Loading...
PC MINS 20170328 )4 Approved 4/1 1/1 7 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:16 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Cruikshank led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Senior Planner Kim, Assistant Planner Caraveo, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. CLOSED SESSION REPORT Assistant City Attorney Burrows reported that the closed session was held to discuss three items. She stated a status report on the three items was given to the Commission and no reportable action was taken. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that the March 21, 2017 City Council meeting was cancelled due to a lack of quorum, and the agenda items have been placed on the upcoming April 4, 2017 meeting. He reported that at the April 4th meeting the City Council will consider: 1) Whether to include barking dog noise impacts in the draft Citywide Noise Ordinance being considered by the Council; 2)The Commission's recommendations on the General Plan and Housing Element Annual Reports; and, 3) Establishing an application fee for Minor Modification requests and a reduced appeal fee for Minor Modifications. Director Mihranian informed the Commission that late correspondence had been distributed for Agenda Item No. 3 and that the first Council-required Green Hills Neighborhood Advisory Committee meeting occurred at City Hall on March 24th. The meeting was attended by City Staff, Green Hills staff, and representatives from both the Peninsula Verde and Rolling Riviera Homeowner's Associations. Commissioner Nelson reported that he attended the March 17, 2017 Mayor's Breakfast at the request of Chairman Tomblin. Vice Chairman Cruikshank reported that he visited the project site for the Rue Langlois item, as well as the neighboring properties. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Noel Weiss explained the role of the Planning Commission in regards to the Green Hills project is that of an objective check and balance. He felt if everything was left to the City Council then the public would not have the same opportunity to express opinions. He felt any attempt by the City Council to try to take away from the public the kind of independent judgement the Planning Commission exercises should be suspect and challenged. With respect to the closed session item and report by the City Attorney, he stated there is no matter before the Planning Commission that relates to this litigation and he was not sure of the need for the briefing or why it was undertaken. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the March 14, 2017 Minutes Commissioner Nelson noted a typo on page 7 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Cruikshank moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Appeal of View Preservation Notice of Decision (Case No. ZON2016-00015): RPV Estates HOA Director Mihranian presented a brief staff report, explaining the two parties are in the process of negotiating an agreement as to what foliage should be trimmed or removed and what replacement foliage should be planted. Because of this, both parties are requesting a continuance of the item to the April 25th Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Emenhiser asked how many times this item has been continued on the Planning Commission's agenda. Director Mihranian answered that this is the second time a continuance has been requested. Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 2 Commissioner James moved to continue the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Approved, (7-0). 3. Appeal of Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016-00332) Sharon Loveys Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report and explained the project that is being appealed. She gave a brief history of the project, noting that at the November 29, 2016 hearing the Planning Commission directed the applicant to clarify the project location, as there was confusion as to what areas are within Inspiration Slope and what areas are within Vista del Ponte, and to provide the number of proposed niches and burial plot areas, as well as an updated aerial map for the property. Since then, she reported that the City Council held the annual compliance review for the cemetery and adopted revised Conditions of Approval to address operational concerns. She explained the reasons for the appeal, as detailed in the staff report. In regards to the Commission's request that the Green Hills team clarify the project location, she displayed a Site Plan submitted by Green Hills showing the Vista del Ponte and Inspiration Slope areas. She pointed out the Site Plan also shows the number of proposed interment areas. She stated the requested updated aerial was provided as an attachment to the staff report. She explained that Staff believes there was no new information provided by the appellant since the item was previously heard by the Planning Commission, and Green Hills has provided all of the requested information. Therefore, Staff is continuing to recommend the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision of approval of the proposed project. Chairman Tomblin stated that while at the site he noticed construction in areas around the proposed project, and asked Staff to clarify what was being constructed. Senior Planner Kim explained that as part of the Inspiration Slope open building permit, earth interments were approved as family estates, as well as the installation of ground cover on top of the existing mausoleum building. She noted that no interments are allowed on the area above the mausoleum. Chairman Tomblin noted that the proposed stairway leads up to this area, giving access from the area below, and he felt it would have been important to include this information in the staff report. Senior Planner Kim explained that the November 29, 2016 staff report mentions that the purpose of the stairs was to provide secondary access to the upper areas on Inspiration Slope including the roof. She added that in November this area was not yet improved with family estates. Director Mihranian noted on page 21 of the staff report there is mention of the stairway providing access to the upper existing burial area at Vista del Ponte and the upper area of Inspiration Slope. Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 3 Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated that at a previous meeting he was informed there is a running tally being kept on the amount of grading taking place on the property and he had asked this information be included in this staff report. He stated he did not see this information included in the staff report, and asked if this was something that could be made available the next time Green Hills is discussed. Senior Planner Kim stated that this grading information is tracked by Staff, and this information can be provided to the Commission in the future. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Noel Weiss (appellant) stated one question is whether or not a proposed project is consistent with the Master Plan. He felt the Staff recommendation and the proposed Resolution lacks any kind of findings because the original Master Plan application and 2007 approval talks in terms of the number of interments. He stated there is not a base against which to measure the degree of density and intensity going forward. He stated their contention was that Staff approved,without appropriate justification and the Planning Commission's involvement, the right to store vaults on the roof of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. He felt it was very obvious that Green Hills will eventually want to try to inter people on the roof of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. He pointed out that Vista del Ponte was never identified on the Master Plan as a particular development area. Therefore, he felt that by definition what is being discussed is really an amendment to the Master Plan. He felt there was a procedural issue, as the City Council gave the Planning Commission the jurisdiction to evaluate compliance review, and then they took it away. He felt there is now piece-mealing of conditions by Staff and the City Council as to which conditions and laws Green Hills will abide by, and which they aren't. Sharon Loveys (appellant) showed a photo of stairs at Green Hills and also of a grassy area, and asked if it looked like stairs would be needed to access the area. She stated the Commissioners need to go to Green Hills with her and walk Vista del Ponte. She did not think steps were necessary for Vista del Ponte. Bernadette Sabath stated she is very familiar with the Green Hills landscape, and has been for many years. She felt it was important to realize the impact of the projects at Green Hills. She stated that views are impaired and things happen, but neighbors never actually see or know what impacts will happen at the very beginning of a permit process because they don't know what the impacts will be. She felt that allowing the stairs to be built will provide access to the roof area of the Inspiration Slope mausoleum and may result in noise impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Leon asked Ms. Sabath if the noise impacts she was discussing was specifically addressing the should there be rooftop burials then there will be a noise impact, or were there other noise impacts she was concerned about. Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 4 Ms. Sabath answered that Inspiration Slope will now broadcast over a much broader area of the homes that are within eyesight and earshot of the area. She explained her issues is about a bigger impact on a greater number of residents in regards to noise. Commissioner Nelson asked Ms. Sabath her opinion on what the new vinyl fence will do to the noise impact. Ms. Sabath felt that the vinyl fence will be great and make a big difference in terms of people sitting at Green Hills and socializing. However, in terms of future development, the stairway will increase the visitation to the higher area which does not currently have approval for interments. Chairman Tomblin stated he was surprised at the amount of construction at the private burial areas, but was concerned with piece-meal approvals. He explained that the Master Plan shows a sloping area. He noted that now quite a bit of square footage has been added to the area at a much higher elevation. He was very concerned with the amount of noise and asked if that has been addressed by Green Hills with the Homeowner's Association and has Staff considered the noise issue. Director Mihranian reiterated that, as reflected in the conditions adopted by the City Council, when it comes to the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum the rooftop burials are not permitted. The ground areas off the building have criteria established by the City Council to help mitigate potential operational impacts to the neighboring properties. He noted one of the conditions is that Green Hills is required to have a staff person at the services to ensure the code of conduct for the park is adhered to. Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted the guard rail is actually a solid structure, and asked staff if, when a silhouette is erected to show a structure, would the silhouette go to the top of the guardrail where the view is actually being blocked, or does it go to the top of the structure and not include the additional 42 inches of guardrail. Director Mihranian answered that silhouette would go to the top of the guardrail, as Staff looks at the total structure height. Debbie Landes stated that in light of the discussions this evening, she felt it was very clear this is why when Green Hills wants to request changes, these requests must come before the Planning Commission. She stated there is a process in place and it should be followed. She felt that the density is the issue, noting a lot of people are buried up there and there is a lot of activity. Matt Martin referred to Municipal Code 17.86.050 which states that the City shall not accept for processing or grant any application for a development on which the Director has verified a violation of the Code exists. He stated that on January 17th Staff noted that Green Hills has confirmed violations of the CUP, as there is an illegally built fence directly in front of his property. Therefore, he felt the Planning Commission's decision should be very easy to make. Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 5 Director Mihranian commented that the Annual Review was allowed to proceed because it is a City requirement and not a development application submitted by the applicant. Additionally, when the compliance review was performed, Staff identified areas that were not in compliance and reported that to the City Council. The City Council amended the conditions to correct some of these non-compliant issues and that fence is now permitted and allowed through the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Martin disagreed, stating the fence was built illegally and was not in compliance with the CUP or the Municipal Code. He stated the fence is still existing, and as far as he was aware, he did not see any changes in the CUP to allow this unpermitted construction to remain. Director Mihranian explained that typically in the City free-standing fences and walls are allowed to be built up to seven feet in height by right. The only time a permit is required is when there is a difference in grade between the two properties and a view issue is involved. In regards to the Conditions of Approval, he referred to Resolution No. 2017- 03 which permits freestanding fences and walls up to eight feet in height. Mr. Martin pointed out another violation from the January 17th compliance review, noting Staff had also indicated a portion of another fence is dilapidated and has not been maintained. He stated residents feel this fence is an eyesore and have been reporting it for years, and Staff has confirmed this violation. Therefore, according to the City's Municipal Code, no new permits can be processed. Senior Planner Kim explained that the dilapidated portions of the fence mentioned in the subject report are along the rear property lines of Peninsula Verde. She stated it is a chain link fence that is old and dilapidated and as part of the Council-adopted Conditions of Approval, Green Hills is required to replace the entire chain link fence with a solid fence, which the Peninsula Verde HOA has agreed upon in terms of material and color. This fence is required to be installed before the next compliance review in January 2018. Assistant City Attorney Burrows pointed out that Municipal Code Section 17.86.050 also provides that an application may be accepted or granted by the City if the property is brought into compliance with the Municipal Code either by removing the violation or submitting an application to legalize the violation and a permit or approval is granted. She stated in November 2016 there were allegations of a violation and in January 2017, in adopting the Conditions of approval, the City Council set forth a process by which Green Hills could bring these alleged violations into compliance. Charmayne Geier displayed a photo taken from her living room last Saturday of a vault being dug at Green Hills. She also showed a photo taken during the funeral service noting the screening was falling down at the property line. She noted that the people at the service were very quiet and nice, however the person performing the service was quite loud. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 6 Chairman Tomblin stated the Commission seems to spend a lot of time looking at violations that keep coming up over and over. He felt there was a credibility issue with Staff and Green Hills when these types of violations are shown to the Commission over and over. Director Mihranian acknowledged this is a work in progress and Green Hills is trying to better understand how to address and mitigate these problems. Chairman Tomblin noted that Mr. Martin brought evidence to the City many years ago how the line of burials is in the setback. He has also brought evidence to the City tonight that Green Hills is not in compliance. He asked if this is a legal hearing. Senior Planner Kim stated that based on the Conditions of Approval, what Green Hills is required to do is provide a covered tent, enclosed on a minimum of two sides. They are not required to put the panels up and are doing that on their own. She also explained that at the May 13, 2014 Planning Commission meeting there was discussion regarding the panels. At that time, the HOA representative stated the HOA preferred not to have the panels because of view impacts. Therefore, that Condition of Approval was removed. She showed the photo taken by the neighbor that showed there was an interment service and it was covered by a tent with two sides. She also noted there is no Condition of Approval requiring this during the preparation or after the service. Commissioner Leon recalled that at the May 13, 2014 meeting the discussion was not the panels, but rather putting up a permanent opaque barrier. It was his understanding at the time the HOA did not want a permanent eight-foot wall along their perimeter. The panels shown in the photos are temporary panels and felt that in the case of a large group, the idea of putting up a tent with two sides does not really block the entire view. He felt Green Hills was going the extra mile by putting up the temporary panels in addition to the tent. John Papadakis discussed the decline of commercial business in the San Pedro Harbor area, however felt that Green Hills was the exception to that. He praised Green Hills and stated the park itself is an ever expanding and improving sanctuary that creates safety and security for the entire surrounding area. He felt that Green Hills provides an enormous public benefit in being a secure and stable neighbor in a very unstable neighborhood. He asked the Commission to resist the temptation to micro-manage this growing business. Dave Turner discussed the proposed project, stating the wall with the railing on top will not impact his view any more than it is currently impacted. He stated that the people who will visit this area without the steps in there, will be confined below the wall and to the south of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum and will not be visible