Loading...
PC MINS 20140513 Approved 6/24/2014 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 13, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Nelson at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Gerstner, James, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Nelson. Chairman Leon arrived during agenda item No. 3. Absent: Commissioner Emenhiser was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Deputy Finance Director Downs. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to hear agenda item No. 3 before agenda item No. 1. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas noted there were no items to report from the City Council's April 29th and May 5th meetings. He reported that the appeal hearing associated with the commercial antennas on the 7-Eleven building will occur at the upcoming May 20th City Council meeting; however, at the applicant's request, the hearing will be continued to June 17th Director Rojas distributed three items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 1, seven items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 2, and two items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. General Plan Consistency Finding for the Capital Improvement Proaram Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, explaining this is a yearly procedural item wherein the Planning Commission must find the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is consistent with the General Plan and ultimately the City Council will approve the CIP. He stated that staff has reviewed the items in the CIP and feels they are consistent with the General Plan. Deputy Director Downs briefly explained how the document is prepared and stated she was available for any questions from the Commission. Vice Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner asked if all of the items in the document were previously approved as expenditures by the City Council. Deputy Director Downs explained the City Council approves projects to be funded one year at a time. She added that as far as the projects in the document on both the funded and the unfunded lists, most were in last year's document which has been reviewed and approved by the City Council. She noted some projects have been added to this document that were not in last year's document, and each of these projects either addresses a safety issue, supports a City Council goal, or has a grant opportunity associated with it. Commissioner Tomblin referred to the Civic Center skate plaza in the document, noting the several restrictions on the land at the Civic Center. He asked if staff will be ensuring these types of projects are proposed in the non-restricted area of the Civic Center in terms of the General Plan. Director Rojas answered that whenever a project moves forward to be approved and built, staff will ensure the project is consistent with the land use designations of the site and any restrictions. He referred to correspondence that was submitted by the public on this subject, specifically the concern on the proposed relocation of storage yards throughout the City. He stated that these locations have not yet been identified, but once identified staff will ensure the storage yard can be located at a site that is in compliance with the General Plan and zoning. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the General Plan consistency finding for the Capital Improvement Program as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. PC Resolution 2014-15 was approved, (5-0-1) with Chairman Leon abstaining. 1. Green Hills operational review Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 2 Director Rojas explained that this item was previously before the Commission, and the public hearing has been continued several times to give Green Hills and the residents of the neighboring condominium complex an opportunity to discuss their concerns and try to find agreement on a way to mitigate the concerns that have been raised by the condo residents. He noted that an agreement has not yet been reached between the parties, however Green Hills requested the opportunity to make a presentation to the Planning Commission outlining the possible mitigation measures they are proposing. He explained that after hearing Green Hills' proposals, staff is looking for direction from the Planning Commission on whether to further continue the item or to direct staff to prepare a future Resolution to impose certain CUP conditions on Green Hills. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff about the status of the moratorium on burials at this particular area discussed by the Commission at a previous meeting. Director Rojas answered that this moratorium is on hold, as the Commission has taken no action to impose it. He acknowledged that at one time the Commission had directed staff to draft a Resolution to impose a temporary moratorium on burials on the mausoleum rooftop, however the Commission stopped short in enacting it as both Green Hills and the condominium residents agreed to meet and try to work out the issues between themselves. Senior Planner Schonborn presented a brief staff report, explaining staff had received an email from Green Hills requesting the opportunity to present to the Planning Commission some concepts and methods they have been developing to address some of the concerns raised by the neighboring condominium association. Ellen Berkowitz (representing Green Hills) stated she was happy to report that recently an agreement had been reached with the condominium association on certain issues. She noted there are some residents who do not agree with all of the issues, however an agreement has been reached on a number of items. She stated Green Hills has been working with the HOA to find resolutions to their concerns by improving operations at Green Hills to address these concerns. She reminded the Commission that Green Hills built the mausoleum and the roof-top burials exactly as they were approved by the Commission, and there are no allegations that Green Hills has violated any of their conditions of approval. She noted that Green Hills has been very willing to voluntarily respond