Loading...
PC MINS 20020709CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 9, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7:02 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Director/Secretary Rojas led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present- Commissioners Cote, Lyon, Mueller, and Chairman Cartwright Absent Commissioners Duran Reed, Tomblin and Vice Chairman Long were excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Mihranian, Assistant Planner Yu, Assistant Planner Luckert, and Recording Secretary Peterson Chairman Cartwright suggested hearing the items in the following order: 1, 2, 3, 7, 4, 5, 6, and 8. The Commission agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed three letters regarding Agenda Item No. 5, one letter regarding Agenda Item No 6, and three letters regarding Agenda Item No. 4. He also reported that at the last City Council meeting, the Council had appointed the five View Restoration Mediators. Commissioners Cote and Mueller reported that they had reviewed the tape and read the minutes of the last meeting which they did not attend. -I-Y11 [111-0 1. Minutes of June 11, 2002 Commissioner Cote moved to adopt the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (3-0-1) wath Commissioner Lyon abstaWng since he was absent from that meeting. 2. Minutes of June 25, 2002 Commissioner Lyon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Chairman Cartwright. Approved, (2-0-2) with Commoasioners Cote and Mueller abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. There not being a majority of Commissioners available to approve the minutes, the minutes were continued to the July 23, 2002 meeting 3. Appeal of Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit (Case No. ZOoX12001-0032451 Searaven Drive Commissioner Myon moved to adopt ResduVon No. 200002-14 thereby approAng the Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit (Case No. ZOM2001-00122) as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Cote. Approved, (3-0-1) with Commissioner Mueller abstaining since he was absent from the meeting where the item was discussed. ���Bm 7. Variance Permit No. 489: 6610 Palos Verdes ©ride South Commissioner Cote reported that she would recuse herself from hearing this item as she lives 650 feet from the proposed project She felt that the proposed project would have a significant impact on her property. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that there was not a quorum of the Planning Commission to open the public hearing. 4. Variance/Grading- - o 00 3340 Palos Verde Drive East Assistant Planner Yu presented the staff report. She explained that the request was to legalize two mechanical equipment units and ducting located on the rooftop of the residence and to legalize grading and a series of retaining walls constructed on the property. She explained that the Code does not allow mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof in a residential district She explained that the applicant was proposing to construct pyramid structures around the equipment as well as a two -foot high parapet wall along the edge of the existing roof. She stated that, as proposed, staff could not make the required findings to support the variance and the grading permit. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 2 She added that due to the Permit Streamlining Act, staffs concerns identified in the staff report warranted the recommendation of denial. However, in light of the applicant's submittal of a time extension and his interest in working with staff to address the concerns, staff is no longer recommending denial of the project. She explained that if the Planning Commission believes there is a modified project that can be approved, staff seeks the Commission's direction on what aspects of the project should be modified, and therefore recommends that the project be tabled to a future meeting to allow time for the applicant to redesign the project Commissioner Mueller discussed the first finding on page 5 of the staff report. He asked if it was unusual in the area to have 50 percent of the property on an extreme slope. Assistant Planner Yu did not know about the neighborhood, however she explained that on the applicant's property there was limited space to place the mechanical equipment. Commissioner Mueller asked if the original units were on the ground at some point. Assistant Planner Yu was not aware of where the original equipment was placed. She explained that this came to staff by way of a code enforcement complaint. Commissioner Mueller asked if the Uniform Building Code required air conditioning in a home Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the Uniform Building Code does not require a home to be air conditioned. Commissioner Mueller stated that the heat could then be provided in a number of ways that may not necessarily require ducting on the roof Commissioner Mueller asked if noise was a concern to the neighbors Assistant Planner Yu answered that the neighbors had mentioned the noise as one of their concerns Commissioner Mueller asked if staff had attempted to measure the level of the noise to ascertain if it was above 65 dbs. Assistant Planner Yu answered that staff did not measure the noise levels, as the Code imposed limits did not apply in this situation. Regarding the grading, Commissioner Mueller asked staff when they notified the applicant of their concerns regarding grading Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 3 Director/Secretary Rojas responded that there were stop work notices left at the property with regard to the retaining walls and grading, and at that time the applicant was made aware that this was a violation of the Development Code. Chairman Cartwright asked if staff had ever told the applicant that the grading and retaining walls were not a problem. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that staff had told the applicant that it was an issue of concern and needed to somehow be addressed, either by removing the walls or attempting to obtain an after -the -fact approval. He stated that the applicant was told very early in the process that there was a problem with the grading. Commissioner Lyon felt the staff report was relatively harsh in its judgment on the merits of the project and asked if that judgment in any way reflects the fact that there were not permits for the work done. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that it was based on the nature of what was being requested, namely the height of the walls and the visibility of the walls. Commissioner Lyon asked if there were any penalties or fines for not getting permits for work and then asking for after -the -fact permits. