Loading...
20100420 Late CorrespondenceLower Hesse Park & Grandview Park Improvement Projects WE WANT YOUR INPUT! Lower Hesse Park 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes Grandview Park Off Montemalaga Drive (between Via Panorama and Grayslake Rd.) Rancho Palos Verdes Community Workshop #1 Saturday, May 15, 2010 9 a.m. — 12 p.m. Fred Hesse Jr. Community Park, Multipurpose Room Community Workshop #2 Saturday, July 17, 2010 9 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Lower Hesse Park 12:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. Grandview Park Community Workshop #3 Saturday, Sept. 25, 2010 9 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Fred Hesse Jr. Community Park, Multipurpose Room �y x cW a� O�� U LL LL a& g M Z p OawLL'g LL o 'Lu- wo-' Oa > < U U UJ Z UJ cc Q U To receive electronic updates on the park improvement projects, subscribe to the Lower Hesse Park/ Grandview Park listserve group on the City's website: www.palosverdes.com/rpLIR City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Recreation and Parks Department, 310-544-5260 20 April 2010 TO: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council FROM: Jim Moore HESSE PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS I . Establish an overall budget for Lower Hesse for the conceptual plan 2. Prioritize the features of the plan. Most important to least important 3. Review prior use history for features to be in conceptual plan HISTORY Par Course. These have been installed and removed twice in upper Hesse. Why try again. Picnic area. This area has been in place since the certification of Lower Hesse Trails and has never been used. It is not needed. Upper Hesse has many picnics regularly. Dog Park. Less than a majority of dog owners near Hesse want a dog park. If a Dog Park is mandatory, it should be at the end of Windport in the open space hazard area. Lawn Area. Very high maintenance and lots of water. Why? Consider a mini arboretum with trails and marked signs for native plants to set an example for home gardens. This would have minimum maintenance and water for plants is usually for one year only. It would be very compatible with the current trails. Bridges over Green Belt. The lower bridge will be very expensive. The existing bridge is near enough for walkers to use. The upper bridge location has existing drainage tunnels under the existing trail that works very well. Why change? Put the money into improving the existing trails, especially to add edging material to control weeds and erosion. FRECEIVEDM - re - ART OF THE RECORD AT THTING OFp��, OF THE CITY CLERKORREALE, CITY CLERK --�°�n - LAk, -, . RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: APRIL 20, 2010 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material 3 Email from hdb.2 zero.net 5 Answers to questions posed by Councilman Misetich Respectfully submitted, �?A& - — Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through Monday, April 19, 2010**. W:\AGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20100420 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: hdb.2@netzero.com Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 9:48 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Lower Hesse Park I urge you not to develop lower Hesse Park, the natural setting and trails are very enjoyable. I don't understand this Council's desire to develop land and increase congestion in the neighborhood. I have lived next to the park for almost ten years and I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen the volleyball court has been used. Now you want to add tennis courts, where is the great demand for tennis courts. Then the dog park, you accept the signatures of people that don't even live in RPV to determine that there should be a dog park in a residential area. All this while the land by the City Hall continues to be empty. That really makes sense, your concern for dogs over the people you represent is amazaing. Then you talk about Upper Hesse Park needing another baseball diamond. I don't think I have ever seen a little league game or softballl game played there. So where is exactly is the demand for another one. Get over this need to develop, leave Hesse Park as is. Thank you, Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat! of - 4/20/2010 3 Questions By Council Member Misetich - Warrant Register April 20, 2010 Dennis, I have some questions regarding the Register of Demands. I wanted to ask via e- mail rather than take council time for these inquiries. Please advise the nature of these expenditures: 1) CBM consulting -vicery cyn adm for $12,673 Staff reply provided by Ron Dragoo and Dennis McLean: CBM has provided engineering services for the Via Colinita Vickery Canyon storm drain project that is included in the City's storm drain program and incorporated into the City's CIP. The following excerpt was taken from the FY09- 10 Update provided to the Oversight Committee for the City's storm drain program: "One of the pipelines draining into the Vickery Canyon basin runs along Palos Verdes Drive East. The installation of additional catch basins connecting to this pipeline is planned. Construction is scheduled to begin in January 2010 and the project will be completed in March. The cost of this project is estimated to be $96,000. Additional pipelines in the Vickery Canyon basin will be rehabilitated this year and are in various stages of design. Construction on these projects should begin in the Spring 2010; cost estimates are not fully developed." 2) Gamma Builder-CDBG Door project for $73,574 Staff reply provided by Siamak Motahari and Dennis McLean: Gamma Builder is the contractor that was selected to install ADA compliant main entrance doors to City buildings, including City Hall, Community Development, PVIC, Ryan Park and Hesse Park. The project is completed and the City expects to be reimbursed by CDBG. 3) Sparketts- $700 month for water? Staff reply provided by Gavle Vanoverbeck and Dennis McLean: Sparkletts recently purchased the City's bottled water account from Yosemite Water, thus; the monthly billing is in transition. The cost continues to be the same: $8 per bottle. City Hall consumption generally runs about $500 monthly. We generally increase consumption during spring and summer, therefore; the increase appears normal. For your information, Gayle Vanoverbeck conducted an informal bid of the bottled water service several years ago that led to selection of Yosemite Water. LAaks"'.. RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: APRIL 19, 2010 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, April 20, 2010 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material 3 Emails from: Ivan Goldman; Norbert and Geraldine Nastanski; Roberta and George Wong 11 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz; Excerpts from City Council Minutes from April 6, 2004 and April 20, 2004 12 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz; Residential Developments Standards Steering Committee Minutes from July 11, 2005 Respectfully submitted, C Carla Morreale From: Ivan G. [catch20two@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 4:08 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Previous Note on Grandview Park I sincerely apologize for a previous note on this topic. I was misinformed by a source I had previously trusted. Have a better day. Best, Ivan gldman Novelist Ivan G. Goldman's political satire Exit Blue (Black Heron; 2010) is now available. Link to information at http://www.redroom.com/publishedwork/exit-blue 4/19/2010 From: Ivan G. [catch20two@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 12:11 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Grandview Park Dear City Council, Please don't let your friends build anything on Grandview Park. If you do I will be forced to investigate you and secure indictments. I kid you not. Sincerely, Ivan Goldman 5769 Capeswood Dr. RPV Novelist Ivan G. Goldman's political satire Exit Blue (Black Heron; 2010) is now available. Link to information at http://www.redroom.com/publishedwork/exit-blue 4/15/2010 3 From: N Nastanski [nastano@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 2:41 PM To: cc@rpv.com; katieh@rpv.com Subject: Lower Hesse Park Changes April 18, 2010 Subject: Proposed Changes to Lower Hesse Park Sirs The city of Rancho Palos Verdes was founded to provide local control and prevent high density developments. The changes proposed to Lower Hesse park attempt to put too many amenities into a confined hilly area. These proposed changes create long term financial problems for maintenance and may create legal liabilities. The unattended proposed restroom facility has its own obvious problems. The proposed dog