to the homeowners concerns without the need for a moratorium or additional restrictions. Ms. Berkowitz discussed the proposals Green Hills has made to help alleviate the Vista Verde resident's concerns, beginning with voluntary improvements to operations for . somewhat immediate implementation. These included restricting amplified sound, reducing maintenance and burial hours, installation of new signage, improved noticing of activities, fees on late burial ceremonies, a security hotline, continuing the temporary tenting for burial ceremonies, and installation of a fence along the ramp. She then discussed the proposed mechanical improvements which include minimizing the mini- Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 3 haul use, in of exhaust fan improvements, improved mower procedures, and enhanced drainage maintenance. Lastly, she discussed the long-term improvements, noting that Green Hills still has to do some investigating as to the best approach for these. These proposed improvements included temporary privacy panels, fence options, foliage and hedges, custom tenting, and custom temporary screening. In conclusion, she stated Green Hills intends to implement all of the immediate improvements consistent with the agreement reached with the HOA, further analyze the long-term improvements, and at the next annual review will present to the Commission the results of the immediate improvements as well as the results of the analysis of the long-term improvements and any recommendations as to further long-term improvements. She noted that there are residents who do not agree with anything Green Hills has proposed, and while Green Hills respects everyone's right to make their thoughts known to the Commission and the City, she did not believe anyone has the right to interfere with burial services. She did not feel that clanging pots, activating car alarms, or conducting oneself in a disrespectful manner that intrudes on mourner's most private moments was appropriate. Commissioner Gerstner asked Ms. Berkowitz to clarify what the fee on late burial ceremonies entails. Ms. Berkowitz explained that burials are not to be booked after 3:00 p.m., however for those burials scheduled after 3 p.m. a fee is charged on any late arrivals. She noted this is a procedure that is currently in place and Green Hills will continue with this policy. Commissioner Tomblin stated that at past meetings he has suggested an attendant from Green Hills be at each burial to ensure the services are conducted in a proper manner. He asked if the fee for late burials would include an attendant at the burial. Ms. Berkowitz explained the fee is charged because the park closes early and there are overtime payments to be made to staff who stay late. However, she was advised by Green Hills that an attendant can be made available at any later burials on the mausoleum roof. Commissioner James asked Ms: Berkowitz to further explain the proposed ramp fence. Ms. Berkowitz explained that what Green Hills originally proposed was to install a wooden fence, however there was some concern expressed as to whether that was desirable. The last report back to her was that the HOA would like that wooden fence installed on the ramp. However, if the answer is no they don't want the wooden fence, then Green Hills will be happy to delete it from the list. Commissioner James asked if Green Hills would be willing to silhouette the fence. Ms. Berkowitz answered that Green Hills would be happy to silhouette the fence. Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 4 Vice Chairman Nelson stated he was visiting the site at the time a service was taking place in this area. He began by asking if the HOA involved is in Rancho Palos Verdes or in Lomita. Ms. Berkowitz answered the Vista Verde condominiums are in Lomita. Vice Chairman Nelson asked if residents in Lomita would receive written notice from Rancho Palos Verdes regarding any improvements done at Green Hills. Ms. Berkowitz referred to the mailing radius, noting that residents in Lomita and Rolling Hills Estates, and surrounding cities were notified. Vice Chairman Nelson stated that he noticed mold in the drainage swale behind the mausoleum and felt that has to be immediately cleaned up. He also felt something must be done with the exhaust fans, which are unsightly and very loud. He felt these were two things that could be done immediately that would satisfy a lot of the turmoil. Ms. Berkowitz appreciated the suggestion. Commissioner Tomblin stated the Commission has held off on implementing a moratorium in this area based on an agreement being reached, however he felt that possibly an agreement truly has not been reached and the Commission could vote to implement the moratorium. He asked Ms. Berkowitz to walk through her letter and point out the items she felt an agreement had been reached so that the HOA attorney can agree or rebut the contents of the letter. Ms. Berkowitz stated she would prefer to do that with the attorney for the HOA, noting that there are residents in the audience who do not appear to be in agreement with items that were agreed upon. She pointed out that there is an HOA Board that has approved certain things and there are those here at the meeting who may not agree with the Board's decision. She explained that when she says an agreement has been reached, it's with the Board and not necessarily with the individual residents. She stated it was her understanding and she was advised that agreements had been reached with the Board on the amplified sound, the change in hours from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., the installation of the wooden fence, the hours of maintenance from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. She stated Green Hills volunteered to put in the additional signage and the security hotline telephone number. She stated it was her understanding there is an agreement to continue using the tents that are currently being used until a longer term solution is found. In regards to the mechanical improvements, she noted minimizing the use of the mini-haul was something Green Hills volunteered to do, as well as recalibrating the fan