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that the application fees were doubled for after -the - fact work. Commissioner Cote asked if there was an art jury in this neighborhood Assistant Planner Yu answered that there was not an art jury in this neighborhood. Commissioner Cote asked why staff had not recommended some type of pitched roof enclosure where the mechanical equipment could be placed, and wondered why, since the equipment was less than 16 feet in height, staff: had a concern with view issues. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that staff had initially looked at some type of roof enclosure, however staff had learned that an upslope neighbor had a concern about views Staff did not want the solution to be more of a view problem than what the ducts are presently. He noted that even though the equipment is less than 16 feet in height, code does not allow mechanical equipment on a roof and there is a finding as to whether the equipment is detrimental to the public welfare or adjoining property Commissioner Cote asked if any safety related issues had been considered by staff in regards to the grading and the possibility of reconfiguring the very narrow driveway. Assistant Planner Yu answered that staff felt there currently was enough turn around area in front of the garage. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 4 Commissioner Lyon stated that he went to the upslope neighbor's property and had a difficult time determining what the significant view obstruction would be. He asked staff if they had gone to the upslope neighbor's property to verify the view obstruction Assistant Planner Yu answered that at the time star conducted the site inspections it was cloudy and staff was not able to clearly see the view. She stated that she had not been able to go into the home to see the view from inside the house. However in a subsequent visit on a clear day, she was able to ascertain the view from outside the house. Commissioner Lyon stated that in order to see the view one would have to look through a number of bushes and trees on the neighbors property and he could not imagine a real concern over a view when the owners had not cleared away the brush and trees that obscure that view Assistant Planner Yu stated that from the window of the residence it appeared that the area was not obstructed by brush or trees. Director/Secretary Rojas noted that, unlike the height variation findings for significant view impairment, this application does not have a finding for significant view impairment. He stated that in this situation, staff was taking a harsher stand, as the equipment is not supposed to be placed on the roof and therefore there should be little to no view impact to surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Lyon felt that what the applicant was proposing to do was the best thing to protect the applicant and the neighbor's views, as the enclosure was under the 16 - foot height limit. Assistant Planner Yu stated that staff was not opposed to the enclosure, but rather the pyramid shape of the enclosure. She stated that staff was recommending another enclosure that was similar to the architectural style of the residence so that it would be more compatible Commissioner Lyon felt a different shape could possible create a greater view impairment. Assistant Planner Yu responded that staff did not feel a different shape would create more of a view impact, as it would be more of a lower profile type of enclosure. Commissioner Mueller questioned whether the City was allowed to recommend to the applicant to enclose a structure which violates the code, or is the applicant really required to come before the Planning Commission and present a roof design that would actually enclose the illegal structure. Director/Secretary Rous explained that the application before the Planning Commission was to allow equipment to be placed on the roof He stated that the Planning Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 5 Commission had the authority to approve the application if they felt it was all right to leave the equipment on the roof and screened to their satisfaction. Chairman Cartwright did not feel air conditioning was something that a homeowner was entitled to. He noted that there was a building permit on file for the house, and one could not get a building permit without having heat, and therefore the house must have had heating at one time. He asked if it was reasonable to assume that there was heat in the house when the current owner bought it. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that he assumed there was heat in the house at that time. Chairman Cartwright asked if there had been any evidence that the heating system could not be fixed or restored. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that he had not seen anything that would indicate the heating system could not be restored or repaired Commissioner Cartwright felt there were a number of options that could be looked at to provide heat, other than putting these large units on the roof He had difficulty seeing the view from the upslope property because of the weather, but he felt he saw enough of it to see there was a view. He felt that the enclosure placed on the roof could create an eyesore as well as impair a view. He therefore felt it might be better to raise the level of the roof. Regarding noise, he felt that it could be a concern for the neighbors Commissioner Lyon asked if the applicant were to request an addition of a new roof structure above the air conditioning unit, thereby eliminating the fact that the air conditioner is on the roof, would that require a Variance application. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that it would not require a Variance application. -10 41 , lily 11� . rir7c•�. Raymond Medak 2814 Baywater, San Pedro, stated he was the architect for the project He requested a continuance of the project primarily because the applicant was not aware of staff's recommendation and stance on the retaining wall and shed. He stated he had been working diligently with the neighbors regarding the design of the roof and noted that there have been six letters received approving of the idea for the roof enclosure. He explained that he was proposing to paint the ducts with a color that matched the residence and to sign a maintenance agreement to maintain that on a yearly basis. He felt this would camouflage the equipment with the white rock roof. He stated that a mock pyramid was erected to show the neighbors what was entailed. He noted that after the pyramid was erected it was the general consensus of the neighborhood coalition that it would work. He stated that during the time of the continuance he and the applicant would re-establish the neighborhood coalition and address in more detail the retaining wall and shed Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 6 Commissioner Mueller asked if this was the second request for a