park at Hesse park will create an attractive nuisance and could result in potential legal liabilities to the city (dog bites and traffic hazard liabilities). A significant number of people from outside RPV, who are not familiar with the traffic speed on Hawthorne Boulevard, will be drawn to the dog park and will be making a left turn at Locklenna and Hawthorne boulevard. Traffic accidents are sure to happen at this intersection. Currently the berm (at the top of the Hesse park) obscures cars (which are traveling south along the curve on Hawthorne boulevard) from being seen by people waiting to make a turn from Locklenna Lane. Many of the cars going north on Hawthorne Blvd are exceeding the speed limit at this location. I recently visited dog parks in Palm Desert, Redondo Beach and Laguna Beach and had the following observations: - Fenced in dirt area. Very little grass. - Very bad urine smell. Difficult/impossible to pick up urine. - All dog parks were large size. - Palm Desert dog park location is on the edge of a estimated 400 acre park near city maintenance vehicles and park trash collection area. - Redondo Beach dog park is located under high voltage wire adjacent to a large hard ball baseball field. - Laguna Beach dog park is a stand alone dog park. - None of the dog parks are located in an active park area or near housing. - Some dogs were off leash as they proceeded from the parking lot to the Redondo Beach dog park. - Estimated 20 users per hour on weekdays. Weekend use estimated at 2 to 3 times this amount. The advocates for a dog park in RPV seem to be from Palos Verdes Estates, a city that does not have any public parks. The sign on the entrance to the park indicates "Fred Hesse Community Park" not "Fred Hesse Regional Park". I request that the dog park and restroom not be included in the proposed changes to lower Hesse Park. If the city representatives decide a dog park is desirable in RPV, I would suggest that different location be considered. A possible location would be adjacent to where the city vehicles are stored on the northeastern side of RPV City Hall site. Sincerely, Norbert Nastanski /ss 29513 Baycrest Drive 7— Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310.541.7615 e-mail nastano@yahoo.com concurrence: Geraldine Nastanski /ss From: Roberta Wong [bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 2:23 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: Jon Davis; Les Chapin; Gregg Swartz; Noel Park; Jim Real; Marilyn Jakubowski; Diana Park; Linda LoConte Subject: Lower Hesse Park To Whom It May Concern, My name is George Wong. I live at 29503 Baycrest Drive, directly across from lower Hesse Park. I am the original homeowner for over 42 years. I have seen the incorporation of RPV into a City. I have seen the development of upper Hesse Park. I have seen development of homes all around the park and nearby area. I have seen new schools opened and closed. I am for improvements and developments. Lower Hesse Park should be enhanced as it is with its walking trails, etc. I want a "PEOPLE PARK" and not a "DOG PARK"........... Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See -.how,. - 4/19/2010 RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: Joel Rojas and Carolyn Lehr FROM: Steve Wolowicz CC: Carol Lynch DATE: April 18, 2010 SUBJECT: cc meeting April 14, item #11 view variation QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Carolyn and Joel, After reading the report for the meeting I have found we all should have the minutes on this subject from the Council meetings on April 6th and 20th of 2004. (1) Please send as soon as possible copies of those minutes to all of the Council Members. The Council and especially the two newest members should have copies of those minutes. This will help understand the extensive and thorough comments by the then present and past Planning Commissioners and the deliberations noted by the Council at that time. Staff has emailed copies of the approved minutes of the April 6 and April 20 2004 meetings to the City Council. It's worth noting that deliberation of this issue back in the 2003/2004 time frame actually involved a total of 6 Planning Commission meetings and 5 City Council meetings. Staff only attached the April 6th and April 20th staff reports as they best summarize the conclusion of the issues discussed. If so directed at the meeting, Staff can transmit all of the background information on this issue to the City Council. (2) Also, for the meeting we should have any comments from staff as to their own thoughts on any current problems suggesting a need to revision of the decisions made in April 2004. Staff will be prepared to answer questions from the Council on this issue as well as provide any requested comments as to the effectiveness of the currently drafted height variation findings. Thank you, Steve Page 1 of 1 O:1Documents and Settings\cadamlLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK451\cc meeting 2010 04.14 New restoration (5).doc 04/19/10 4:OE Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 1 of 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZON2003-00417 (16 -FOOT HEIGHT CODE AMENDMENT). (1203 x 1801) Councilman Stern pointed out that one of the things the Planning Commission has indicated is that it would still like to work on this issue; expressed his preference that the Planning Commission continue to work on this matter; and stated that the audience comments were welcome but that the Planning Commission should keep this item until it has a final recommendation to City Council. Councilman Long noted the Planning Commission's desire to do further work on this issue and to further comment on this issue; stated that he is inclined to concur with Councilman Stern that this matter be returned to the Planning Commission for further recommendations; and questioned if there is a compelling reason for the City Council to undertake this matter as opposed to sending it back to the Planning Commission for a final recommendation to City Council. Noting that it may take the Planning Commission one or two meetings to resolve the issues of concern to the Commission, City Attorney Lynch questioned whether the City Council would like to repeal Urgency Ordinance No. 4000 in the meantime so that the old rules continue in effect while the deliberations are ongoing. She stated that this would be beneficial because of the historic process; that whatever the Council ultimately decided would be a matter of policy; and that by repealing the ordinance, the City will not be having an intervening period of time where different rules would apply to some residents that would not apply later. Mayor pro tem Clark expressed his belief that Urgency Ordinance No. 40OU should be repealed if this matter is to be debated further; and stated that there is a great deal of consideration that needs to be undertaken and settled before this fundamental policy issue is adopted. At this time, Senior Planner Ara Mihranian presented the staff report and the following recommendation: (1) Determine whether to continue the discussion on the proposed code amendment language, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and the amendments that were introduced at the City Council meeting, until after receiving a comprehensive recommendation from the Planning Commission; and, (2) If the Council wishes to discuss the matter this meeting, review the Planning Commission's concerns, as summarized by Staff, and provide Staff with further direction regarding specific language amendments. Councilman Stern noted his understanding that the tear-down/rebuild issue is a pre-existing issue that was not clear even under the old code. Senior Planner Ara Mihranian stated that in the original language, prior to the adoption of the urgency ordinance, if someone was voluntarily proposing to tear down and rebuild a two-story structure, that portion above 16 feet would be Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 2 of 16 subject to a height variation application and a view analysis, but not that portion below the 16 feet; and advised that the property owner did not have the right to rebuild up to their old envelope. Senior Planner Mihranian noted for Councilman Long that the 3 major issues of concern by the Planning Commission were the tear-down/rebuild structures, phasing a project, and the ambiguity with the term "proposed construction." Councilman Long inquired of staff that looking at the chart on Circle Page 4, one of the Planning Commission's concerns is that with the tear-down/rebuild, if the existing residence within the chart is torn down as part of the remodel, because it goes above 16 feet currently, would the view analysis would be required if it went