to the residents in the Peninsula Verde neighborhood. Once the stairs are put in a lot more people will be attracted to go up to see the water feature and to the rooftop of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum and they will be visible to the residents in Peninsula Verde. He also felt this will add to the possibility of noise problems, as sound travels. He recommended that if the stairway is built it be gated off until a track record is established in terms of Green Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 7 Hills effectively enforcing the noise and visitations to the area. Once it has been proven that Green Hills is going to enforce the noise restrictions, then the City could consider opening up the stairway and water feature. Lori Brown stated she has no problem with Green Hills and their development as long as it is within reason. She was concerned with the density, noting Western Avenue has become a gridlock. She noted the wrought iron gate discussed earlier is blocking access for the residents in the condos to Green Hills and asked that the wrought fence be removed so the residents can regain their access. Joanna Jones-Reed stated residents have been pointing out errors at Green Hills all along the way and it just feels like the rug is always being pulled out from underneath the residents at the condos. She stated there was mediation and a settlement was agreed to, only to have the City alter the agreed upon demands. Ed Fitzgerald stated when he was young the area where Green Hills is located was open land. He stated Green Hills vastly improved the area by turning these fields into a park- like setting. He stated all of the people living in that area purchased their homes or condos knowing there was a memorial park at the site. He felt that with a memorial park comes some noise and some congestion. He felt Green Hills has always had the public at their heart. Nadia Georgina stated she bought her property with a setback which is not what she currently sees. In regards to the CUP and the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum it states that no other than ground cover shall be allowed on the top of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. She stated that on the south side of the rail there are bushes, roses, and flowers, which she felt is a CUP violation. She also has seen Green Hills staff on the top cleaning up and checking things, which she felt was not allowed and also a CUP violation. She questioned how many violations should be allowed to occur and where the residents should bring these violations. She felt that the proposed stairs and the water feature will attract more people to the area and create more problems. Steve Espolt (Green Hills) stated Green Hills seeks to engage its neighbors in constructive dialogue in regards to improvements at Green Hills. Over the course of many community meetings the Green Hills team has met with City Staff, as well as representatives from neighboring Homeowner's Associations to collaborate on steps Green Hills can take to address potential impacts to the neighbors. He felt the current Site Plan Review meets the goals of Green Hills and the community's needs, and urged the Commission to approve the project. He stated that, time and again as issues have arisen, Green Hills has sought to act quickly, responsibly, and professionally to resolve these issues. He noted that especially in the past year, with the park under new management, Green Hills has worked closely with the neighbors to address issues such as noise, security and privacy. He gave a brief updates on that affect. He stated park improvements are conducted with one goal in mind, which is to ensure Green Hills can continue to serve the generations of South Bay families for many years to come. Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 8 Ellen Berkowitz (Green Hills) reminded everyone that the reason they are here is to hear an appeal of the Director's approval to allow construction of the wall with niches, a fountain, and a stairway. She stated this is the item that is agendized and is the only item in which the Commission can take action. In regards to this appeal, she stated there is no basis in which to grant the appeal, particularly in view of the City Council's direction as reflected in the amended Conditions of Approval. She noted that walls with niches are expressly permitted. She stated she was happy to answer any questions related to the appeal. With respect to the additional documentation requested by the Commission at a previous meeting, she apologized for taking so long to submit the documentation, and explained why it had taken Green Hills so long to submit the requested documentation. With regards to the stairs, she explained these stairs go up to the burials at Inspiration Slope and do not go to the roof of Inspiration Slope. She showed photos of the hill that people currently have to walk up to reach the area to clarify why the stairs are needed. In regards to whether the stairs will bring more people to the area that shouldn't be in the area, she explained that recently Green Hills adopted a very robust security process, and briefly explained this process. In regards to Vista Verde, she noted that the photos shown were of only the second service held on the roof of Pacific Terrace so far this year. She stated it was in compliance with the requirements set forth by the City. With regards to the gate the Vista Verde residents have commented on, she stated there are currently three law suits pending from Vista Verde and she advised the residents that it is not recommended to allow people access through that gate given the prepotency that they have seen for Vista Verde residents to file law suits. She stated it would be very problematic for Green Hills if there were any kind of incident and Green Hills was held responsible. She stated that Green Hills has adopted new rules and a code of conduct that state visitors are to enter the Park through the front entrance. With regards to the chain link fence along the Vista Verde property line, she stated Green Hills would be happy to talk to Vista Verde