continuance. Director/Secretary Rojas acknowledged that this was the second continuance requested by the applicant. Commissioner Mueller asked if a new application would be required if the applicant were to place some type of roof structure on the residence Director/Secretary Rojas explained that if the applicant were to pursue the option of a roof modification to raise the roof, the Variance would be withdrawn and it would become a Site Plan Review application that could be approved by the Director with no public noticing. He stated that the grading application was before the Commission only because it was linked with the Variance application and it too would be reviewed by the Director if the Variance application were withdrawn Commissioner Lyon suggested the Variance application could be eliminated by changing the roof design, therefore eliminating the need for a hearing before the Planning Commission The Planning Commission would therefore not hear the Grading Permit and the solutions could be worked out between the neighbors, applicant, and staff. Commissioner Mueller felt it was important to listen to all parties involved before any decision be made on a continuance Chairman Cartwright noted that he had read Mr. Medak's letter, and while he agreed that there may have been other things that could have been included in the staff report, he felt that he had missed the issue which was that there was unpermitted heating and air conditioning units on the roof, unpermitted duct work on the roof, over 300 cubic yards of unpermitted grading, and several unpermitted retaining walls. He felt that it would be beneficial for the applicant to comment on these items. Commissioner Cote was encouraged that the applicant was now working with the neighbors, however there is the core issue with respect to the fact this was all after -the fact, unpermitted work. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Medak if he was aware of the need for permits when he started the project. Mr. Medak explained that he was brought in after the work was started to help the owner obtain permits. He explained that the existing heating system had been constructed within the slab and was no longer working. He stated that the house does not contain attic space, under floor space, or drop ceilings. Jerry Farrar (applicant) 3340 Palos Verdes Drive East admitted that he had done the work without permits, and took full responsibility. He stated the air conditioning units on Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 7 the roof had been installed by a contractor who had check with the City before installation. The contractor had understood that it was permitted to place the units on the roof as long as they were less than 16 feet in height. He therefore had no idea at the time that the air conditioning and duct work was not allowed on the roof of the house. He explained that he had started the grading without permits because of his concern regarding emergency situations and the narrow driveway and parking area on his property. He stated he was accountable for the decision to begin without permits, but felt the issue was not what he did, but what he is doing about it. He felt he was maximizing his cooperation, spending whatever time was necessary with the neighbors and other, and making the best possible effort to rectify what has been accomplished. He reiterated that he was asking for a continuance, and felt it was the first request for a continuance. He felt the first continuance was done with staff only so that he could have the community involved in trying to rectify the situation. He stated that he was now requesting a continuance as he had read the staff report and discovered staff had several issues with the grading that he was not aware of. He hoped that during the extra time he would have the time to meet with staff to see if there was a possibility that some of the parking could be maintained in some fashion. He stated that if it could not be maintained he would continue to fully cooperate to make the process as easy possible. Chairman Cartwright disagreed with Mr. Farrar's statement that the issue was not what he did, but what he was going to do about it He felt that what Mr. Farrar did without permits was the issue before the Planning Commission. Caroline French -Campbell 3330 Palos Verdes Drive East stated she was the neighbor most affected by the project and she has never been invited to any type of meeting with Mr. Farrar. She stated that the people who built Mr. Farrar's house also built her house and she has been in Mr. Farrar's home many times before he purchased it. She stated that the house had both heating and air conditioning. She distributed pictures showing her view of the harbor and the Vincent Thomas Bridge prior to the mechanical equipment being placed on the roof and after the mechanical equipment was installed. She stated that the air conditioners on the roof are commercial air conditioners and are very noisy. She noted that the trees on the property have grown, but she had been told by Mr Farrar that she could not touch the trees because they are on his property She noted that she had a survey done in 1997, but Mr. Farrar has disputed this survey She felt that Mr. Farrar had options regarding his heating and air conditioning, such as putting it on the ground or along the side of the house She also felt that Mr. Farrar could have installed residential rather than commercial air conditioning which would have been much quieter. She disagreed with the staff report comments that there are limited areas to place the heating and air conditioning units. She stated that the air conditioning units were at the side of the pool in the past and caused no safety issues. Based on the fact that the applicant had other reasonable options for the commercial air conditioning units and ducting, she asked that the Planning Commission deny the Variance. She felt it has destroyed the topographical features of the property and takes away from the country atmosphere of the neighborhood Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Lyon asked Ms. French -Campbell if there was a For Sale sign on her property and if it was her intention to move. Ms. French -Campbell answered that there was a For Sale sign on her property and explained that this situation had been going on for far too long. She did not understand a City where there were rules and guidelines and someone chooses to ignore these rules and is able to get away with it. Commissioner Cote asked staff to clarify what the neighborhood coalition was. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that a Variance does not have an early neighborhood consultation requirement like the Height Variation application. In the series of meetings the applicant had with staff, staff had suggested the applicant talk to his neighbors to try to get their issues addressed. He noted that staff did not tell the applicant who should be contacted, but did inform him of the Campbell's concerns and that she should be contacted. Commissioner Mueller asked Ms French -Campbell if there was currently anything in the neighborhood that resembles this project in terms of ductwork on the roof, making it compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Campbell stated that there was nothing similar in the neighborhood. Commissioner Mueller asked if there was an HOA in the neighborhood and if the neighborhood coalition was somehow attached to the HOA. Ms. Campbell responded that there was not an HOA in the neighborhood. Chairman Cartwright asked Ms. Campbell that if ducts were to be allowed on the roof, if she had a preference as to what would be on the roof. Ms. Campbell answered that she would prefer the flat ducting rather than the round ducting on the roof. Brad Campbell 3330 Palos Verdes Drive East explained that Mr. Farrar has always said he wanted to work with the neighbors, yet every time something is done it has been when he is not home and has no knowledge that it will be done He stated that if the proper procedures had been taken to apply for the air conditioning on the roof, it would most likely have been denied and not allowed on the roof He was very concerned that the duct work blocks his view of the Vincent Thomas Bridge and were very noisy. He questioned if there was some code that protects the view that was existing when the house was purchased Director/Secretary Rotas stated there was a View Ordinance that protects views through the view preservation portion of the Ordinance. He noted, however, that documentation Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 9 of the view was required and the Ordinance applied only to foliage over 16 feet in height or the ridgeline, whichever is lower. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lyon felt there was a lot of potential in having the parties get together and try to work out a productive arrangement He felt it would serve everyone's best interest to have a meeting where the issues are addressed and the applicant and neighbors should be able to work out a reasonable compromise much better than the staff or Planning Commission could. However, if a compromise could not be reached, then the Planning Commission will have to make a judgment when the hearing is continued. Commissioner Lyon moved to table the hearing to a future date, seconded by Chairman Cartwright. Commissioner Mueller felt the City should take a leadership role in the meetings between the applicant and the neighbors, if this is the approach that is decided upon. However, he felt a different approach should be taken as the applicant has continued to do work without proper permits and that the decision should reflect a message that the City will stand behind the residents and enforce the Ordinance. He was very concerned about the amount of grading done at the site and it was not at all compatible with the neighborhood He further did not think it was appropriate to place commercial air conditioners on the roof of a home. He noted that there was no requirement in the Building Code to have air conditioning in a home, and that the required heating could be accomplished in different ways. He did not want to see the Planning Commission continue to ask the neighbors to resolve their own issues, as he felt this was one of the jobs of the Planning Commission. He did not think that continuing the item would send the message that needed to be sent, which was that the Planning Commission and the City does not want people to do work without the proper approvals and permits He therefore was not in favor of a continuance, but would rather discuss the issue on its merits and make a decision Commissioner Cote agreed with Commissioner Mueller's concern with respect to why this application was before the Planning Commission. She too did not want to send the wrong message in regards to work that is done without permits or approvals. She was very concerned that the Campbells had not been given the opportunity to participate in any of the neighborhood meetings. She asked that staff ensure the Campbells take place in any future neighborhood meetings so that their issues and concerns are addressed. Commissioner Lyon stated that he did not disagree with Commissioner Mueller's comments, however he noted that the applicant had acknowledged he made a mistake and was willing to work with staff and the neighbors to reach an agreeable solution. He agreed that it was not a good thing to do things and then try to make it right later on after you have been caught, but noted that there would be penalty fees involved for the Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 10 applicant. He explained that he made the motion to table the item as a response to the applicant's request to continue the item. Chairman Cartwright felt it was very clear that the Planning Commission has expressed a strong concern about the choices that were made to get the applicant to this point He also felt the staff report clearly shows that the staff feels very strongly about air conditioning units placed on the roof. He was comfortable with tabling the item as long as it was very clear what the Planning Commission should be looking for in order to approve the project. The motion to table the item to a future mesUng passed an a vote of 3-1 wKh Commissioner Mueller dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8.55 p m. the Commission took a short recess until 9:05 p.m. at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS (CONT 5. Height Variation No. 899, Grading Parr K NO. 2151, fflno n Permit No. 573, and Environmental Assessment No. 765: 3787 CooQWghft DD ruve Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He presented a brief history of the project and explained that the item was before the Planning Commission to consider the environmental component of the project. He noted that the action deadline for the environmental component of the project was this evening. Therefore, staff was recommending the Planning Commission review the draft mitigation monitoring program that is attached to the staff report and adopt the resolution, as well as the mitigation monitoring program. He reported that staff was also working with the neighbors to address issues with regards to potential view impacts as well as the turnaround at the terminus of Coolheights Drive. He stated that staff has met with the neighbors on several occasions, but at this time staff does not have sufficient information to report to the Commission on the design of the turnaround and staff was requesting the Planning Commission continue the discussion on the merits of the project applications to the July 23 meeting, and only consider the environmental component of the project at this meeting Chairman Cartwright discussed the project application and was concerned that each time a continuance was granted, the more difficult it would be to resolve. He requested that the Planning Commission have some feel for the options being discussed by staff and the neighbors, as they may be looking at things that are not supported by the Planning Commission. His other concern was that the applicant and the neighbors may have reached a point where they can no longer move forward. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 11 Commissioner Mueller agreed that the Planning Commission should be presented with a status of the options being considered. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the discussions seem to be going in a direction where there might be a general consensus as to what the optimal turnaround would be. He stated that the delay was because there are certain landmarks and features in the area that a cul-de-sac may impact. Therefore, staff and the consultant are working with the neighbors in determining the exact locations of these features To do this, a survey of the street was required, which had very recently been accomplished. He hoped that all of the necessary information would be ready and available for the Planning Commission at the July 23 meeting. Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearing. Ralph Ortolano Sr. 3776 Coolheights Drive read a letter his wife submitted that stated the applicant's project was too large for the building area allowed under the code and which is what is driving many of the issues the Commission will need to resolve. He noted that the site is predominately comprised of extreme slopes and contains natural and urban overlay control districts which require dedication of easements. He therefore felt the proposed structure on the actual buildable property was too large and was not compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Cartwright reminded Mr. Ortolano that this hearing was to consider the environmental aspect of the project rather than the merits of the project. He asked Mr. Ortolano if he was opposed to the project Mr. Ortolano responded that he opposed to the project, as he felt it was much too large to put on this property. Barbara Sattler 1904 Avenida Aprenda stated she was representing the south coast chapter of the California Native Plant Society, which remains very concerned about the project. She stated according to the Negative Declaration, the project will destroy approximately 1. 15 acres of habitat and was also concerned that staff is recommending approval of the Negative Declaration before the details of the plans are fully developed. She noted that there were no details of where the trails are to be located and therefore no way of knowing what plants might be impacted by the location of the trails. She discussed Bio 1, the spring survey, and asked if everything would be put on hold until the spring survey was done. She asked that two additional plants, which are qualified as special status plants by the California Department of Fish and Came, be added to the survey: Calochorius Catalina and Dichondra Occidentalia. Regarding Bio 2, she did not agree with one specific area being classified as a disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub She noted there were a number of very special plants in the area and felt the area should be restricted and not accessed by construction equipment and materials. Regarding Bio 4, she requested a condition be added that the future fuel modification clearance that happens on an annual basis should be restricted to the same seasonal timing that the initial clearances are restricted to avoid impacts to the gnat catcher and Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 12 the plants. She stated that the biggest concern was Bio 5, the mitigation for the impact to habitat. She stated that mitigation was intended to be a compensation for loss and remedy the damage that is done. She noted that the Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game have recommended that mitigation consist of 3*1 restoration of Coastal Sage Scrub and have suggested Abalone Cove as a site where this could occur. Although an easement is a good thing, it does not provide any additional habitat and does not provide any type mitigation for the losses that will occur. She therefore urged the Planning Commission to follow the recommendation of the Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ask for 3:1 offsite mitigation, which includes full restoration at Abalone Cove or another suitable site She further asked that the project be restricted by the plant palette. Finally, she reminded the Planning Commission that the U.S. Department of the Interior and the California Department of Fish and Game that a Habitat Loss Permit will be required for this project. Commissioner Cote asked staff to clarify the trail issue Senior Planner Mihranian stated there were trail segments that are unknown at this time. However, as reported in the past to the Commission the City does not want the public trails to cause impact to the habitat and is therefore waiting for the brush clearance to first occur and then delineate the trails in a manner that does not impact habitat. He explained that this would be considered as a condition on the project, which the applicant has agreed to. Director/Secretary Rojas reminded the Planning Commission and the public that the adoption of the Negative Declaration does not mean approval of the project and that the Planning Commission could adopt the Negative Declaration and still deny the project. He stated that many concerns raised by the Native Plant Society will be addressed with very specific conditions of approval of the project for consideration at a later date. Commissioner Cote asked staff to review the environmental issues and how staff intends to address the issues in the project resolution Senior Planner Mihranian began by stating that the two plants that Ms. Sattler requested be added to the list are not considered protected plants by both the State and Federal resource agencies, but are identified as special plants on the California Native Plant list Regarding the Lyons Panachetae, which is a protected plant by the Resource Agencies, a survey needs to be done during its blooming period of March through August before any permits are issued. He stated that this was identified as a mitigation measure. Commissioner Cote asked how the plants not on the State and Federal list, but on the California Native Plant Society list are treated. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 13 Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the City extends some protection to such plants, but it is at the discretion of the City, as there is no mandate. However, in this case, it was staff s intent to protect the plants noted by the speaker Senior Planner Mihranian discussed Bio 2 and explained that the mitigation measure regarding the slope behind the proposed residence does not specifically identify the area as a non -staging area for construction, however since it is an extreme slope and the mitigation measure states that all construction activity shall be confined to the pad area, construction staging will not be permitted on this slope. Regarding fuel modification to Bio 4, he clarified that the applicant will be required to do brush clearance yearly which will be a condition on the project. Regarding the landscaping and the plant palette, staff agrees with Ms. Sattler's comments and will condition the project that a landscape plan be submitted to the City so that the City can regulate what plants are planted on the site. Director/Secretary Rojas discussed the adequacy of using the Barkentine property for mitigation He explained that per the State and Federal regulations for mitigation, it is acceptable to revegetate habitat or conserve habitat. He noted that, regardless of public ownership, the agencies do not consider an area conserved unless there is a conservation easement on the land He explained that the City recently purchased the Barkentine property and that there are no conservation easements on the property and he has discussed with the resource agencies the use of the property as a mitigation site for both private and public projects. He noted that the costs of the conservation easements or the revegetation will have to be borne by the applicant. Commissioner Cote asked Ms. Sattler if she would be satisfied with the use of the Barkentine property for mitigation purposes rather than Abalone Cove. Ms Sattler explained that Abalone Cove was a recommendation of the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed that it was the Agency's recommendation, however it was staffs position that the City would rather have the mitigation on the Barkentine property at 3:1 through conservation easements. He explained that the resources agencies would have to approve this and he has already approached the agencies with the recommendation. He stated that the resource agencies have agreed, on a conceptual level, with the rational involved. Ralph Ortolano Jr. 3778 Cooiheights Drive felt there was a disturbing lack of detail in the staff report regarding the conservation easements. He did not understand how the City owned land, purchased to preserve open space, could also be used to preserve the three acres required on this project. He did not think that this was getting any extra land preserved, only land that was already preserved Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the agencies are in the business of preserving open space for habitat protection and therefore make a very clear distinction between Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 14 land that is acquired for open space and land that is acquired for habitat conservation He stated that the City bought the Barkentine property for open space, but in theory could use the property for different recreational amenities. He stated that the agencies are looking for land that is set aside for habitat conservation, and the only way they will give mitigation credit is if the land has a conservation easement placed on it. Mr Ortolano asked how City land could be used for mitigation purposes for private development. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that Shoreline Park, which is City owned, was used as mitigation for Ocean Trails and likewise the applicant would be required to compensate the City for the use of the land. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lyon moved to adopt P.C. ResaWdon No. 2002-15, theraby adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Wft2Uon Monitoring Program as presented by staff and to continue the discussion on the merits of the {project applications to the July 23, 2002 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Muefler. Approved, 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT) 6. Height Variation No. 940 and Gradiroc perrnit X9a. 2293: 2033 Santa Rena Dr. Assistant Planner Luckert presented the staff report. He explained the scope of the proposed project and the need for the height variation and grading applications. In reviewing the height variation, staff had determined that the project significantly impairs the view from 2041 Santa Rena Drive. Additionally, staff did not think the proposed project was situated in such a manner as to minimize view impairment, and felt that the applicant had other options available to them, such as lowering the overall height of the property 2 feet or lowering the proposed ridgeline to what is currently existing on the property. He explained that staff could not approve the grading application since the grading and related construction does affect the visual relationships from the neighboring property. Staff did not feel the project was compatible with the neighborhood due to the fact the proposal was two stories and 700 square feet larger than the ten closest homes. He also noted that the proposed addition and garage were located directly along the front setback, parallel to the street, and in clear view of the public right-of-way. Due to the action deadline of July 17, 2002 staff had recommended denial of the project, however the applicant has given a verbal continuance request and based on that staff was now recommending a continuance of the project and asks the Planning Commission give guidance on how the project should proceed. Chairman Cartwright asked what staffs main concern was with the proposed project regarding the neighborhood compatibility issues. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 95 Assistant Planner Luckert answered that it was the mass and bulk of the proposed project Chairman Cartwright opened the public heali1ng. John Vilicich 953 W First Street, San Pedro, stated he was the architect for the project. He noted that that he has always worked with the staff and complied with all of their requests, and did not realize denial was being recommended until last week He stated that his intention was to meet all of the requirements of staff. He explained that the entire structure on the lot was moving due to geologic conditions on the property and the best way to mitigate this was to remove the dirt and construct a garage under the house He discussed the proposed garage and noted that the garage could be reduced by one car slot, however he did not particularly want to do that He stated he was only adding 650 square feet to the first floor and only 597 square feet to the second floor. If he were to reduce it by 400 square feet, he would only be 470 square feet larger than the largest house