outside the pre-existing envelope as a voluntary tear-down/rebuild? Senior Planner Mihranian noted for Councilman Long that even if the existing structure were over 16 feet in height, it would not be subject to the view analysis; if it was an involuntary situation, as long as the structure is rebuilt within exactly the existing envelope, it would not require a view analysis; however, if just a small sliver of additional square footage extended beyond the original structure, a view analysis would be required for the entire portion over 16 feet, including the previously existing structure. Jon Cartwright, 30630 Calle de Suenos, highlighted his privilege in serving on the Planning Commission for the past 8 years; and thanked the City for allowing him the opportunity to serve his community. Mr. Cartwright noted his pleasure that a view analysis is not triggered on the grading permit when the grading is proposed to grade down; noted his pleasure that at the July 15, 2003 City Council meeting, it had reaffirmed the historic interpretation that one had the absolute right to build to 16 feet and that the Council had adopted new language codifying that right in February of this year; but noted that he is concerned if the City is now saying that one does not have the absolute right to build to 16 feet if an owner has to do so at the same time that a height variation applies. He stated that in his opinion, this action is inconsistent with what has been approved and that it erodes the 16 -foot - by -right rule. Mr. Cartwright stated that this logic is tough to follow, believing that one either has the right to build to 16 feet or does not have the right to build to 16 feet; he highlighted his support for protecting views, but asked that the City reconsider the decision to require a view analysis below 16 feet on a height variation as well as a view analysis on any other unrelated structure below 16 feet if applied for at the same time as the height variation. He stated that this decision is a major departure from the current code; that it takes away property rights and misses the mark of the intent to protect views from a proposed structure; that it is also in conflict with Proposition M, which applies to one having a right to build or grow foliage to 16 feet before it encroaches onto a view. He stated that every reference to height in Proposition M is above 16 feet and that the new language in the height variation findings is in conflict with the purpose of Section 2 of Proposition M which was to retain the pre-existing right to build to 16 feet. He stated that if City Council wishes to eliminate the right -to -build- to -16 - foot rule, it would be his opinion that it would require voter approval. Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 3 of 16 Mr. Cartwright noted that since the City's inception, over 1,000 height variation applications have been processed and approved by staff, the Planning Commission and by City Council on appeal; and stated that view analyses were not required below 16 feet on the height variation, nor were they required for any other structure below 16 feet that were applied for at the same time. He stated that this allowed applicants, staff and the Planning Commission to consider everything at once in a very efficient and cost-effective way. He explained the irony of all this is that the decision which requires a view analysis below 16 feet on a height variation or any other unrelated structure below 16 feet applied for at the same time as the height variation can be circumvented simply by processing the permits one at a time — pointing out that this will result in the applicant and the City spending additional time and money processing permits sequentially as opposed to at the same time. He urged the City Council to reconsider the decision to analyze views below 16 feet and to re-establish the historic interpretation that views below 16 feet are not considered on the height variation, that doing so will allow a 16 -foot -by -right standard as well as protect a homeowner's right to improve his/her property. Mr. Cartwright provided his own power point illustrations (see Exhibit A) for the Council, which he believed showed the impacts of Urgency Ordinance 4000. He advised that the first graph is a takeoff of the graph shown in the staff report. Referring to the first graph, he stated that there is no view impairment in the height variation segment; that before this ordinance was put in place, if one applied for a height variation and the proposed room extension, it would have been approved; that after Urgency Ordinance 4000 was adopted, it would have been denied; that if one then went back and processed an application for the room addition, it would have been approved; that if one applied for a height variation, it would have been approved. He stated that there would be no views saved; and that there would be considerably more time and cost on the part of the applicant and staff. He stated that the chart indicates what would happen when an applicant had the right to develop to 16 feet, he could do it; that when that right was taken away and given to the neighbors as view rights across his entire property from ground level to 26 feet, he lost that right to build. He stated that one has to ask, did it make sense to deny a height variation when view impairment is in an unrelated structure not attached to the height variation; and expressed his belief that in the future, the City will only see one permit submitted at a time. Councilman Stern noted the helpfulness of Mr. Cartwright's presentation; highlighted the proposed ordinance language that came before the Council about a month ago, wherein the Planning Commission was suggesting that the City would do the analysis of view impairment below 16 feet in that area — referring to the graph that says "height variation" to the right; and questioned if Mr. Cartwright would feel that to be inappropriate. Addressing Councilman Stern's inquiry, Mr. Cartwright stated that yes, it would be inappropriate. Mr. Cartwright explained that this whole discussion started Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 4 of 16 over 4 years ago; advised that the Planning Commission has gone through 4 years of these same discussions when then Planning Commissioner Long was advocating views below 16 feet and the rest of the Planning Commission was not; and stated that it eventually became an operational problem because the discussion of height variation would come up. He stated that the Planning Commission then asked for a joint workshop with City Council in order to gain some clarification on this issue — pointing out that by that time, there were various problems with issues such as build -by -right. He stated that at this workshop, there was concern on the Council's part that the Planning Commission may have been negotiating views below 16 feet and that Council believed that if this were true, that it should be codified and put into the code. He stated that he personally does not believe that the Planning Commission ever negotiated a view impairment below 16 feet; explained that oftentimes, there were a couple of Planning Commissioners who would ask if an applicant would be willing to move their house or structure, willing to get with their neighbor to work out an issue; but advised that as a Commission, they never negotiated below 16 feet. He stated that nevertheless, that concept went forth. Mr. Cartwright stated that when this got to the City Council in July 2003, Council affirmed the absolute right to build to 16 feet; that at that time, there was discussion about whether the Council should remand the matter to the Planning Commission; and stated that it is his recollection that the City Council did not believe that the Planning Commission could resolve the matter after 4 years of discussing the it; that there was no reason to remand it to the Planning Commission at that point; and that it should be kept at the City Council level. He stated that it was extremely important to some of the Planning Commissioners to put this issue in the hands of the City Council because of the Planning Commission's dissension on this issue. Councilman Stern noted his recall of the discussion and stated that the word "may" has caused some of the confusion in the decision. Referring to Chart No. 6, lot 2, Councilman Long questioned whether Mr. Cartwright is assuming that the ridgeline on the house is also 16 feet. Mr. Cartwright stated that Proposition M states that one can grow foliage to 16 feet before it encroaches into a view; that the City now has view restoration guidelines that state that one can grow foliage to 16 feet or the highest roof ridge line, whichever is lower; that the guidelines