than six feet, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. Chairman Emenhiser stated he was in the minority by voting against this project originally, and would probably be in the minority again. He did feel the project has been improved and will be built, and was troubled that the Coastal Commission has a higher standard for coastal views than Rancho Palos Verdes. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they had language that could be read to the Commission, or was this a case where the Resolution would have to come back to the Commission for approval. Director Rojas stated staff understands the motion and can craft a condition that meets the motion, and it is up to the Commission if they want to see the condition before they approve it. He added that he looked up the average difference of eye level to the top of the head, which is five inches. Commissioner Lewis calculated that if the height of the lens is at five feet ten inches, the approximate height of the individual would be six feet two inches. Therefore, he amended his motion that the height be five feet seven inches, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Vice Chairman Leon stated that the typical way to determine if a structure is at the correct height is, while in framing, a surveyor checks the height of the structure. He would prefer setting a height above mean sea level that can be verified during the framing stage. At the request of the Chairman, Commissioner Lewis repeated his motion that the Commission approve staff's recommendation with the added condition that the photo being displayed be attached to the Resolution and that the final ridgeline be no higher than what is depicted in the photograph as seen from a photo taken with a camera taken at a height of five feet seven inches standing in the middle of the path at the mid- point of the lot. The motion was approved, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2013-23, (5-2) with Commissioner Tetreault and Chairman Emenhiser dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes October 6,2013 Page 9 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. General Plan consistency finding: Malaga Canyon Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, noting at their last meeting the City Council authorized staff to execute two purchase agreements to buy approximately 58 acres of open space from two different sellers. He explained the money will come from the Federal Government to buy these properties, and the purpose of this Federal Grant is to preserve habitat. He noted that in addition to the preservation of habitat, the City Council noted the Conceptual Trails Plan has five trails that traverse these properties and the purchase will allow the City the opportunity to implement these trails. In addition, it will allow the City to do drainage work in the canyon area without having the obtain easements over the properties. He explained that before the City can purchase these properties the State Code requires the Planning Commission determine consistency with the General Plan. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution that acquisition is consistent with the City's General Plan. Commissioner Lewis noted his home is within 500 feet of the area, and therefore recused himself from the hearing. He left the dais. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. The motion was approved and PC Resolution 2013-24 was approved, (6-0). Commissioner Lewis returned to the dais. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-agenda for the meeting on October 22, 2103 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 8,2013 Page 10