when the law suits are dismissed to replace the fence if necessary. Commissioner Nelson asked Ms. Berkowitz if she was saying the issues being appealed at this hearing are moot. Ms. Berkowitz affirmed her position that the issues being appealed are moot. Chairman Tomblin discussed density, and explained the density issue is more to the impact of having more activity at the site, and the possibility of increased noise impacts. He stated that he likes what he has seen lately at Green Hills, but there are still noise impact concerns. He asked Ms. Berkowitz to discuss how Green Hills is addressing these higher and taller designs at the site in regards to noise impacts. Ms. Berkowitz explained that Green Hills now trains their security officers in the code of conduct for the site, and these security officers are much more actively patrolling the Park and approaching groups of five or more people to inform them of the code of conduct. She stated this code of conduct will be posted at the entrance, and will passed out much more frequently. She stated there is a condition of approval that the security reports be presented to the City Council, and noted these reports are quite detailed and informative. Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 9 Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked Ms. Berkowitz if Green Hills has information on the type of increases in burials that may occur over the next several years. He was interested in terms of traffic and density. Ms. Berkowitz explained that type of information is tracked by the Trade Association that oversees cemetery activities. She noted the rate of deaths in Los Angeles County has remained relatively consistent and stable for many years. Chairman Tomblin referred to page 4 of the staff report, and asked for clarification on what a cremation garden is, and how many niches will placed there. Mr. Espolt explained that a cremation gardens are similar to the private gardens, but on a smaller scale. Noel Weiss (in rebuttal) stated his rebuttal needed to focus on procedural versus substantive objections that he has. He stated that he goes to the January 31, 2017 action by the City Council, which apparently is what is being relied upon as rendering the substantive basis of the appeal moot. However, he felt that January 31st meeting was intended solely as a compliance review. Yet, he felt that there is a representation by both Staff and Green Hills that what the Council really did was go beyond compliance review. It is that compliance review that he has an issue with. He felt that procedurally what should have been done was to make a core decision to amend the Master Plan. He felt a formal Master Plan amendment or a Conditional Use Permit application was needed. Ellen Berkowitz (in rebuttal) stated Green Hills did not request any amendments to the Master Plan. She explained the Conditions of Approval allow the City Council to modify, amend, or take some other actions relative to the Conditions of Approval during the annual review. The City Council, pursuant to that authority, amended a number of Conditions of Approval. She did not believe there was anything that granted Green Hills additional entitlements or development rights, and if anything she felt the City Council made the Conditions of Approval more difficult or onerous. Commissioner Nelson moved to adopt staff recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Commissioner James noted the comments made by Mr. Weiss that he believed that at the January 31st hearing the City Council went beyond what he believed they were allowed to do, and Ms. Berkowitz's comment was not true. He asked what the City Attorney's opinion on this was. Assistant City Attorney Burrows stated that at compliance review hearings the City allows amendments to conditions of approval. Commissioner Bradley acknowledged there is a larger issue at hand, however what is before the Planning Commission is a very small portion of that larger issue. He stated the Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 10 Commission is hearing an appeal to the Director's approval. He did not think the Commission needed to open up the entire Green Hills discussion, beyond what is on the current agenda. He felt the Commission could move forward on making a decision on this issue without impacting the larger issues with Green Hills. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he was glad to see so many members of the Green Hills Management team in attendance to hear the comments of the Commission and their neighbors. He felt that part of the problem is that there are two incompatible uses that geographically over time are growing closer and closer. He congratulated Green Hills on their recent work with the neighbors and the neighboring HOAs, and wanted to believe this effort was genuine. He stated he was going to vote to deny the appeal, however the noise and disturbance issues continue to concern him. Commissioner Nelson felt that denying the appeal at this time was the appropriate action to take. Commissioner Leon also congratulated Green Hills on the progress they have made in terms of working with the neighborhood groups and modifying many of the procedures that are in place to limit the impact on the neighbors. He stated the application before the Commission is very limited and he could see nothing in the application out of the ordinary. He also believed the application should be looked at in the context of the whole. However, he could not see how the staircase would make a significant impact on the area, as he did not think crowds of people would be in the area. He therefore felt he could support staff's recommendation in both the limited scope and the big picture. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated he will also vote to deny the appeal. He was concerned with many of the issues that were brought up by the surrounding residents and hoped that the City will enforce their ordinance and their rules in terms of the Master Plan and the noise issues. He felt there is still a lot of work to be done on the City's behalf to make sure a bad situation is made better. Chairman Tomblin viewed this hearing as a turning point in the relationship between the City and Green Hills. He felt it was unfortunate for the residents at Vista Verde, however they brought forward and have seen a change in a whole process. He explained that he has explained to Staff that the Commission wants to see, going forward with future projects, the entire picture of what is happening with Green Hills. He was very pleased with Green Hills' willingness to meet with and work with the neighbors, and encouraged this to continue. He stated that he would be voting to deny the appeal. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2017-11, thereby denying the appeal upholding the Planning Director's decision to approve the Site Plan Review was approved, (7-0). NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 11 4. Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016- 00162): 30717 Rue Langlois Assistant Planner Caraveo presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and noting that Staff had received numerous comment letters from the neighbors, mostly concerning view, bulk and mass, structure size, privacy, and neighborhood compatibility. He explained that Staff felt that, based on the silhouette, the structure appears large and should be reduced to be more in line with the immediate neighborhood. He also noted that Staff has concerns with the proposed rear balcony and potential privacy impacts. He should several photos of the homes in the immediate neighborhood, noting most are single-story and range in size from approximately 2,000 to 5,000 square feet. He noted two two-story homes in the neighborhood, explaining these two homes were designed so that the second story is set back from the first floor and include extensive architectural features on the façade to reduce the scale of the structure. He stated that Staff felt the proposed structure appears massive and would be disproportionate to the homes in the neighborhood in terms of scale and size. He discussed the concerns some of the neighbors' concerns with the proposed structure, as outlined in the staff report. He concluded by stating Staff's recommendation to open the public hearing, receive testimony, and continue the public hearing to May 9, 2017 to allow the applicant time to redesign the project and install a new silhouette to address Staff's concerns regarding the project's impacts to neighborhood compatibility, scale, bulk and mass, structure height, and privacy. Commissioner James noted Staff's recommendations to reduce the amount by which the structure extends beyond the rear façade to adjacent residences. He stated that from the street above one cannot see where the rear of the property ends. He could not recall seeing a Staff recommendation suggesting a proposed structure that is below 16 feet in height should be reduced as recommended by Staff to match the neighbors. He asked Staff to clarify. Director Mihranian explained that when Staff did their analysis they found there is a trend in the neighborhood in regards to rear yard setbacks. He noted that these homes almost create a string-line with the rear of the homes. In looking at neighborhood compatibility and in looking at this proposed home and how the home would encroach beyond that perceived string-line, Staff felt that there would be an impact to the neighborhood and therefore incompatible. Commissioner James felt the applicant was making an effort to get as much house as possible on this lot. He felt that by taking away the ability to extend farther into the property was restricting the design. He noted that there are no letters expressing concern with the rear setback, and he heard Staff's concern that this expanded rear setback would look different from the other homes, but he questioned where this would be seen. Director Mihranian felt that the Commission may hear otherwise from some of the speakers this evening, as Staff did hear concerns from the neighbors regarding the rear yard setback. Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 12 Commissioner James noted a code section that says the grading requested cannot exceed that which is necessary for the primary permitted use of the lot. He noted the primary use of this lot is a residence. He asked Staff to clarify the language. Director Mihranian explained there is no maximum in terms of grading quantities and there are certain thresholds that trigger certain review processes. He stated that when Staff looks at that analysis they want to make sure the grading is not beyond what would be necessary. Commissioner James questioned the word "necessary" and what it means in this context, and what standard does the Commission apply to this. Director Mihranian stated there is no established quantitative threshold as to what is reasonable or necessary. Commissioner Bradley questioned why a house of this size was not required to have a three-car garage. Director Mihranian explained that the garage size is based on habitable square footage. Therefore, the structure size is looked at minus the size of the proposed garage and the basement area, which are not defined as habitable area. With that, the habitable structure size is just below 5,000 square feet and does not require a three-car garage. Commissioner Bradley noted this is the smallest lot in the neighborhood and they are requesting to build the largest house on the smallest lot. He felt the proposed house looked very much out of scale with the neighborhood and was interested to hear public testimony. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Louie Tomaro (architect) explained that the owners saw the recently built home at 30831 Rue Langlois and felt that a similar design was something they would like on their property. He stated he used that home as a guide from a design standpoint and criteria when designing this home. He explained there have been a few iterations, and noted that the basement was recently added to gain square footage as well as to help minimize the bulk and mass. He also explained that if you take away the square footage in the basement area and reference only the square footage on the top two levels, the house at 30831 Rue Langlois is 5,496 square feet and this proposed home minus the basement would be 4,936 square feet. He also noted both homes are 26 feet in height as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. He stated he was before the Commission to get some guidance. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he felt the proposed house is too big and too high, and felt Mr. Tomaro used the wrong house as a reference point. He also understood the housing stock in this neighborhood was aging and residents will be starting to remodel Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 13 and replace some of these homes, but felt this design was moving in the wrong direction. He encouraged Mr. Tomaro to follow Staff and the Commission's advice as much as his client would allow. Henry Posada (30723 Rue Langlois) stated his house is to the immediate south of this proposed project. He felt the project is too big and massive, and from his living room, dining room, and kitchen instead of seeing vegetation and blue sky to the right of the home he will see structure. From his patio, based on the silhouette, he will see only the structure. He did not think the house at 30831 Rue Langlois was a fair basis for comparison, as it is a corner lot and not similarly situated. He noted there is a recently remodeled two-story house on Rue Langlois that is a better basis for comparison. He noted the rear of the house is even with the rest of the homes on the street and is a better basis as to what can be done when building a second story on Rue Langlois. Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Posada if the rear setback on the subject house was reduced to be even with the rear of his home would he be able to support the project. Mr. Posada asked Chairman Tomblin if he was referring to the back of his home, or to where his overhang ends. Chairman Tomblin clarified the back of the physical home. Mr. Posada stated he was not opposed to new construction, and this construction would benefit the neighborhood. He felt a modest second story will be fine, but this structure is too big and goes back from the house too far. Rodin Rooyani (30723 Rue Langlois) stated she bought the house for the privacy and the view. She explained that now, when you walk into the house, you immediately see the silhouette from the living room, dining room, and kitchen. She noted that, while the homes on Rue Langlois are close in proximity, the value of the homes is the rear setbacks for privacy. She stated that the way this proposed additions projects out, it encroaches into the view and privacy. She did not think it was a fair comparison between this home and the home at 30831, as this home does not have the same massive presence to it as it is on a corner lot. She supported Staff's recommendations. She stated she would be more supportive of the project if the rear setbacks were maintained as the other homes on the street. Yantien Wong (30715 Rue Valois) stated her home is directly above the applicant's property, and that her home was purchased for the view. She explained she has a beautiful view, but this home will be directly in the center of the view. She understood the Code may not protect against this type of view obstruction, as it discusses near view and far view, but she felt it was so obvious when you visit her house how this home will create a significant impact. She also felt the scale of the house was too large and was not happy with the proposed two-story home. Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 14 Bobbi Johnson (30723 Rue Valois) stated she has an incredible view from her home. She was not happy about being able to see the proposed second story addition and balcony from inside her home, noting the kitchen, living room, and family room would all overlook the proposed home. Although she has been advised her view is not being diminished, she felt it does change the view. She did not think the project meets the necessary criteria for neighborhood compatibility. She was strongly opposed to the project moving forward as currently designed. She felt when a house is proposed of such mass, maybe another Rancho Palos Verdes neighborhood might be more appropriate. She noted the immediate neighborhood does have some newer homes, but nothing to this scale. She read from the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, and stated the handbook states what they as neighbors are hoping for. Firouz Rooyani (30637 Rue de la Pierre) stated the design of the proposed project impacts his view depending on how it's built. He explained that there are two-story structures on either side of his home, but they do not impact his view or privacy. He stated he has not objection to a two-story home as long as it is done modestly. He cautioned that best practices and best technologies in terms of laying the foundation for the basement is essential. Wendy Watson stated she is not an immediate neighbor, but was speaking about the size of the structure as seen when driving down Palos Verdes Drive West. She stated that the silhouette even stands out. She was concerned and didn't want to see this type of construction creep into the neighborhood. She too felt that another neighborhood might be more appropriate for a house of this size and design. She was particularly against the building of a basement on the property. Commissioner Leon asked Ms. Watson why she would care whether or not there was a basement on the property if she can't see it. Ms. Watson felt that the excavation.for the basement will be very hard on the older homes surrounding the property, combined with the shoring and the construction of the basement. She felt the basement was excessive for this neighborhood. She stated there are enormous homes in other neighborhoods that would be more appropriate. Farah Saddigh stated she lives on Rue Valois and was deeply concerned about the proposed project. She felt the home will be too large and will significantly impact the surrounding neighborhood views. She felt that allowing a variance will set a precedence and will open the door for others to follow suit, which will further impact