for the structure state that if a view is impaired at 2 feet, then it can be denied; that foliage and structures now lack harmony when considering the guidelines; and stated that he would prefer that structures and foliage be harmonious, that there be an absolute right to either build a structure to 16 feet or to grow foliage to 16 feet. Ted Paulson, 5248 Valley View Road, former Planning Commissioner, stated that this issue was discussed and debated many times by the Planning Commission, with the consensus almost every time that the 16 -foot rule should apply and that it should not be changed. Mr. Paulson noted his concurrence with the statements made by Mr. Cartwright. He stated that he is not aware of any great groundswell in the past, which dictates that this needs to be changed, and Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 5 of 16 noted his confusion in why it keeps getting revisited — pointing out that City Council had previously approved the 16 -foot -by -right rule. He expressed his belief that at this point in time, this has become a policy issue that needs to be taken up by City Council. Mr. Paulson noted his concern that if this is sent back to the Planning Commission for further debate, it will open up new public hearings on this matter and that it will not just be taken up as a discussion item; and he noted that it was his understanding that the proper process was followed and that Council had already decided the matter, but that he understood what was passed by the City Council at the last hearing, based on the discussion dialogue, was not what was submitted for recommendation by the Planning Commission. Referring to the first chart, Councilman Long asked Mr. Paulson if his biggest concern is that the extension below 16 feet would be considered as part of the height variation permit. Responding to Councilman Long's inquiry, Mr. Paulson stated that in the first chart, yes; noted that the way he understands the new ordinance as rewritten is that the height variation issue would now address everything on this chart below and above 16 feet; stated that his concern is if one were submitting a plan to build a two-story house, automatically it would be subject to height variation review; and that if the view impairment was below 16 feet, one could be denied under the proposed ordinance. Mayor Gardiner asked Mr. Paulson if he believes some property rights have been taken away by the urgency ordinance. Mr. Paulson stated that yes, he believed some property rights had been taken away by the urgency ordinance; that the City would be taking away property rights because the City could deny a project with a view impairment below 16 feet; and stated that he does not believe this matter should be debated any further by the Planning Commission, believing that the Commission cannot resolve this issue. Mr. Paulson noted for Mayor pro tem Clark that his primary message is that the City should revert back to the old code, and that the City should only take into account a view above 16 feet. Councilman Stern asked Mr. Paulson to ignore the portion on the diagram to the left where the room extension was placed, and to assume the view was directly underneath the portion where the height variation was sought, the box that goes from 0 to 16 feet where one wants to build up. He asked Mr. Paulson if it is his belief that the City should ignore what falls below 16 feet even though it will block the view and is obviously part of the height variation of that structure. Responding to Councilman Stern's question, Mr. Paulson noted his belief that the process which is currently in place, prior to City Council making the changes, adequately addresses that type of situation to be addressed by the Planning 5 0�- 1W Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 6 of 16 Commission as it is evaluating a project; and stated that if a project, as noted on the first chart, came before the Planning Commission for consideration, if there was a view impairment defined by staff under the view review process, that particular project -- forgetting existing residence and room extension -- would probably be recommended for denial because of view impairment. Councilman Stern stated that in his hypothetical example the view impairment appears from 0 to 16 feet underneath the part that is built up to 26 feet and questioned if staff would have denied that. Councilman Stern noted that he understood Mr. Cartwright's statement regarding his understanding of the ordinance to have a different outcome and expressed his belief that because of this confusion, this is why it is necessary to send this back to the Planning Commission to clarify the matter. Bruce Franklin, 15 Oceanaire Drive, former Planning Commissioner, stated that he concurs with Mr. Cartwright's statements; expressed his belief that every resident should have the right to build to 16 feet under all conditions; otherwise, the City would be subjecting its residents to a 2 -step process and add additional cost and time to complete a project. He urged the Council to maintain the 16 - foot -by -right rule, as approved by the City Council last July. Don Vannorsdall, 29513 Windport Drive, former Planning Commissioner, read a message faxed by former View Restoration Commissioner Gil Alberio stating his opinion that there were issues with the urgency ordinance and that any major changes of Prop M should be made under due process. (Mr. Alberio's fax is on file with the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Vannorsdall stated that he concurred with Mr. Cartwright's statements and those of the previous speakers; advised that he served on the subcommittee that considered the entire code many years ago; noted his recollection that this issue was thoroughly addressed at that time; and he urged the City to keep the code as written. Referring to the first graph, Councilman Stern asked Mr. Vannorsdall to ignore the structure to the left, to assume the view is to the right, that the applicant has an existing building up to 16 feet, that the applicant is requesting to go up to 26 feet; and questioned of Mr. Vannorsdall if the view is between 0 and 16 feet directly beneath the portion where the height variation is sought, based upon his experience, what would have been the outcome under the old code before the urgency ordinance. In response to Councilman Stern's inquiry, Mr. Vannorsdall stated that the Planning Commission would not have disapproved anything below 16 feet; that they could not have approved it above 16 feet. Mayor pro tem Clark stated that if the new portion of the house were two stories, but there was no view impairment that was determined above 16 feet, would Mr. Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 7 of 16 Vannorsdall have denied the case if there was a view impairment below the 16 feet. Mr. Franklin cited a case that was considered, wherein the owners of a house 13 feet high wanted to build to 20 feet; that there was a view between 13 and 15 feet, with no view above that; and he indicated that the Planning Commission approved it. Craig Mueller, 3559 Seaglen Drive, Chairman of the Planning Commission, commented on the history of this issue, the various discussions that have taken place thus far; and stated that the Planning Commission came up with a recommendation, passed 4-3, to recommend that City Council adopt certain language. He stated that that recommendation was ignored by the City Council and that the Council had sent the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. He urged the Council to carefully consider sending this matter back to the Planning Commission; pointed out that there are five new Planning Commissioners; and noted his belief that this Council will not accept the ultimate decision of the Planning Commission. He stated that there is not likely to be a unanimous decision on the part of the Planning Commission. He urged the Council to put themselves in the place of a homeowner who is attempting to make improvements and rebuild his/her home. Mr. Mueller stated that in addition to supporting the repeal of the urgency ordinance, he was present to advocate two things. He asked the Council to modify the grading permit when pertaining to grading down, which is a recommendation of the Planning Commission. He stated that it is important to allow a homeowner to grade down and still have his/her home 16 feet above the existing grade, believing that this would encourage the homeowner to grade down. He stated that the residents should be discouraged from building artificial ridges or promontories, believing that they have a negative impact upon the landscape contours. Mr. Mueller stated that the second -story trigger should be deleted and highlighted the existing neighborhood compatibility rules that were adopted in 1996; and he encouraged the Council to make these two small corrections to the code. Mr. Mueller stated that if Council chooses to send this back to the Planning Commission, Council should keep in mind that this will take some time for discussion and public input; that the Planning Commission meetings will go longer and that debate will continue for some time before a recommendation is made to the Council; and reiterated his concern that the Planning Commission may not come up with a desirable solution for the Council — believing that the Planning Commission cannot come up with a better solution than what is outlined this evening. Councilman Stern stated that the staff report indicates that "therefore the Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council continue this item to allow a second opportunity for the Commission to provide more comprehensive input"; and questioned what was the vote of the Commission. 