in the neighborhood, which he did not think was out of line. Commissioner Cote explained that staff was more concerned with the mass and bulk of the proposed residence, rather than the square footage and asked Mr. Vilicich to address that issue. Mr. Vilicich responded that he had tried to create a sense of proportion with the entry area by setting the living room area back four or five feet, along with a balcony off of the den. Therefore, he did not think the residence would look at all like a straight line from the public right-of-way. He explained there was not much room on the left side of the property to do much with. He felt that the project would be an improvement to the neighborhood Commissioner Cote asked if the applicant was willing to lower the height of the property by two feet to allow for a lower addition Mr. Vilicich answered that they were. Commissioner Cote asked why the staff report did not deal with any geological issues. Assistant Planner Luckert acknowledged that the staff report did not address geologic issues, however he noted that a geotechnical report has been submitted to the City and approved by the City Geologist Commissioner Mueller asked if there were other ways to address the required geologic recommendation, other than putting in the sub-terranean garage. Assistant Planner Luckert stated that there were other ways to address the geology. Debra Bocarski (owner) 2033 Santa Rena Drive read a letter from a neighbor which was in favor of the proposed addition. In discussing her project, Ms Bocarski felt the Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 16 addition was compatible with the neighborhood and noted two two-story homes already existing in the neighborhood. She stated that her addition would not look like a two- story home as the garage was underneath the residence Don Shults 2129 Velez Drive stated he was representing the HOA Board of Directors for the neighborhood He stated that the HOA was satisfied with the proposed addition and had no objection to it He noted that the neighborhood was in transition and many of the homes have recently been renovated and many more were considering renovation. Commissioner Mueller noted that a finding regarding cumulative view impairment must be made to approve the project, and he asked if the cumulative view was considered when the HOA gave its approval of the project. Mr. Shults answered that view was considered. However, what the board discussed was that this particular proposed addition was compatible with the neighborhood and does not affect the overall area. However, the next proposed addition may affect views and that will be discussed at that time Commissioner Cote asked if anyone from the HOA had gone to the home at 2041 Santa Rena Drive to look at the view impairment from that house. Mr. Shults answered that the president of the HOA had been to the house Chairman Cartwright suggested that when the HOA meets to consider additions in the neighborhood, they look at the same guidelines that the Planning Commission has to consider when approving a project. Clinton An 2041 Santa Rena Drive stated that his concern was that his view of the city and harbor will be completely blocked by the proposed addition. Chairman Cartwright noted that the applicant has agreed to lower the height of the property by two feet, and asked if that would alleviate his concerns Mr. Ari stated that if the proposed addition were at the original ridgeline that would alleviate most of his concerns. He was originally concerned with the geological stability, but after hearing the City Geologist had approved the addition he was not as concerned. He noted that there were no homes in the immediate neighborhood that were larger than 2,500 square feet in size. He stated that almost everyone in the neighborhood has a view and any kind of precedent that takes views away in the neighborhood is a mistake. He presented a petition signed by 10 people in the neighborhood who were direct neighbors of the applicant who objected to the project. He noted that nobody from the HOA visited his home, nor has the applicant. He stated that he did not want to stop the applicant from improving his property, but did not want the improvement at an enormous loss to his own property. He stated that it appeared the existing silhouette was two feet 8 inches above the existing ridgeline, and lowering the addtion by two feet would be satisfactory to him. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 17 Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Ari if the HOA had given him an opportunity to meet with them to discuss his concerns over the proposed addition Mr. Ari stated that he was never contacted by the HOA. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Vilichich about the proposal to lower the ridgeline by two feet, and asked if that would lower the proposed ridgeline to the same level as the current ridgeline. Mr. Vilicich answered that the proposed ridgeline would be approximately 6 inches above the existing ridgeline. Chairman Cartwright noted that when looking at the silhouette from the neighbors property there appeared by be a difference of approximately 2 feet from one side to the other, and asked Mr Vilicich to explain. Mr. Vilicich answered that he had measured the silhouette and it was at the correct height Commissioner Lyon was satisfied that lowering the structure by 2 feet would satisfy the view problem of the neighbor. The other issue was neighborhood compatibility. He was concerned that this home looked very large and asked if there was something that the architect could do to the front of the house that would make it appear less massive. Mr. Vilicich answered that the living room was already four feet back, but he could take another foot away to make it five feet. He felt there was enough shape at the front of the house so that it would not look massive from the street. Assistant Planner Luckert stated that the proposed addition was essentially straight along the 20 foot setback line. Mr. Vilicich showed the Planning Commission a set of plans to show how he felt the house did not look like a straight line along the front, however he would be willing to make adjustments to the front of the house Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cote stated that the two major issues she had with the project were those identified by staff, the view impacts from the neighbor and the massive appearance of the house from the street She was also quite concerned with the cumulative view impacts to the neighborhood She supported the revision to bring the proposed ridgeline down two feet. She felt it was very important in the deliberations to get a very specific set of agreements with respect to what changes would be made with the front articulation of the house. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 18 Commissioner Mueller also was very concerned with the size and bulk of the house as well as the cumulative impact of the view in the neighborhood, which he felt could be very significant He suggested setting some sort of a benchmark for the community that would not be something that was debated constantly. He felt that using the existing ridgeline of the house was a good benchmark and could be used in other cases in the neighborhood. He was not too concerned with the square footage of the proposed project, but rather the mass from the street He felt that if the appearance and size were reduced from the street that should be sufficient, however he did not want to approve this without seeing a set of plans that specifically called out what was going to be done. Chairman Cartwright was also very concerned with the view impact from the neighbor's property, however was pleased that lowering the height satisfied the neighbor's concerns. The cumulative view impact was also a concern, but that concern goes away if the ridgeline is lowered. He too was concerned with the mass and bulk and felt that setting the addition back one foot would help At 11:10 p.m the Planning Commission took a short recess until 11.20 p.m. at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT) Assistant Planner Luckert stated that during the recess he met with the architect and Mr Clinton to discuss the height of the ridgeline and the setback, however no there was no agreement reached. He showed the Planning Commission a set of plans and explained what was discussed. Chairman Cartwright re -opened the public hearing. The Planning Commission, architect, and Assistant Planner Luckert looked at the plans and discussed ways to satisfy everyone's concerns. Mr. Vilicich displayed a plan and noted that the balcony would be set back an additional one foot. He stated that the ridgeline would be approximately 6 to 7 inches above the existing ridgeline. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Ari if he had any comments regarding the proposal. Mr. An stated that it was hard for him to envision where the ridgeline would be, but as long as it was only 6 to 7 inches above the existing ridgeline he was inclined to say that was acceptable. He felt it would be easier to make the decision if he could see where that ridgeline would actually be. psi Carhvriqlht closed the pu.lic heari g. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 19 Commissioner Mueller asked what the slope was on the existing driveway Assistant Planner Luckert scaled the plans and estimated that the slope was approximately 10 to 15 percent, and the maximum allowed was 20 percent. Commissioner Lyon moved to approve HMghtt VaiftVon Flo. 940 and Grad) ng Permit No. 2293 as amended to lower the Naught of the proposed) structure Wo feet and set back the living room an addituona( -hwo feet from the front setback Pone to reduce the apparent mass of the structure. Commissioner Mueller asked to amend the motion to set the balcony back an additional foot. Commissioner Lyon amended the motion to Mcg ude an addlotuonai one foot setback to the balcony area. The motion teras seconded by Commssuoner Cote. Commissioner Mueller asked if the property would now be re -silhouetted at the prescribed heights so that there would be no question as to the height of the project. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that if the Planning Commission wanted the silhouette to be lowered and the plans revised, then it would not be consistent with Commissioner Lyon's motion for approval Commissioner Lyon felt the direction from the Planning Commission was very specific and did not see any need to continue the item to another hearing Commissioner Mueller stated that because of the amount of discussion involved, he would be more agreeable if he could see the new silhouette so that the neighbor could get a chance to look at the actual height. Commissioner Lyon pointed out that the neighbor had already agreed to a two foot reduction in the height of the project. Commissioner Mueller noted that the neighbor had also commented that he would like to see a new silhouette Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the applicant would have to lower the silhouette and present revised plans early in the next week for the project to be on the Agenda of the July 23 meeting He also noted that there was not currently a Resolution for approval of the project so the application will be back on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting Chairman Cartwright stated that the decisions reached at this meeting satisfied his concerns regarding mass and bulk. He felt there would be some benefit to re - Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 20 silhouetting the project, however he did not think there would be enough benefit that it would be worth delaying the approval another two weeks. The motion failed with a vote of 2-2 with Commissioners Muefler and Cote dissenting. Commissioner Mueller explained that he voted no because he felt it was very important to see the revised silhouette in place. Commissioner Cote agreed with Commissioner Mueller's concerns that a new silhouette should be placed at the property. Commissioner Lyon saw no useful purpose in erecting a new silhouette when the Planning Commission has agreed that the decision was the correct decision and the neighbor that is affected the most has agreed to the revisions Chairman Cartwright felt that delaying the project an additional two weeks and to go through the time and expense to lower the silhouette was unnecessary He understood the Commissioners concerns, but did not feel the re -silhouette was necessary. Commissioner Lyon moved to approve Height Vafttlon Mo. 940 and Grading Permit No. 2293 as amended to lower the proposed hVght of the addKton to he no higher than seven inches from the existing roof height, to set back the living room an additional two feet, and set back the Wcony area an additional one foot, seconded by Chairman Cartwright. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Ari if the current motion, especially regarding the height of the proposed structure, was satisfactory to him and if he had any concerns with the motion. Mr. Ari stated that the proposal was perfectly acceptable to him Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Resolution approving the project would be on the Consent Calendar of the next meeting 17M=R— 7111711 Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 21 Chairman Cartwright asked that when the issue of insurance comes back to the Planning Commission he would like to include a discussion of whether the insurance requirements will be applied to only one project or several projects ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:59 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2002 Page 22