and not using two lawn mowers simultaneously. She stated installing a special sprinkler to minimize the drainage was something that Green Hills was asked to do, and has agreed to do. With regards to the list of long-term improvements, she stated that Green Hills advised they would investigate all of the items on the list and understood there was agreement that this would be investigated. With regards to phase 2 of the mausoleum, Green Hills will silhouette that when it has Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 5 been designed and Green Hills is ready to move forward. It was her understanding that there is agreement on that as well. Director Rojas stated that it is staff's position that the annual review happens in January, therefore the next annual review will be January 2015, unless modified by the Commission. Julie Keye stated she was at the HOA meeting and it was her understanding that the only thing she remembered agreeing on was looking into a fence around the pool area and building a wall at the maintenance yard. She then read into the record the letter she submitted to the Planning Commission. Sharon Loveys referred to the April 24, 2007 Planning Commission minutes, when the Conditional Use Permit was approved. She quoted from the minutes that staff had said the condition dictates that the mausoleum not impair a view no matter what the height of the structure is. She stated a silhouette was never erected for the building of this mausoleum, and questioned if staff addressed the issues thoroughly before recommending approval. She questioned if the Conditional Use Permit has had a yearly review, and if so do the neighbors get a notification before the hearing. Lori Brown stated it's not just the burials at the top of the mausoleum that are the problem. She noted there are visitors and activity at the top of the mausoleum seven days a week, especially on weekends and holidays. She felt the simple solution would be no more burials on top of the mausoleum. Matt Martin felt that Ms. Berkowitz and her presentation was a lie and misrepresentation, and stated that is how they have handled the entire process before the Planning Commission. He referenced comments made by former Commissioner Lewis in which he stated he had no idea that rooftop burials were included in this proposal. He staffed the setback was changed from 80 feet to 8 feet almost overnight without any public discussion on the matter. He felt that this project is so large and complex that it was easy to sneak things in without the proper approvals. He felt that the improvements proposed by Green Hills were garbage and did nothing to address any of the true problems that were created. He stated there are multiple comments from staff on the record that say these improvements will not impact the resident's views, which turned out to not be true. He stated there is record of staff stating noise will not be a problem, and noise obviously is a problem. He stated his ultimate wish is that the Conditional Use Permit is revoked. Michael McLachlan (attorney representing the HOA). He explained that there have been meetings between Green Hills and the HOA, and some agreements had been reached, however many of the points in Ms. Berkowitz's presentation were news to him. He felt that this meeting is a continuation of the Green Hills annual review and should be handled as such. Secondly, he explained the homeowners have voted as a group on certain proposals and the Board has approved certain other things. Beginning at the top of the list, he noted the amplified sound issue is agreed upon. Next, he explained Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 6 there are two components to the operational issues, the pre-burial activities and the maintenance. He stated the 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. hours are agreed upon. The second component is the limitation of rooftop burials, and there is a split on this issue between his clients. While some feel there should be no rooftop burials, the Board has stated that a 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. restriction on ceremonies is agreeable, however the notion that Green Hills may do ceremonies after 3 p.m. and charge an additional fee is something that was not discussed and was not agreed upon. Going down the list, he stated there was an agreement on the security hotline. He stated the use of the tents is still in development, noting that the HOA does want the privacy tents and they should all be facing away from the condominium building. In regards to the ramp fence, he felt that there may have been a mistake or miscommunication, as his clients have unanimously rejected the ramp fence. He stated that there was a critical issue not mentioned, the offer of Green Hills to build a pool fence which the Board has accepted. Mr. McLachlan felt that this all can be divided into two issues; the current problems and mitigation and the larger issues under the Conditional Use Permit, which is the future construction. He felt that this second issue is where he and Ms. Berkowitz may not be on the same page. He explained it was very important that Green Hills go back to the starting line in terms of the next phase of the construction. He noted that the Commission has already approved the 8 foot setback and the height limitations. He explained that the agreement he intended to create with Green Hills was that there would be a modification of the Conditional Use Permit that surrendered the ability to build as was presented to the Commission in 2007. He felt that would give the Commission an opportunity to look at phase 2 and hopefully understand the setbacks and issues and make the right decisions. He was very concerned about the economic consequences to the condo owners as a result of this mausoleum, as well as with future construction. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. McLachlan to go through Ms. Berkowitz's letter, as Ms. Berkowitz did earlier, and identify point by point the items that he felt an agreement had been reached on and the ones where an agreement had not been reached. Mr. McLachlan referred to the letter, stating that there was an agreement on bullet point 1, the amplified sound; in regards to bullet point 2, he stated there was not an agreement, as he felt the hours should be limited to 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. and there should be no opportunity for late burials; there was not an agreement to bullet point 3, the wood fence; there was an agreement in terms of maintenance hours; the signage was voluntary, and he felt that was agreeable; there was agreement on the security hotline; the fifth bullet point on page five, the tents, there was an agreement; the issue of the mini-hauler, he felt there had not been sufficient discussion; there was agreement on not using multiple lawn mowers; the sprinkler issue had not been discussed; regarding the outdoor privacy panels, he stated there was no agreement as there had yet to be a discussion; it was his understanding that the roll-up temporary panels had been rejected for a variety of reasons, in favor of the tenting. Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 7 Commissioner Gerstner noted that some of the items Mr. McLachlan stated there was an agreement to were items that were to be looked into further and investigated. He questioned if Mr. McLachlan was agreeing to investigating the item and seeking a resolution that will be part of this annual review, or if he was agreeing that it be investigated and a solution be worked out between the parties. Mr. McLachlan answered that the HOA would like these long term solutions that are being investigated to be addressed as part of this annual review rather than next year's annual review. Mr. McLachlan continued on to page 7 of the document, noting that in regards to phase 2 he felt that between himself and Ms. Berkowitz they could probably craft some suggestions to give to staff to help alleviate the concerns over the current CUP and what it allows Green Hills to do in the next phase. He clarified that for phase 2 he would like to start from scratch and everything should be on the table, the setbacks, the height, as well as roof top burials. He explained there is now a base line with the construction of phase 1, and there should be a more thorough discussion before the approval of phase 2. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. McLachlan if he was asking phase 2 be taken out of the CUP, since keeping it in would mean that if they were to sell, the homeowners would then have to disclose there has been new construction approved in this area. Mr. McLachlan clarified that he was asking phase 2 be pulled out of the Conditional Use Permit as it currently exists. Commissioner James stated that it appears Green Hills has offered a number of suggestions which they hope will mitigate some of the problems. However, he has not heard any suggestions from the HOA in regards to measures that may help mitigate some of the problems. He also questioned if there has been any negotiations between the two parties in trying to solve the issues. Mr. McLachlan stated that there has been some negotiations, noting that it was his recollection that the only big thing that was proposed that was outright rejected was the ramp fence. He noted that there is a disagreement among the membership of the HOA, however there have been votes taken and the positions he referenced were majority votes or HOA Board approval. Commissioner James asked Mr. McLachlan to clarify what he is asking the Commission to do at this meeting. Mr. McLachlan explained that his proposal is that he and Ms. Berkowitz work together to compile the list that was agreed upon, that Green Hills finish their mechanical and other reviews, and between the attorneys they will compile a list of what needs to be presented to staff in terms of what can be agreed upon and what should be presented to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 8 Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. McLachlan why he believed the change in the setback occurred in 2007. Mr. McLachlan stated he spent quite a bit of time analyzing it, and in the end the staff report discussed 8 feet. He stated there was very little discussion about it, and he felt it was the result of an error that occurred that was not caught by staff or the Commission. He felt the City should be looking at this to figure out what happened, however he questioned if this would solve the current problem. He stated the building is there and is not going to go away, so decisions have to be made on how to deal with it. Chairman Leon asked Mr. McLachlan what type of time frame he was envisioning in order to work through these issues. Mr. McLachlan asked Ms. Berkowitz to join him before answering. Ms. Berkowitz did not think it would take too long to refine the list, however she felt it would take slightly longer to come back with the long term solutions. She stated that they could come back to the Commission with an agreement on the items on the list relatively soon, however the longer term items may take as long as ninety days to find a good resolution for a long term solution. Mr. McLachlan stated ninety days was acceptable. Chairman Leon noted that there appears to be many factions within the homeowners at the condo complex. He asked if there is any kind of a process for the HOA to actually have an agreement that is binding, or will the Commission always be faced with the residents who agree and the residents who do not agree. Mr. McLachlan explained that the HOA is a legal entity and it has a voting structure. He stated that most all of the issues he gave yeah or nays to were presented at an HOA meeting and voted on. He noted that all of the Board members are present in the audience and the Board members have the authority to bind the HOA upon a vote. Ms. Berkowitz (in rebuttal) stated that an agreement has been reached on most items, noting that further discussion will be needed for the 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. hours. She always felt there was an agreement, in concept, on the phase 2 issue as it is her understanding that Green Hills does not intend to build the building as it is currently designed on paper. Director Rojas explained that if, at the end of the