0 lu Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 8 of 16 Mr. Mueller stated, "5 new Commissioners in favor, 1 experienced Commissioner dissenting." Councilman Stern questioned Mr. Mueller if he felt the prior code was so clear that everyone knew the outcome for that homeowner wanting to build the structure — now referring to the right of the first diagram. Councilman Stern expressed his opinion that the outcome is not clear under the old code; stated that he has faith that the Planning Commissioners will listen and reason through a well -thought out recommendation; and stated that there has been some ambiguity in the statements of some of the speakers. He noted that staff has identified some of the things that need to be clarified, for instance, the situation where there is a present ridge line of 18 feet, where the homeowner wants to tear down and rebuild; stated that the existing code would trigger an analysis; and noted the Planning Commission's desire to look at this issue. He expressed his belief that this matter should not have come before the Council before a final and complete recommendation had been made by the Planning Commission — pointing out that the Planning Commission had not fully addressed some of the issues of concern prior to it coming before City Council. Mr. Mueller stated that cumulative view impairment needs to be addressed and its relation throughout the neighborhood; and suggested language for modifying the urgency ordinance, which incorporates his concerns with the grading permit and the deletion of the second -story trigger. He stated that he is in favor of repealing the urgency ordinance; and stated that if it is the Council's desire, the Planning Commission will take up the matter once again. Mr. Mueller stated that many of the view lots have unusable land, buildable space, with setbacks that cannot be built upon because of restrictions; and noted that it should be realized that it might not be fair for all residents depending on the topography of their lots. Paul Tetreault, 32232 Phantom Drive, new Planning Commissioner, noted the necessity to clear up this matter; stated that Mr. Cartwright brought forth many of his same concerns and problems that he envisions in the urgency ordinance; commented on residents who are denied a project, only to redesign their homes to be more expansive one-story structures, creating smaller setbacks; and stated that time and time again, he sees examples where the urgency ordinance as presently worded fails to protect valuable views. He stated that the ordinance encourages applicants to phase in the construction projects; and expressed his belief that the City needed to reword the ordinance so that it eliminated this phasing of projects that would otherwise have been denied if submitted at the same time. RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Gardiner recessed the meeting at 10:14 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 10:20 P.M. Pang Mueller, 3559 Seaglen, noted her concern with the length of time the Planning Commission has already spent on this issue; addressed her concern i Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 9 of 16 with the increasingly more complex municipal codes developed under the urgency ordinance, stating that the ordinance seems to protect views in some instances and not in other instances; and stated that such complexity could lead to more interpretation problems. She expressed her belief that the City Council members have enough knowledge and understanding of this issue to make a sound policy decision at this time. She stated that it is not a productive use of time and energy to send this issue back to a fairly new Planning Commission to start the proceedings all over again -- pointing out that the previous Planning Commission had thoroughly discussed this issue for many months. She urged the City Council to reaffirm the historical interpretation of the existing ordinance and to repeal the sections in the urgency ordinance that address the view impairment in the 0 to 16 -foot areas; stated that she does not believe it is necessary to include the language "may" or "shall" to create an opportunity to consider views in the portion below 16 feet; and urged the City Council to make a decision on this policy, one that is not complex. Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood Drive, stated that this City has dealt with view issues for many years; advised that one of the first principles that Council made clear was the by -right -to -build -to -16 -foot rule outside the required setbacks; noted that the setbacks are there to provide the possibility for corridor views; mentioned that the development code also indicates that there are limits to lot coverage; and that anyone coming to the City wanting to build new or add-on can interpret the code clearly that they can build anything up to 16 feet outside the setbacks on the property so long as they follow all the other building codes and that they will not fall into any other traps/triggers. Looking at what was structured in the urgency ordinance, whether rebuilding voluntarily or involuntarily, he stated that the expectation is that one should at least be able to build what they had prior, whether 16 feet or 17 feet — pointing out that the neighborhood has lived with that building for many years; and that it is unfair to say that the City must review everything. He stated that allowing phasing costs both the applicant and the City additional time and money and noted the importance of completing a construction project in a timely manner. He stated that the rule should be maintained at 16 feet. Councilman Long noted Mr. Dyda's involvement with the creation of the code from the outset; stated that the ordinance requires that findings be made as to the degree of view impairment, but noted that there is nothing in the ordinance that says view is only that which is above 16 feet; and questioned Mr. Dyda if that wording was just adopted or left out when one analyzes view in a height variation. Mr. Dyda stated that if the City says one can build to 16 feet and not have any problem, an applicant could have built a one-story and wider house; and that if a structure is up to 16 feet within permitted setbacks and lot coverage, the neighbors don't have a right to a view. Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane, advised that when the view ordinance was first drafted, the language indicated that there is no significant view in the space Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 10 of 16 between 0 and 16 feet; that no one had any opportunity to address a view within the 16 feet — stating that the code was specifically developed for that purpose. She stated that it was understood that if someone purchased a property, they would have the right to build up to 16 feet regardless of view impact. Sunshine noted for Councilman Long that the ordinance defined the view to exclude everything below 16 feet. Councilman Long questioned if specific wording is so indicated in the original ordinance to exclude everything below 16 feet. Sunshine noted for Councilman Long that excluding everything below 16 feet was the intent of the ordinance and she apologized if the original ordinance is not clear on that fact. Mr. Cartwright noted his complete concurrence with Sunshine's statement; and stated that it also is staff's interpretation that view impairment cannot be considered below 16 feet. Mr. Cartwright stated that since all the triggers are above 16 feet, it is the view of the majority of people who read the language that the language indicates the significant view is above 16 feet. Councilman Long noted that staff has used the term "protected views" in its staff reports as