Loading...
PC MINS 20140211 Approved March 1 4 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Leon at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Lewis, Nelson, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman Leon. Absent: Commissioners Gerstner and Tomblin and Chairman Emenhiser were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chairman Leon noted that for item No. 6 there is not a quorum and therefore the item will be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. At the request of the applicant, the Commission agreed to hear agenda item No. 4 after agenda item No. 5. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed five items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 2, four items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 4, and two items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 5. He also alerted the Commission of the upcoming Planning Commission Academy put on by the League on March 26 through 28. Vice Chairman Leon reported that he had attended the infrastructure workshop. 1. West Basin Municipal Water District Presentation Former Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Marilyn Lyon, who is with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, introduced Ron Wildermuth of West Basin Municipal Water District, who gave a presentation on water conservation. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Extreme Slope Permit (Case No. ZON2011-00280) Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project, explaining the scope of the new proposed project, and comparing the new project with the previously proposed project. She noted staff continues to not be able to make the findings to support the Grading Permit, as staff feels the grading associated with the new driveway and motor court is excessive due to the presence of an existing driveway that can access the property. She also explained that, while the project size has been reduced and the side and rear setbacks have been increased, staff still cannot support the neighborhood compatibility of the project due to the bulk and mass of the structure. She also explained that due to an existing driveway which the applicant is able to use as well as an opening between the foliage to allow access, staff believes the project could be redesigned to use this access point, thereby significantly reducing the amount of overall grading needed and eliminating proposed eleven foot tall retaining walls on an extreme slope. She stated staff is recommending denial of the project as proposed. Commissioner Lewis stated he was absent from the meeting when this project was originally heard, however he has reviewed the minutes and feels he can participate in this matter. He asked staff what the applicant's response was when staff suggested using the existing driveway. Assistant Planner Harwell stated the applicant felt it was more advantageous to have their own driveway rather than use the shared driveway. She noted the applicant was in the audience to further elaborate if necessary. Vice Chairman Leon asked staff if the applicant was notified of staff's concerns when the first application was submitted. Director Rojas explained when staff first met with the applicant the access to the property was proposed directly from Knoll View Drive because the applicant informed staff that they did not have access rights to the property from the existing shared driveway. Because of that, staff was generally supportive of the proposed grading involved with the access since the applicant had no choice. However, the City Attorney reviewed the easement language and noted the applicant does have legal access rights via the existing driveway. With that information, staff changed its position in terms of Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 2 supporting the grading to gain access to the property when there is already access via the existing driveway, which would involve no grading. He noted however, that for the type of design the applicant is seeking, they would have to make major modifications to the existing driveway, which the neighbors are objecting to. Vice Chairman Leon asked if the driveway easement is on the adjoining property. Director Rojas answered that the easement is on the adjoining property, adding that while the easement allows the applicant access to his lot, the applicant's concern is that using said access driveway will not allow him to build what he feels is best for the lot. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Ben Cauthen (project designer) gave an overview of all of the changes that have been made, which included revisions to address the neighbor's privacy concerns, reducing the square footage of the project, and moving the swimming pool to the other side of the property. He explained that the grading involved with the new proposed driveway and motor court area is only 306 cubic yards of grading, which he did not feel was excessive. He also noted that, in reality, when this house is built there will be no import of dirt as the dirt being cut for the footings to build the house will be used as the fill for the motor court. He explained the real advantage of the motor court is safety. He pointed out the current driveway is only 10 to 12 feet wide and is currently shared by two other homes. The motor court will give privacy to the homeowner and his children can play in the motor court area. In addition, the motor court will increase the value of the applicant's home, as it brings the living space to the upper level where there are views. Amir Esfahani (owner) explained the characteristics of the shared driveway easement, noting the slope is equal or greater than 20 