the neighborhood. She strongly urged the Commission to not deviate from the City's height restrictions. Larry Haddad stated he lives within 500 feet of the project. He noted the applicant is asking for a house that is 230 percent larger than the average house in the neighborhood, and asked how that can be considered compatible; In regards to the rear setback, he noted the setbacks on the street are quite consistent, and this one will stick out several feet beyond the setbacks. He was concerned about the roof because of the high ceilings, and felt that a flat roof was very much out of character with the neighborhood and the Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 15 large skylight when illuminated at night would impact the night sky. He stated that this is a hillside neighborhood, and expressed concern with the possible impact to the neighborhood as a result of the basement. Nigel Williams stated he agreed with the comments of the previous speakers. Louie Tomaro (in rebuttal) stated he has listened to the comments of the neighbors, as well as the comments from Staff, and he will present a revised proposal to the Commission. Commissioner James felt that the current design of the home is not even close to being compatible with the neighborhood. He felt that the reason the Handbook says a neighborhood should be able to retain its character is to prevent this type of thing from happening. He stated that if this house, or a similar version of it, is built then six months from now another neighbor may want to build a large home and use this house as the argument to allow it. He stated that the neighbors appear to be happy with their neighborhood and the style and size of the homes, and they have a right to be happy and have an expectation that the neighborhood will not change a lot. He was therefore very troubled by the size and design of the proposed house, noting that if this exact house were put on a larger lot in a different neighborhood he would most likely approve it. He stated he was not particularly troubled by the basement. Commissioner Bradley complimented the architecture on the design, and noted he too was not particularly troubled by the basement. He was, however, troubled by the mass and size of the house. He noted that the house at 30831 Rue Langlois is the largest home in the neighborhood and he would not have approved such a design if he had been on the Planning Commission at that time. He did not want to let an outlier cloud the decision of the Commission at they go forward. He agreed with Commissioner James that it may be difficult to this project down to something that the owners want but will fit into the neighborhood in terms of size, bulk, and mass. Commissioner Emenhiser felt that if the design lines up with the rear setbacks of the other homes, if the total size of the home is closer to 5,000 square feet, and if the house was not as tall, there may be a way to approve this. He suggested the route to success might be in speaking with the neighbors and addressing their concerns. Commissioner Nelson stated this is the twenty-first century, and 1960 style homes are no longer built. He felt the project should line up with the rear setbacks of the other homes. He also had no problem with the basement, and was surprised the proposed basement was not as large as the house. He felt that one should be careful of what they wish for in terms of neighborhood compatibility, explaining he lives in a neighborhood where four homes were declared a neighborhood unto themselves. Therefore, there is a precedent in the City to do such a thing. Commissioner Leon also felt the mass and scale of the house is too large. He felt that a very nice house could be built on this lot that is much smaller. He, too, had no problem Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 16 with the basement. He agreed with Staff's recommendation to reduce the plate heights in the home, which he felt will dramatically reduce the mass. Another concern was the skylight, noting that a skylight will act as a beacon at night to the residents on the street above. He did not think there was any way to shield the light from those neighbors. Lastly, he discussed parking, and did not think a two-car garage was adequate for a house this size. He too felt the corner house was a mistake, and agreed with Commissioner James that if he had been on the Commission at that time he would not have voted to approve it. Vice Chairman Cruikshank also felt the project was too large. He had no objection to the basement, adding that a basement is a good way to add living space and reduce bulk and mass. He also felt there were opportunities to reduce the vertical mass which will help with privacy issues. He stated that it was important to bring the rear setback in line with the other houses in the neighborhood. Chairman Tomblin agreed that a basement was not a problem. He agreed that the rear setback should be in line with the neighborhood. He suggested that, for privacy reasons, some of the windows be opaque. He felt that lowering the plate heights will be beneficial, and noted that a flat roof was not a good option. He also agreed that a two-car garage was most likely not sufficient parking, and agreed with Commissioner Leon's comments regarding the skylight. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve Staff's revised recommendation to continue the public hearing to May 9, 2017, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Director Mihranian noted that with the continuance of the public hearing a new public notice will not be sent out. He stated that Staff will communicate with the neighbors via email to let them know when the silhouette will be changed and remind them of the new public hearing date. The motion to continue the public hearing was approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on April 11, 2017 Director Mihranian noted minor revisions to the pre-agenda stating that the item on the Public Works infrastructure improvements will be placed on the April 25th agenda, and the pre-agenda was approved as modified. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2017 Page 17