an excuse for refusing to provide view protection but that the ordinance did not contain any reference to or any definition of "protected views": and instead merely required by its plain language a view analysis of all views anytime a structure exceeded 16 feet. Mr. Cartwright stated that the language should then be changed, not the ordinance; and expressed his belief that most everyone on the Planning Commission knew what the historic interpretation was. Mr. Dyda stated that the original intent was to allow people to build homes up to 16 feet within the setbacks and the lot coverage; that any foliage which fell within that envelope did not affect the view, therefore it was permitted; that if foliage outside the envelope could impact the view, such as the ocean or Catalina, it would not be permitted outside of that 16 -foot envelope. Mr. Paulson pointed out that the Council has heard comments from people who were involved in writing the original material that set the ground rules for the ordinances that exist; and he urged Council to listen to these people who have been responsible for operating and implementing these rules under the ordinance. Mr. Paulson stated that looking back on what he had said earlier this evening, the 16 feet applies all the way across the property; and he encouraged the Council not to send this back to the Planning Commission, but to keep it at the Council level and do what needs to be done as a matter of policy. Mr. Mueller asked that as the Council considers what to do, that it not throw out all the language in the urgency ordinance should this body decide to repeal the ordinance; commented on his proposed changes to the ordinance; explained that when reverting back to the original ordinance, the Council could get there by l 0 0�- �kQ Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 11 of 16 simply deleting the reference to the portion below 16 feet and basically retain the remaining flow of the language, and to take the 3 findings and put them in logical order. He suggested leaving Nos. 4 and 5 in the ordinance, but to place them in a different order; and reiterated his suggested change to delete the reference to the portion below 16 feet in all clauses, including Finding No. 6; that the grading permit sections be included as modified by the Planning Commission, which relate to grading down, and to delete the reference to the two-story trigger below 16 feet with a 20 -foot requirement. Councilman Long asked for a hard copy of Mr. Mueller's proposed language for the urgency ordinance. Mr. Mueller stated that altering the ordinance and including his proposed language would create an alternative to either leaving the urgency ordinance in place as it's written or to repeal the urgency ordinance altogether. Councilman Long noted that the current recommendation of the Planning Commission, 5-1, is that Council send this matter back to the Commission. Councilman Long stated that in the chart that Mr. Cartwright used, the recommendation of the Planning Commission immediately prior to the adoption of the urgency ordinance, the 4-3 recommendation, was that the City should not include the area of the room extension to the extreme left in the diagram in the view analysis, but that the City should include the entirety of the structure to the right, which is the portion directly below the portion for which a height variance is sought. Responding to Councilman Long's statement, Mr. Mueller indicated that, yes, the Planning Commission vote was 4-3 in September. Councilman Long stated that the chair of the planning commission made a comment about the Council not accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation in adopting the urgency ordinance; but questioned if the chair of the Planning Commission wants Council to follow that recommendation now. Chairman Mueller had no response to this inquiry. Councilman Wolowicz asked Mr. Mueller if he approves of the language contained in Finding No. 4 of the February staff report. Responding to Councilman Wolowicz' inquiry, Mr. Mueller explained that the recommendation was only reached in order to come to some sort of a compromise in September 2003; that the Commission believed that was the best it could do based upon the information they had; and stated that as a citizen instead of a Commissioner, he would not be supportive of the recommendation. Councilman Stern asked if Mr. Mueller had discussed his recommended language with the Planning Commission prior to this meeting, and, if not, would Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 12 of 16 he be opposed to having the Planning Commission review his recommended language. Mr. Mueller stated that he had not reviewed the proposed language changes with the Planning Commission; noted that the proposed wording could be presented to the Planning Commission, but reiterated that these are policy decisions that need to be made by the City Council. Councilman Stern noted that the Planning Commission is in concurrence with the grading issue; noted his support for deleting the reference to the two-story trigger; but with regard to the 16 -foot rule, he stated that the Planning Commission should reconsider it and come back to the Council with its best recommendation. Mr. Mueller stated that if it's the Council's decision to send it back, the Planning Commission will take on the challenge; but noted that in the meantime, the Planning Commission needs something in the ordinance so that it can continue to process applications. Mayor pro tem Clark questioned that if it was the inclination of the Council to reaffirm the policy on the 16 -foot rule being the point at which the City considers the view impairment, did staff have suggested language based upon the discussion. City Attorney Lynch suggested the following language: Circle Page 17, Section 8Cii, "The portion of a new structure that is above 16 feet does not significantly impair view..." Circle Page 17, Section 8Civ, "The area of the proposed new structure or addition to an existing structure that is above 16 feet," and to strike everything else up to "when considered exclusive..." Circle Page 17, Section 8Cv, "...addition to an existing structure that is above 16 feet is designed and situated in such a manner..." Circle Page 17, Section 8Cvi, "...view impairment caused by the proposed structure that is above 16 feet." Circle Page 17, Section 8Cix, "The proposed structure above 16 feet does not result in an unreasonable..." City Attorney Lynch clarified that it is the voluntary demolition that is not addressed; stated that Council has the option of repealing the urgency ordinance, sending this back to the Planning Commission or to make the amendments as described above. Councilman Long noted that some of his concerns and questions have stili gone unanswered, for example, the burning down of a house, proposed to be built precisely within the pre-existing envelope with no expansion, believing that this is Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 13 of 16 an approved situation; but that if one goes outside the envelope at all, a height variation permit is then required that then takes into account a view analysis of the existing structure above 16 feet. He stated that this becomes problematic and that he would like the Planning Commission to take a look at it -- noting that this is one of the issues he addressed in his memorandum. He stated that the same issue is apparent all across the board on the voluntary teardown. Councilman Stern stated that he is coming to the conclusion that Council should stick to something more closely akin to what Mr. Cartwright articulated, however, he questioned if there is some way to give the Planning Commission the authority not necessarily to deny the permit, not necessarily to review the view impact in terms of denial, but some authority to make a suggestion when it sees that moving a building a couple feet might help a situation. In response to Councilman Stern's inquiry, City Attorney Lynch stated that she did not see that as an option; and pointed out that in that particular circumstance, the applicant had worked with the neighbors for negotiation; and that it was not something that was insisted upon by the Planning Commission. Mayor pro tem Clark noted that in the 12 years he served on the Planning Commission and View Restoration Commission, there were oftentimes when applicants would negotiate with their neighbors prior to coming before the Planning Commission, many times an applicant would be willing to modify plans in order to minimize view impairment to the surrounding neighbors. Councilman Wolowicz stated that this body owes it to the former Planning Commission that discussed this issue at length, a blue ribbon panel