percent, and reiterating the safety issues. He showed pictures of the current easement damage, noting the damage will only get worse with the construction. Finally, he showed an image of the north elevation with the existing trees which he felt will mask any bulk or mass issues the Commission may have with the residence. Marshall Esfahani also discussed the driveway easement and the steep 20 percent slope and the issues created by that steep slope. He felt the easement was outdated, as it was probably done when the City was incorporated, and they should be allowed to build the new motor court. He also noted that the trees on the neighboring property will not be disturbed in any way, which is important to the neighbor. Chris Leventis stated he has been hired by the owner to speak on the grading that will be performed on the property. He explained that he normally works on projects where he moves 2,000 yards of dirt per day, therefore a project like this with only 466 yards of dirt is quite minimal. He explained that when digging the foundations that will generate almost 250 yards of dirt which will be used on the property, and therefore no import will be needed. Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 3 Vice Chairman Leon asked Mr. Leventis if he will be using the easement to get his equipment in and out of the property. Mr. Leventis answered he will come off the street and down the slope onto the property. Steven Mardani stated he is one of the neighbors on the flag lot. He stated he has three children who play on the driveway, and he agrees with the Esfahanis that in order for everyone to be safe he would prefer they build their own driveway and have separate access to their property. However, he also stated he has no objection to the Esfahanis use of the driveway. Vice Chairman Leon asked Mr. Mardani if he has reviewed the plans, and if so, are there any issues with respect to the mass and bulk of the proposed house. Mr. Mardani answered that he can barely see the house from his property, as his house is much lower than theirs. He did feel that a larger house will raise the value of his home. Marshall Rutter stated he is an attorney representing the owner of the house referred to as the Sorenson residence, which is immediately adjacent to the east of the applicant's property. He discussed his concern with the size of the proposed residence, and felt the Esfahani residence is a mcmansion that will start a creep of that type of development in the neighborhood. He also felt the size overwhelms the Sorenson home and will tower over them. Their view to the west will also be obstructed by the residence. He discussed the driveway, and stated the Sorensons have no objection to the Esfahanis using the easement. He pointed to what he felt was a drainage swale on the property which he stated is essential to drainage, and noted that Mr. Esfahani intends to cover this area. He was very concerned that the drainage issue will be a very serious issue with the flooding that could result. Raju Chhabria felt having a private driveway was the most prudent thing to do, allowing the owner a private entrance and increasing safety on the existing driveway easement. Marshall Esfahan (in rebuttal) stating the drainage is not in his plan, and the City Engineer will make sure all drainage is safe. In response to the mcmansion statement, he felt that there is quite a bit of open space on the property and he did not think this could be considered a mcmansion. He understood the concerns of the neighbors, as this area hasn't changed for many years and the construction may cause a temporary inconvenience. However, he noted the owners will be excellent neighbors and an asset to the neighborhood and community. Tamara Vallmer noted her house, which is next door to the subject lot. She pointed to a large house behind the subject lot which she said is a 5,300 square foot house on a 24,000 square foot lot and the applicant is proposing to build a 5,600 square foot house Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 4 on a 15,000 square foot lot. She stated the applicant's house will be double of almost every house in the neighborhood on an average size lot. Commissioner Lewis asked Ms. Vallmer if she had any opinion on the use of the existing driveway easement as opposed to the proposed private driveway. Ms. Vallmer answered that she did not have an issue with the private driveway, but could not understand how the applicant could use that area as a driveway as the hillside is very steep. Ben Cauthen (in rebuttal) stated that if the house across the street is 5,000 square feet on a 24,000 square foot lot, that would equate to a 4.8 FAR, while the applicant's house would be a 4,500 square foot house which is a 3.3 FAR. Commissioner Lewis noted the City does not consider floor area ratios. He asked Mr. Cauthen that if the Commission were to approve the project, if the applicant would consider a condition regarding the existing trees and landscaping. Mr. Cauthen answered that the applicant would agree to such a condition. Vice Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff what the slope of the proposed driveway would be. Assistant Planner Harwell answered of the proposed driveway would be at a 15 percent slope. Commissioner Nelson asked staff to clarify the issues with the drainage swale. Assistant Planner Harwell read a note on the plans which states that the existing swale is to be replaced with underground drainage to be connected to the City's storm sewer. She stated that this will be reviewed by Building and Safety during the plan check process. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the Grading Permit application, and noted staff could not make six of the required nine findings in order to recommend approval. He asked staff to explain why there are these nine criteria that must be approved before the City will allow grading on an extreme slope. Assistant Planner Harwell explained that the idea of the requirements is to help preserve hillsides, as the City is considered a hillside community and the hillsides have already been established in certain patters throughout the City. The criteria was established to minimize the amount of grading to the slopes in order to preserve the topographic integrity of the neighborhood. Specifically, these findings were made in this case in relationship to the driveway and motor court, as staff believes there is another way to access the lot that does not involve the proposed grading and preserves the Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 5 extreme slope hillside that other properties in the neighborhood have maintained. She also noted that retaining walls would have to be built to build up the pad for the motor court, and staff could not make the necessary findings for the excessive height based upon the grading criteria. Commissioner Lewis asked if these grading criteria were optional, or if all must be met. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that all of the findings must be made in order to approve a Grading Application. Commissioner Lewis stated he agrees with staff's report in its entirety and also could not make the findings in terms of neighborhood compatibility. He stated that in looking at the south and west elevations, this is a massive project. In terms of compatibility with the neighborhood, he could not support a 5,200 square foot house on a 15,000 square foot lot, given the comparable properties in the neighborhood. Commissioner Lewis moved to deny the project without prejudice, as recommended by staff. Seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he agrees with Commissioner Lewis' comments, as he also could not make the necessary findings in terms of grading and bulk and mass of the project. Commissioner Nelson disagreed, and felt the project should be approved as presented. He felt the applicant has done a good job in responding to the Commission's concerns. Vice Chairman Leon was also concerned with the bulk and mass of the project. In terms of the driveway and the grading, he felt that the motor court would be sufficiently screened so that it would not make a difference if it was or was not there. However, because of the serious neighborhood compatibility issue with the surrounding homes he was not able to support the project. The motion to deny the project without prejudice, as recommended by staff, was approved and PC Resolution 2014-07 was adopted, (3-1) with Commissioner Nelson dissenting. 3. Site Plan Review— (Case No. ZON2013-00410): 2822 Colt Road Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report explaining the scope of the project and noted that the skylights are before the Commission because they exceed the ridgeline of the residence. She explained the two findings that must be made in order to approve the skylights, and stated that staff was able to make these two findings. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 6 James Meyer (architect and builder) stated the design of the skylights exceeds the ridgeline only for the purpose of being able to drain properly. They also fall within the same silhouette as the approved solar panels. He stated the overall square footage of the skylights is less than ten percent of the total roof area. He felt the skylights would create a very minimal impact and noted their purpose was to create more natural light in the interior of the residence. Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Meyer the completion date of this project. Mr. Meyer answered that two weeks ago he had proposed a twelve month completion schedule, and was very confident he could complete the project by the end of the year. Rosa Arroba (2824 Colt Road) stated she strongly opposes the placement of skylights on top of the residence, as she felt the house was already too tall. She stated she has already agreed to every proposal from the applicant in order to allow him to build what she thought would be his dream house. However, she displayed a brochure showing the house was listed on the market in 2011. She explained the construction of the residence has been moved farther to the south, which obstructs a larger portion of her view. She felt the size of the house should have been reduced, and the current residence should never have been granted. She was very upset about the delay in the construction of the residence, as she felt it affects her the most. She did not think the City should allow any more loss of her view with the placement of the skylights, and felt any further reduction of her view will diminish the value of her property. Gwendolyn Brock (2831 Colt Road) stated she was speaking in support of her neighbor Rosa Arroba. She noted the applicant's residence has already impacted Ms. Arroba's views greatly and he should not be allowed to extend into the remaining view. Socrates Lenders (2834 Colt Road) stated this project has affected Ms. Arroba quite a bit and that little by little in a piece meal fashion the owner has been adding things to the originally approved project, and they need to stop. He felt Ms. Arroba's view has already been severely impacted. Luis Estefania asked the Planning Commission to remember this construction has already been going on for four years, and he felt this will just add to the delays. He felt that at some point a decision will have to be made and the project must move forward to completion. James Meyer (in rebuttal) noted that while the actual structure itself is not what is in question at this meeting, he wanted to address some of Ms. Arroba's concerns. He stated he worked very hard on the design of the home to maintain Ms. Arroba's views, even reducing the entire height of the building pad by four feet. He pointed out an area where there was tall shrubbery on Ms. Arroba's property, which will be replaced when the construction is complete. He also noted two trees on the subject property that were removed that very much enhanced the Arroba view. He stated he has worked very closely with Ms. Arroba throughout the entire process. Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 7 Vice Chairman Leon referred to the recently approved solar panels, and asked staff if the skylights will be taller than the solar panels. Associate Planner Mikhail answered the skylights will be at the same height as the solar panels, but span different widths and depths. Vice Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault understood there is a sixteen foot by-right building height permitted that the applicant availed himself of in constructing this home, and the neighboring views up to that sixteen foot height limit are not protected. He noted the skylights are going to raise the height by approximately one foot, and asked if the skylights had been included when the original application for the house had been presented, would staff have considered the home taller than sixteen feet. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the skylights would have been considered separate from the roof structure, and would have been looked at as an architectural feature. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the skylight silhouettes on the applicant's roof are higher than the roof structure, as viewed from the Arroba living room. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that if it does, it is nominal. Commissioner Nelson moved to deny the application, without prejudice, and directed staff to return an appropriate resolution to the Planning Commission. The motion died to the lack of a second. Commissioner Lewis did not think it was very neighborly of this applicant to incrementally encroach into views as he is doing. He also did not think it was very neighborly to take advantage of the solar panel laws of the State that ties staff's hands in terms of permits and applications. However, he was able to make the necessary findings and could see no basis to deny the application. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Nelson stated he would support the motion, given there is a commitment from the architect/builder that this project will be completed by the end of the year. Vice Chairman Leon could also support the motion, as he did not think the skylights created a significant view impairment. That being said, he hoped there was a way to hasten this project to its completion as the construction is very intrusive to the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 8 The motion was approved, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2014-08, (4-0). 6. Chase Bank 6 month review (Case No. ZON2002-00216): 29941 Hawthorne Blvd. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, noting that pursuant to a condition of approval, a six-month review was required of the project site after completion. She explained the property has been issued a temporary certificate of occupancy, as opposed to a final certificate of occupancy, as staff felt there were some outstanding issues that could be addressed at the six-month review. She reviewed the topics of concern, noting Chase Bank has addressed many of them, however staff had concerns with ADA pathway lighting and adding a proposed condition of approval regarding the trees on the property and their potential to impair views. Commissioner Lewis disclosed his law firm has banking relationships with Chase, however he did not feel it would impact his ability to be impartial when reviewing this project. Commissioner Lewis asked if Chase was informed of the proposed condition regarding the trees, and if they were amenable to that condition. Associate Planner Mikhail stated the applicant received a copy of the staff report and she has not received any objections to the condition. Commissioner Lewis asked if there was any discussion on not having any trees on the property when this project was being reviewed by the City. Associate Planner Mikhail did not see any objections to the trees, and the only reference was a condition of approval related to Prop M. Commissioner Tetreault asked if staff felt the property owner had the right to have and grow these trees at this location as long as they stay within the Prop M limitations. Director Rojas stated these trees are not in a coastal zone or a protected view corridor and therefore there is no code prohibition regarding the trees blocking views from these rights-of-way. However, because there is a six-month review the Commission may address any item of concern raised by the public, and the trees were an item raised by the public. He explained staff spoke to Chase, and Chase would like to keep the trees. Therefore, staff is trying to find a way to keep the trees as well as address the concerns of the one resident who raised a concern. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Bob Superneau (Architect for the project representing Chase Bank) stated he has read through the report and Chase has been working with staff on trying to resolve the issues Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 9 as they have come up from the community. He noted the two issues in question, explaining he had worked with staff to choose the light fixtures to meet the criteria and felt the lights chosen met the criteria set forth in the conditions of approval. He asked if the concern is that the lights are too bright and, if that is the case, he may have some options and possibilities as to what can be done. In regards to the trees on site, he stated the trees were put in per the requirements of the Public Works Department during the plan check process. He stated he is not opposed to trimming and maintaining them as suggested in the staff report. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Superneau, assuming the Director could convince the Public Works Department that the trees are not necessary, if Chase would be agreeable to removing the trees. Mr. Superneau answered that Chase would be amenable to removing the trees. Commissioner Nelson asked what the ADA requirements are for lighting at night. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the pathway would have to properly lit with a one foot candle. Commissioner Nelson stated lighting is extremely important at night in terms of ADA and wanted to be sure the City meets whatever the ADA requirements are. Associate Planner Mikhail explained staff's issue was not so much with the brightness of the light, but more of seeing the light from the public right-of-way. She stated the project was conditioned so that the light sources on the property be shielded so the light sources could not be seen. Director Rojas added that the priority is that the light source meets the Code. He added that Staff feels there is a way to meet the code in terms of pathway illumination but still shield the lights in a way that would not be glaring at motorists. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they had any information on a Public Works requirement that trees be planted at this site. Director Rojas stated that staff can check with Public Works to verify and get their reasons for requiring the trees. Commissioner Lewis stated it was with great reluctance that he originally approved this project, though he admitted Chase has done a good job with the property. He felt that there was a magnificent view over this property for many, many years and anything that the City can do to mitigate the harm done by having this building there would be beneficial, including removing the trees that were planted by Chase. Commissioner Nelson did not see the trees as a problem, and felt the two trees at Ralphs caused a greater view impairment. Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 10 Vice Chairman Leon stated he would like to see the trees removed, if possible, as opposed to requiring that they must be trimmed. He also stated he would like to see the interior lighting limited to operation and maintenance hours only. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to March 11, 2014 as requested by the applicant, to allow Staff to follow up on the issued noted by the Commission, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved without exception. 4. Revision to Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2012- 00141): 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a history of the project that was first heard by the Planning Commission in 2012. She explained that what is before the Planning Commission is the grading permit and site plan review, which are the City's planning entitlements associated with the California Coastal Commission's coastal development permit. She stated that, as noted throughout the staff report and much of the correspondence, the coastal development permit is under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission and the grading permit and Site Plan Review are before the Planning Commission in order to synchronize the modifications made by the applicant and approved by the California Coastal Commission with the City's last approved project in September 2012. As such, the applicant is requesting a revision to the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review, and discussed the proposed revisions. She stated that staff was able to make the required findings to recommend approval of the Grading Permit, and felt the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As such, staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed revisions as detailed and conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Nelson stated that he has voted in favor of this project twice in the past, authored two letters to the Coastal Commission in favor of the project, and felt he could participate in this hearing without prejudice. Vice Chairman Leon noted numerous correspondence from the public with respect to the height of the project and the loss of the view as driving down Palos Verdes Drive. He asked staff if it was in the Commission's purview to request further grading to reduce the pad height. Associate Planner Mikhail stated the Commission could request or require the grade elevations be lowered, in effect lowering the ridgeline, however there are some arguments relating to having the project synchronized with the coastal development permit as it is currently proposed versus requiring further modifications. She noted the City Attorney has stated she is unsure how a court would rule given the various arguments involved on either side. In order to maintain consistency, the City Attorney recommended the Planning Commission synchronize the two applications. Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 11 Director Rojas agreed it is within the Commission's purview to ask the grade be lowered, as there is a grading permit application before the Commission. He explained the City Attorney has some concern that the applicant can argue that the Commission is now interfering with the Coastal Commission's decision, and it was her opinion that if the Planning Commission approves the Grading Permit so that it synchs with the coastal permit it would put the City at the least legal risk. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Louie Tomoro (architect) explained this is the third review of this project by the Planning Commission and has now been approved by the Coastal Commission, and the project currently before the Commission is the exact project approved by the Coastal Commission, and asked that the Commission support the project as presented. He noted this is the same project that was before the Commission previously. He referred to the three large projects on the coastal side of Palos Verdes Drive that have been built, and stated that none of these projects met the two-degree down arc, and in fact in his research of Palos Verdes Drive, there is not one single family residential project that has a two degree down arc. He stated that the Coastal Commission agreed, and asked him to provide a horizon view over the top of the proposed building, and felt this was consistent with their LCP. Ravi Khosla (owner) stated he was available to answer any questions. Shamita Khosla asked the Planning Commission to allow her to build this home. Raju Chhabra stated he was in support of the project. Vice Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Tetreault stated he had concerns about the process, as it is quite unique. He thought it was interesting that in 2012 the Coastal Commission appealed this project to themselves, on their own initiative, and found the City was not in keeping with our own Development Code and not following our own rules with respect to preserving views over the property with the proposal that was before the City at that time. With respect to the opinion given by the City Attorney, he understood what she was saying, however he respectfully disagreed with the opinion that the Commission needs to synchronize with the Coastal Commission. He agreed that it would be the safest way to go, but he did not think that means the Commission is powerless as a body to do something different, as the Planning Commission has the authority to apply our own Ordinances.as long as what the Commission decides does not undercut the Coastal Commissions orders that restrict the scope of the applicant's project. He noted the Coastal Commission's ruling was not for the benefit of the applicant, but rather for the benefit of the public and as such the Planning Commission cannot do anything that Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 12 would infringe upon the protections that were conferred in this order. He stated there was nothing inherit or implied in that decision that confers a right on the part of the applicant against the City. He stated that this current project has not been officially reviewed by the Planning Commission, as the revised plan from the previous Planning Commission meeting had been withdrawn. Therefore, he felt that even though the Planning Commission discussed the project at that meeting and passed a Resolution, that all went away and felt this meeting is the first legal time the Planning Commission is actually reviewing the project. He did not think the Coastal Commission would step in if there were a revised project with a lower roofline. He discussed the two degree down arc and the architect's statement that no other properties seaward of Palos Verdes Drive meet this requirement. He felt that when the City does not observe its own rules and make exceptions for people it may become difficult at some point to back away from those exceptions. He acknowledged the motion that was made, and stated he would like to have something considered as either clarification or an additional condition, that being that there are conflicting conditions with respect to the ridge height. He noted there are issues with respect to the distance to the viewing station that have to be worked out, and he assumed this will come back on Consent Calendar with specific numbers included. Director Rojas noted that there is a Resolution before the Commission, and if adopted it will not come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tetreault felt it was very important to have the exact numbers representing the distance to the viewing station and the height of the ridge line included, as well as how much of the view is to be preserved. He stated there are conflicting heights, noting that both the Planning Commission and Coastal Commission acknowledge a 272.5 foot high ridge line. He stated that is a photographic reference point it has to meet (Exhibit B) which one is supposed to see from this position as much of the ocean above the ridge line as depicted in the photograph. He noted that there is more than just the horizon line visible above the depicted ridge line. He asked what will be the correct reference, 272.5 feet or the amount of view in Exhibit B and what will happen when the ridge line meets condition No. 25 but it doesn't meet condition No. 43, and which condition controls. Director Rojas noted that the stricter condition will apply, and there is a condition which stipulates that if any conditions conflict then the stricter condition will apply. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that in the current Resolution before the Commission the ridge line height is discussed in condition No. 26 and the discussion regarding Exhibit B is part of the conditions in the coastal development permit. She noted that staff kept the conditions of approval that are applicable to the coastal development permit separate as they are under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they felt confident in the way the Resolution is worded and structured, that in the event of any conflict that it is clear that the stricter provision shall apply and can be enforced. Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 13 Associate Planner Mikhail answered that it can be enforced by the Coastal Commission, adding that in an effort to try to help the applicant so they didn't get too far along in the process, staff is requiring the trail viewing station certification occur before submitting to Building and Safety. Commissioner Tetreault referred to page 24 of the staff report, noting some of the sections have been mis-numbered and should be corrected. Commissioner Lewis agreed with Commissioner Tetreault in that just because the City Attorney opined it would be easier to litigate this case if it were in synch with the Coastal Commission, it is not a legitimate basis on which the Planning Commission should make a decision. He stated that he voted to approve this project at the prior meeting and can still make the findings today, and would therefore support the motion. He also reiterated his previous comments that if the ridgeline is even a hair above what is depicted in the photograph, it is his intent in supporting this motion that the applicant will bear 100 percent of the costs of doing whatever it takes to lower the structure to the correct ridge height. He added that he is in receipt of an email from Sunshine to the Mayor suggesting that if any of the Commissioners approve the project they should be allowed to term-out or removed from the Planning Commission. He disclosed that the email has not swayed his decision in any way. Vice Chairman Leon also remembered the previous discussion in regards to the photograph (Exhibit B). His recollection was that this photograph would be included in the conditions of approval. He felt that certifying the trail height was a good idea but he was.not certain staff can know that the flag height on the silhouette equals the exact 272.5 feet required in the current conditions of approval. He stated he was reluctantly in support of the motion, but felt this view should be preserved. Director Rojas explained that exact issue was discussed with the City Attorney, and she felt that since the coastal development permit already has the language and will enforce that condition, the City can have conditions that will help the Coastal Commission in their enforcement of their conditions of approval, such as the ridge height certification. Vice Chairman Leon understood, however he explained that in engineering you try very hard never to have two requirements for the same thing, especially when one might conflict with the other. In this case, if 272.5 feet is well above the line depicted in the photograph, he didn't want the applicant to be able to say he met the City requirement. Director Rojas explained it is not under the City's purview to make the decision, but rather it is for the Coastal Commission to make the decision as it is their condition to enforce. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 14 Louie Tomoro explained that a silhouette was constructed at the site and Denn Engineering certified the height at 272.5. That certification has been submitted to the City. He stated it was his intention to have the viewing station photograph taken with the new silhouette up and have it surveyed to give the City documentation. Vice Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault noted that both the Coastal Commission and the City are saying the ridge height will be 272.5 feet. The Coastal Commission conditions reference Exhibit B and say the photograph will be enforced, and he questioned why the City can't do the same. He asked what would happen if the Coastal Commission decides, for whatever reason, to not enforce the conditions in regards to the photograph. In that case there will be conditions that are not enforceable because they are not included in the City's conditions of approval. He questioned why the conditions can't be included in the City's conditions of approval as long as they are consistent with the Coastal Commission's conditions. Director Rojas understood the concern, but pointed out that this is not a new situation for the City, as Terranea and Trump National both have Coastal Commission conditions that the City does not enforce. Commissioner Tetreault moved to amend the motion so that the conditions set forth by the California Coastal Commission with respect to Exhibit B also be enforceable by the City. Commissioner Nelson supported the amendment, however as the seconder of the motion, Commissioner Lewis did not support the amendment. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend the motion to add as a condition of approval that should the Coastal Commission delete the existing condition with regards to enforcement of Exhibit B, that the power falls to the Community Development Director to enforce Exhibit B as a visual check on the height of the project. As the maker of the original motion, Commissioner Nelson accepted the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. The motion was approved as amended and PC Resolution 2014-09 was adopted, (3-1) with Commissioner Tetreault dissenting. NEW BUSINESS 6. General Plan Consistency Finding (Case No. ZON2014-00046): 32639 Nantasket Drive Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 15 Commissioner Nelson recused himself from this item. There being no quorum, the item was continued to the February 25, 2014 meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on February 25, 2014 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2014 Page 16