day the parties have reached an agreement on the issues, staffs recommendation would likely be that the Planning Commission incorporate these agreements into the Conditional Use Permit so that they are enforceable by the City. He also noted that the Commission had asked staff for legal input on the Planning Commission's ability to ban or restrict internments on the current building as well as future buildings, and staff intends to have that input in a full staff report the next time this item is heard before the Commission. Lastly, he noted that Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 9 both August meetings are available to hear this item if the Commission continues the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner stated that this has been referred to several times as an expansion of the facility, and asked staff if that was a proper representation, or is the mausoleum just another building that is within the CUP. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the Master Plan shows one long building, and that the one long building is being built in phases. Commissioner Gerstner recalled that there was a discussion at a Planning Commission meeting on the setback change, and asked staff to email him the link to the specific meeting video so that he could review the discussion. Commissioner Tomblin stated he too would like to review the tape of the meeting as requested by Commission Gerstner. In reviewing past minutes, he would also like staff to comment on Commissioner Knight's comments about the silhouette. Senior Planner Schonborn clarified that the silhouette discussed by Commissioner Knight was actually a silhouette that had been erected for another mausoleum on the north eastern side, Inspiration Slope, which had a specific condition of approval in the CUP that required that it be built so that it did not impair views from the Peninsula Verde neighborhood. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he was still curious about the eight foot setback and asked if this was something staff wanted to comment on now, or would they prefer to discuss it at the next meeting. Director Rojas recalled that the reduced setback request was discussed in the staff report at the time the mausoleum proposal was before the Planning Commission in 2007 and his recollection was that staff did not think it would be a problem. Senior Planner Schonborn added that the initial Master Plan came before the Commission in February 2007, and the Commission had continued the public hearing to April. He recalled that during the time between meetings the applicant submitted some requested modifications to some of the conditions of approval to more accurately reflect what was shown in the Master Plan layout, one of which was the building setback of eight feet. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to the August 12, 2014 meeting and that a 90 day moratorium on burials be imposed on top of the mausoleum, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the Commission has not yet received a ruling from the City Attorney on the legality of placing a temporary moratorium, nor is there a Resolution prepared reflecting the moratorium. He suggested that the Commission get Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 10 a ruling from the City Attorney as soon as possible, and that staff then prepare a Resolution such that the Commission can vote on it. He did not feel he could vote on a moratorium without having a Resolution before him. Director Rojas clarified that the City Attorney has opined that the Commission can impose a temporary moratorium, however she has not yet opined on whether or not the Commission can permanently ban burials at the site. He understood the motion to be that on August 12th the Commission will have before them the Resolution in regards to the 90 day moratorium so that, if there is still disagreement between the parties, the Commission will have the ability to do take action that evening on imposing a temporary moratorium on burials. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to amend his motion to continue the public hearing to August 12, 2014 and that the August 12th staff report will contain a Resolution for the Commission's consideration regarding a 90 day moratorium on burials on top of this mausoleum, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Tomblin felt that the issue of disclosure is essential, being that another mausoleum is approved in the Master Plan. He asked that the City Attorney comment on this. Because of disclosure issues, he stated he may be making a motion at the August meeting to revoke the CUP. He stated he was looking forward to viewing the video of that 2007 meeting and staff's comments about the view issues. With that being said, he stressed to both parties that they needed to find a resolution to their problems, and felt that 90 days is more than enough time to do so. Commissioner James agreed with Commissioner Tomblin's comments. He stated that there is no questions that the views from the condominiums have been significantly impaired, and he could see how phase 2 would have the same problem. He was not sure it was useful to go back and try to figure out why or how the mistakes may have been made in 2007. He stated that he now sees some significant problems and was not sure the mitigation proposed by Green Hills goes far enough. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he was troubled by what may have happened in 2007 and the comment in the minutes that there was to be no issues with view impairments. He noted that clearly there is a view impairment to many residents of the condominium complex. He appreciated the patience shown as the two sides try to come to some sort of an agreement, and will be interested to see what will occur. He felt that the Planning Commission has an obligation to make sure this type of mistake does not happen again in the future. Vice Chairman Nelson hoped that the two sides could reach an agreement, and noted their neither side may be happy if the Planning Commission has to make the decision. Commissioner Gerstner added that it was incumbent upon Green Hills to find solutions that are going to work for the condo owners, and have the most latitude to find creative solutions. Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 11 The motion to continue the public hearing to August 12th was approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-0008): 28117 Ella Road Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation application. She noted the applicant is also requesting approval and legalization of two structures that were built without permits before the applicant purchased the property. She showed the front elevation, noting in the staff report staff identified compatibility issues with the bulk and mass of the structure. She also noted that staff felt the overall height of the proposed structure is too high as compared to surrounding homes, and had concerns with setbacks on the second story. She pointed out a deck on the proposed second floor that staff felt will impact the neighbors to the north, as staff felt privacy impacts will be exacerbated by the addition of the second story deck. In discussing view impacts, she noted that staff felt the silhouette was in the middle of the view frame, and therefore a significant view impact, as viewed from 28215 Lomo Drive. She also explained the cumulative view impact and how staff reviews this and how a cumulative view impact would affect the property at 28215 Lomo Drive. She stated that when staff considered the homes on either side of the proposed residence, there is the potential for a significant cumulative view impact. She showed photos taken from 28221 Lomo Drive, and again explained that staff felt the proposed project would cause a significant view impact as well as a cumulative view impact from this property. Commissioner James asked if the current size of the home noted by staff includes the glassed-in portion, built without a permit. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the square footage does not include any additions that may have been built without building permits. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff what is considered a protected view. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that first staff has to determine where the protected view is taken from, as it has to be from a living room, kitchen, or dining room. For the two properties in question, the views were taken from their living room. In terms of what the view consists of, in this case it is of ocean and mountains. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. David Moss (representing the applicant) thanked staff for their work, and noted that there have been many letters sent to staff regarding this project, both in support and those expressing concerns. He felt that this is the beginning of an entitlement process and a fact finding journey, and everyone is in this journey together rather than separately. He therefore did not have a need this evening to have significant Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 12 disagreements with the staff report, though he did have some comments since he just saw for the first time the photos that staff has taken. He did not feel the staff report was one hundred percent accurate in terms of potentially significant view impairment or cumulative view impairment. He noted that prior Commissions and the City Council have approved similar projects in the recent past, and he highlighted some aspects of the prior decisions and what he felt were precedent setting implications. He did not think that every view of blue water was protected, noting this was decided by previous Councils and Planning Commissions. He stated that a view of blue water that is below the horizon that does not obstruct an island or coastal mountain ranges is a protected view only if it constitutes a significant percentage-of the total blue water view from the viewing area. He stated that in the past the Commission and Council have both agreed that approximately ten to fifteen percent of the total view obstructed has not been deemed to be an individual potentially significant impact. In addition, he felt that neighbors who.come forward and talk about removing fencing or removing vegetation to create views they never enjoyed, or never intended to have, usually are not acting in good faith, and hoped this would not occur with this project. He stated that the assessment of the potentially significant view impairment is certainly one of the hardest determinations to make, and he felt that the pictures staff just presented are not a very good start in educating the Commission or the public about the potentially significant view impairment. He felt they were done with no credible expertise, noting that in the past the Commission and Council have admonished staff for drawing in squares that do not reflect the actual articulation of the project. He stated that community compatibility is no longer judged on the types of materials proposed, as a house with a tile roof or stone facade is not defacto out of keeping with the community. He stated that the applicant's representatives will present accurate and honest photographs, plans, and renderings. He felt that in the past projects, as with this one, the Commission may have been bogged down by neighbors who have presented a series of photographs that are not from the proper viewing area, are taken with telephoto lenses, and have misled the proceedings. He felt it was important to re-photograph the silhouette from the two properties in question, as he did not think the ones presented by staff were accurate and realistic. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Moss to clarify what action he is requesting of the Planning Commission at this meeting. Mr. Moss clarified that he felt it was important to have at least two public hearings on this project, that the staff report not make a recommendation of denial, and after testimony this evening that the public hearing be continued to allow the applicant to address the neighbors' and the Commission's concerns. Diane Hayden (6538 Lagarita Drive) stated she has concerns about the project, as well as process. She discussed a recently approved and built addition on Lagarita Drive and her frustration with the process. She wanted to make sure that with this proposal all submittals are made public in advance, rather than at the public hearing. She felt that a good process makes good neighbors. She stated that what she appreciated from the Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 13 last project was the respect the Planning Commission showed for the neighbors and their concerns, as well as the rights of the property owner to improve. Richard He began by explaining the owner of 28221 Lomo Drive was unable to send a letter to the City, but asked him to relay to the City that she has serious concerns about the proposed addition and view issues. Mr. He stated he lives next door to the subject property, and had a power point presentation to show the Commission. He showed photos of the silhouette and discussed his concerns, noting the proposed project would be too large for the neighborhood, especially with the minimal setbacks. He felt the proposed two-story home would significantly change the skyline of the community. He felt the project would create serious privacy concerns from his bedroom, living room, dining room, and outdoor spaces around his swimming pool. He also discussed what he felt was a safety issue, as the houses would be very close together and there could be a danger of a house falling during a serious earthquake. He did not want his neighborhood to appear as many neighborhoods in Manhattan Beach, where there are two-story homes placed close together and it appears to be very crowded on the street. He summarized that he was concerned the proposed addition would compromise the harmony and appearance of the community, invade the neighbors' privacy, and introduce serious safety issues. He hoped the design could be changed to become compatible and respectful to the neighbors. Grace Luo stated she is an immediate neighbor to the applicant, and noted she is an architect and has working experience on local restoration projects. She stated that like most of her neighbors she cares about the street appearance, privacy, and safety issues. She pointed out statements in the staff report that said the proposed project would result in significant view impairments from 28215 and 21221 Lomo Drive, and showed several pictures from 28215 Lomo Drive which showed the current view and the view with the silhouette in place. She agreed with the staff report in that the proposed project is too large, appears to loom over neighboring properties, has insufficient setbacks for the second story addition, and the design is bulky and massive and incompatible with the neighborhood. She questioned if the neighbor builds a larger house, will her house value also increase. She also questioned if the neighbor already has a peek into a backyard, does it matter if the second story allows them to look down to see more of the backyard. Paul Hayden stated that, assuming the Planning Commission does not deny the project without prejudice, he looked forward to seeing a radically revised plan, and noted that it appears the current plans are not being defended by the applicant's representative. He hoped this issue will not divide the neighborhood as the previous project on Lagarita Drive had. He stated that homeowners do not have the right to do what they want to with their homes. He stated a homeowner has a lot of freedom to do things with their home, and this homeowner has a right to do what they are doing, which is to ask permission from the City to have an exception made to the zoning laws. Those who are objecting have a right to object and have the City decide through a fair process whether or not the exceptions will be granted. Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 14 David Moss (in rebuttal) explained that when the applicant first started this project they went to a large number of neighbors, and initially had a large outpouring of support from the neighborhood. He stated there have been approximately fifteen letters submitted that are in support of the project, and fourteen neighbors who have come forward in opposition to the project. He pointed out that in the radius drawn on the map there are twenty one two-story houses within that radius. Having said that, he explained the architect will be making significant revisions to the two-story addition and he asked the Commission and staff to do everything possible to advise the neighbors of the changes. He stated that he wants to work closely with the northerly neighbors to attempt to address their concerns. However, he asked staff and the neighbors to not show pictures that are doctored, taken with telephoto lenses, or taken from non-viewing areas. He concluded by requesting the public hearing be continued so that he can come back before the Commission with significantly red-lined plans to address the neighbor's concerns, as well as a letter from the owners at 28215 Lomo Drive stating they do not oppose the project and do not understand why staff is standing in their backyard trying,to say there is a potentially significant view impairment when they themselves do not feel there is. Director Rojas explained that when staff makes a recommendation it's based on a physical site visit rather than photographs. Additionally, he explained that the depictions made on some of the photographs were an attempt by staff to simplify the silhouette by making them a square or rectangle, but pointed out that the actual silhouette has some detail to it that staff pointed out in a photograph. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff about the previous project on Lagarita Drive, and on what basis the Planning Commission denied that project. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the Planning Commission denied the project based on cumulative view impairment. Director Rojas explained that the Commission has guidelines that help identify what significant impairment is, and read from the guidelines. He stated the determination is based on the severity of the impairment and there is no quantitative formula to apply in determining significant view impairment. Lastly, he noted there is an additional speaker that has just submitted a speaker slip to staff. Sadako McFarland stated she lives in a two-story home on Ella Road. She noted that in the last five years a new two-story home was built on Ella Road and one on Lagarita Drive. She felt that any new two-story home in the neighborhood was a benefit to the neighborhood, as all of the existing homes are fifty years old. She noted that none of these homes obstruct her view and that she has a beautiful view which nobody will be able to obstruct. Pat Brewster (28221 Lomo Drive) stated she and her husband were very upset about the two-story home that was recently built on Lagarita Drive, which interferes with the view from her home. She stated she does not want to have any more view taken away, Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 15 noting the cumulative effect is quite a concern to her. She felt that these two-story homes that are blocking her view are impacting her property value. David Moss (in rebuttal) noted that he has not been given permission to go in the rear yard of the Brewster property, and therefore cannot speak with certainty on the view impact or what may be done to mitigate any potential view impact. He reminded the Commission that interfering with a view is not the same as impacting a view that is protected. He stated that he looks forward to going to the Brewster residence to examine the potential view impairment. Commissioner Gerstner stated he would be in favor of continuing the public hearing, however he reminded the applicant that the topography of this neighborhood is not flat, and therefore the topography plays into where a two-story house is or isn't placed. He noted that the topography in the rear yards of the homes on Ella Road drops more significantly that on other streets in the neighborhood, and therefore those homes have a view. However, these homes also have a potential to block views more than most of the other homes in the neighborhood, and he felt that needs to be considered when designing the home. He added that he has been an advocate of trying to build down in these instances, as it can give a property two stories of view while not blocking the view from the street above. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to June 24, 2014 for the purposes of redesign, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner James. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that staff will need an approval from the applicant to allow a one-time 90 extension to the Permit Streamlining Act. Mr. Moss agreed to the extension. Commissioner Tomblin commented that he would not be supportive of the entire proposed deck because of the bulk and mass and privacy issues. He, too, was interested to see if the house could be built down on the property. He stated he might look at this project more favorably if one of the proposed upstairs bedrooms were eliminated which would allow for the second story to be smaller. Commissioner Cruikshank felt the back of the property could be utilized more, and having a deck overlooking the pool was a concern to him. He felt that more of the first floor could be better utilized,and less of the second floor which may reduce the mass and possibly reduce any view impairment. He stated that he visited the property at 28215 Lomo Drive and his comments were based on the view impairment he saw at the property rather than what is shown on the photographs. Commissioner James stated he also had an opportunity to visit one of the properties on Lomo Drive as well as one of the homes directly to the north and the property directly to the south of applicant's property. He stated he was struck by the difference in elevation Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 16 in that area, and also noted there is a big difference based on where the houses are placed on the lots. Therefore, there is quite a difference in privacy and bulk and mass issues between the different homes. He felt the bulk and mass and privacy concerns from the adjacent property were significant. Vice Chairman Nelson felt this proposed addition was like a big box on a small lot. Chairman Leon stated the Planning Commission is not easily misled by photographs. He stated he visit 28215 Lomo Drive and looked from their viewing area as well as the backyard so that he could understand the neighborhood. He felt the neighborhood was very carefully designed with single story house on the front row and some two-story houses on the back row to afford views for all of the houses. He also noted that the Planning Commission does not count neighborhood votes for and against a proposed project when making their decision, but rather look at relevant facts and data from staff, the applicant, and neighbors. He also felt the Commission responds much better when people argue the merits of their project as opposed to attacking the credibility of the opposition. He stated he would have a hard time supporting a second story, which is something a property owner does not have by right. He acknowledged that this is a neighborhood in transition, and felt that supporting this second story may create a precedence for the entire front row of homes along this street. He also questioned if there was room to go down on this sloping lot, as it would afford a larger square footage and be in better keeping with the neighborhood. The motion to continue the public hearing to June 24, 2014 was approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 4. General Plan update status Director Rojas explained that at a previous meeting the Commission had asked staff to update the Commission on the status of the General Plan update, which is presented in the Deputy Director's staff report. The Commission reviewed and filed the report. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. April 8, 2014 Minutes The minutes were approved without objection. 6. April 22, 2014 Minutes Commissioner Cruikshank noted a typo on page 8 of the minutes. The revised minutes were approved without objection. Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 17 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on May 24, 2014 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2014 Page 18