or former and current members who spoke this evening, to support their recommendation. RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Gardiner recessed the meeting at 11:10 P.M and reconvened the meeting at 11:13 P.M. Councilman Wolowicz moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Clark, to rescind existing Urgency Ordinance No. 4000 and introduced Ordinance 404U; that the City revert back to the original language presented to Council on February 17, 2004, by staff and the Planning Commission, along with the proposed changes as reflected above by City Attorney Lynch. Councilman Wolowicz clarified the motion to include the adoption of the resolution, excluding reference to considering views under 16 feet. Councilman Long expressed his belief that what the motion proposed to do is actually reject the Planning Commission recommendation because the area marked "A" should be considered under that recommendation; and noted his concern that the motion proposed to add language to the ordinance that is incompatible with Proposition M, possibly constituting a major change in the ordinance, which would compel future Planning Commissions to routinely grant Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 14 of 16 the vast majority of height variation that the proposed change to the protection of views adopted by th Council to vote against the ordinar and nothing in Proposition M that should ignore the view below 16 fE absolute right to build to 16 feet in permit applications. He expressed his belief ordinance will seriously dilute an important e majority vote of this City; and urged the ce. He stated that nothing in the ordinance was originally passed stated that the City et; pointed out that he is not challenging the the absence of a need for a height variation permit, but stated that at some point, a line needs to be drawn and that at that point, the project should be discretionary. He noted his concern with the ordinance being diluted/weakened on the appearance that there was never any protection for views under 16 feet was simply false since the ordinance clearly protects view obstructed by foliage that exceeds the ridgeline of a house even when a house is less than 16 feet in height and that the ordinance at one time required height variation permits and view analyses for two-story structures that were less than 16 feet. The ordinance was designed to allow someone to build a one-story house up to 16 feet without accommodating their neighbors' views but not more. Now the majority of impaired views will be routinely ignored. Councilman Stern stated that he would take responsibility for the development of the urgency ordinance; noted that it was a good trade-off to see if Council could minimize impact on views below 16 feet when someone is asking for permission to go above 16 feet; and advised that he will be voting in favor of the motion that puts in place the expressed language to consider portions only above 16 feet because he believes some of the arguments that have been presented and some of the unfortunate loopholes that people may exploit, that it makes sense to essentially block out that area below 16 feet, believing that this also will create more clarity. Mayor pro tem Clark noted that he was one of the drafters of Proposition M; explained that it was not the intent to bring view impairment under 16 feet; and expressed his belief that supporting the motion is the right direction. Councilman Long stated that because the rest of Council will be supporting the motion, he suggested taking the motion one step further to specify that foliage be permitted to grow to 16 feet regardless of what improvements are present on the property so that the public knows there is absolutely no protection of views under 16 feet. He mentioned that making this suggestion does not indicate he is in support of the motion but that it would be consistent with the views of some of the speakers and would provide a consistent means of disregarding views. City Attorney Lynch explained that staff will bring back at the Council's next meeting the altered ordinance or the second option of an urgency ordinance that would amend the prior one, making the changes that were read above. Councilman Stern noted his preference to repeal the urgency ordinance and to allow staff to bring back the new ordinance with suggested language and to go on from there. Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 15 of 16 Mayor Gardiner noted his preference to amend the existing urgency ordinance, deleting the below 16 -foot view consideration. Councilman Wolowicz amended his motion to include the teardown items that need to be addressed further and the two-story trigger and to have staff bring back all the language at one time. City Attorney Lynch suggested adding in the issue of what happens when there is a voluntary tear -down versus an involuntary tear -down as well as a couple other issues that were mentioned; and noted that it would be her recommendation to repeal the urgency ordinance at this meeting and allow staff to bring back everything to the Council, not the Planning Commission. Councilman Wolowicz amended his motion by rescinding the existing urgency ordinance and to direct staff to redraft the ordinance, including the proposed changes discussed this evening. Mayor pro tem Clark noted that the primary effect is to take out of the code the review of view under 16 feet. Mayor Gardiner noted that the ordinance should maintain the beneficial features, such as the grading issue. City Attorney Lynch read into the record Urgency Ordinance No. 404U. The motion to repeal the original urgency ordinance carried as follows: AYES: Clark, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Gardiner NOES: Long ABSENT: None City Clerk Purcell noted her understanding of Councilman Wolowicz' prior motion to go back and adopt Section 17.02.040C-1-4, reverting to the original language presented to Council on February 17, 2004, but to exclude the boundaries of the additions up to 16 feet, including both Part A and B. Councilman Stern noted his understanding that the grading issue will be addressed so that a view analysis will not be necessary when grading down; that consistent with staff recommendation, a new provision will be included making it clear that the voluntary demolition will allow a homeowner to build back into the existing envelope; and that the two-story trigger will be eliminated. Councilman Long suggested that if there is voluntary/involuntary removal of a structure, that even if the replacement structure goes outside the envelope, the portion of the replacement structure that is within the envelope — regardless of how high it may be or what it is — should not be considered in any height variation analysis — stating that he would support that component of the motion. Councilman Long reiterated that in his judgment, this City is in the process of significantly diluting and weakening the ordinance for years to come. 15 6� IQ Approved April 6, 2004 Minutes Page 16 of 16 The second part of the motion carried as follows: AYES: Clark, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Gardiner NOES: Long ABSENT: None Councilman Stern requested that Mr. Cartwright's graphs be attached to the minutes. Without objection, the Council agreed. 1 b 6F Ilo Approved April 20, 2004 Minutes Page 1 of 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ORDINANCE NO. 405; RESOL. NO. 2004-26: ZON2003-00417 (16 -FOOT HEIGHT CODE AMENDMENT). (Continued from April 6th meeting.) (1203 x 1801) Mayor Gardiner directed continuing public input on the 16 -foot height Code amendment be heard. Jon Cartwright, Rancho Palos Verdes, stating he echoes the sentiments of all the ex -Planning Commissioners, thanked Council members for listening to his input on the issue at the April 6 meeting and thanked staff for their excellent report and the proposed draft language which he supports. Councilman Stern expressed gratitude to Mr. Cartwright for an excellent presentation at that meeting, saying he found it extremely helpful. Councilman Wolowicz thanked Mr. Cartwright for his efforts to assist him in understanding the issue and also for assembling a group of blue ribbon people to testify before Council. Mayor Gardiner applauded Mr. Cartwright for the clarity of his presentation, saying it was pivotal in his thinking on the matter. Frank Lyon, Rancho Palos Verdes, credited Council for making a very reasonable decision at the previous meeting and urged approval of the excellent staff report and ordinance prepared by Senior Planner Mihranian and City Attorney Lynch. He expressed strong support for the decision to revise the Code as currently stated in the staff report and acknowledged Jon Cartwright's efforts in gathering a very capable group to address Council. Craig Mueller, Rancho Palos Verdes, also applauded Council's decision at the prior meeting, saying he understands the difficulty of reviewing the ordinance. He indicated he found the testimony presented extremely clear and concise and reiterated that Mr. Cartwright did an excellent job of illustrating the problem for Council and the public. He opined the language of the ordinance where it states "height variation application to build a new structure in addition to an existing structure either of which exceeds the 16 -foot height limit up to the maximum," should actually be worded, "an existing structure that exceeds the 16 -foot height limit up to the maximum height permitted in Section 2 or ...," saying there should be another "or" in that sentence. Otherwise, he stated all the updates and directions appear to be in order with what was previously discussed. Councilman Stern stated he believed the language was appropriate because the reference to "either" on the second line was to clarify it is either the new structure I J-3 Approved April 20, 2004 Minutes Page 2 of 3 or the addition, which will create the trigger. Mayor Gardiner queried what exactly was being referred to as exceeding the 16 - foot limit: the addition, the structure, or both. City Attorney Lynch responded it referred to either. Councilman Stern indicated modifications were made to the material in the Agenda packet since its distribution. He stated, after reading it, he recommended the City Attorney further clarify the language making clear it is either of those conditions, that is, if either the new or the existing structure exceeds the 16 -foot limit the view analysis will be triggered. Councilman Wolowicz questioned if the language under "Grading View Finding" on Circle Page 3 stating, "it should be noted that as drafted the view finding will apply when the existing grade is raised regardless of whether the resulting structure is within the height limit described in Section 17.020.40" suggests that something else might be changed in the future. City Attorney Lynch explained no further changes were being recommended, but staff wanted to clarify if grading is performed and the grade of the pad beneath a structure is increased that would trigger a view analysis under the grading sections of the ordinance. Senior Planner Mihranian clarified, even if the structure is within the 16 -foot height limit, if grading is requested, it is a discretionary application; if it results in raising the existing grade to a higher elevation, then the view analysis is triggered. City Attorney Lynch indicated, if Council is inclined to adopt the resolution, staff would make the same parallel changes to the View Guidelines and Neighborhood Capability Handbook so all three documents are consistent. Councilman Wolowicz inquired if the City has any existing warning requirements in place such as a proposed notice to buyers. City Attorney Lynch responded Councilman Long brought the matter up some time ago, but staff did not want to draft an ordinance until Council's final action was taken, adding an ordinance requiring notice of the 16 -foot height limit be given to prospective buyers will be drafted if the ordinance is approved this evening. Councilman Wolowicz asked whether the Planning Commission had been directed to examine the Neighborhood Capability Handbook to determine if it is consistent with other relevant Codes and documents. 2—oF? Approved April 20, 2004 Minutes Page 3of3 Director Rojas answered the Commission does look at the various documents and, if they find any inconsistencies, brings them to the attention of staff. He indicated the way the documents are currently drafted captures all the thought and consensus of the last meetings. Mayor Gardiner noted at one time Council had a lengthy discussion about foliage and trimming down to the ridgeline or cutting down to the profile of the building and inquired if that has changed. City Attorney Lynch responded those requirements have not changed. Councilman Stern indicated, while he very much appreciates the letter Jim Knight prepared, he thought it might be valuable to give his comments on it, saying he agrees with staff's position that when doing an analysis the real world as it exists at the moment should be considered rather than imputing buildings onto vacant lots and trying to ascertain what might happen in the future. He stated he does not believe it advances any meaningful value to discuss possibilities not currently in existence. Mayor Gardiner declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Wolowicz moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to (1) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 405, A CITY INITIATED PROPOSAL TO AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE AFFIRMING THE CITY'S HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE 16 -FOOT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT AND CLARIFYING THE "VIEW" FINDING AS IT RELATES TO THE HEIGHT VARIATION AND GRADING APPLICATIONS; and, (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-26, AMENDING THE HEIGHT VARIATION GUIDELINES AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY HANDBOOK TO MAKE THE LANGUAGE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Wolowicz, Stern & Mayor Gardiner Noes: None Absent: Long and Mayor Pro Tem Clark 36(--3 RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian FROM: Steve Wolowicz CC: Carolyn Lehr DATE: April 18, 2010 SUBJECT: CC meeting 4-20-10 item #12 Floor Area Ratios QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Joel and Ara, In order to understand the history of this topic it will be helpful for the Council to have two items for our meeting: A brief summary of any comments during the Residential Standards Update Committee meetings or by the Planning Commission There was no formal recommendation on the FAR issue that came out of the Committee's work. Likewise, there was no discussion of the issue by the Planning Commission when it recently reviewed the Committee's recommendations. In reviewing the Committee minutes, Staff found no discussion of establishing an FAR but did find that the Committee discussed the possibility of re-establishing a maximum structure size for each lot (in the late 1990's the City enacted an ordinance that set a maximum structure size for a residential lot that was eventually repealed in 2000). The Committee concluded that re-establishing a maximum structure size was not warranted. A copy of the minutes from that discussion is attached. 2. Staff comments on their current assessment of any recent problems encountered by Staff or the Planning Commission indicating a need for such revisions. Staff will be prepared to answer questions from council members on this issue. Thanks, Steve Page 1 of 1 h� C:\Documents and Settings\cartam\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK451\cc meeting 2010 04.20 #12 Floor area ratios (4).doc /) 04!19!10 4:27 ADOPTED: JULY 25, 2005 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS STANDARDS STEERING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING July 11, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Councilman Wolowicz called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was held at the City Hall Community Room, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Wolowicz, Planning Commissioners Gerstner and Perestam, Committee Members Karp, Dyda, and Slayden. Absent: Councilman Long, Commissioner Mueller and Committee Members Cartwright, Lyon, and Denton. Also present was Senior Planner Mihranian. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt the Agenda, seconded by Committee Member Karp. Without objection, the Committee approved the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee if there were any changes to the June 13, 2005 draft minutes. Senior Planner mentioned that Committee Member Dyda submitted some minor editorial changes. Committee Member Slayden moved to adopt the amended June 13, 2005 minutes, seconded by Committee Member Dyda. The motion passed without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda item Review and Update the Committee Meeting Calendar. He noted that as previously discussed the plan is to Page 1 of 11 wrap matters up by December 31, 2005 and therefore the Committee would have to work at an accelerated rate. He mentioned that additionally meetings have been added to the calendar. Senior Planner Mihranian added that the calendar no longer follows the typical meeting schedule of the second Monday of each month. The meetings dates are now staggered, but do not fall on a Monday before a Council meeting as originally requested by the co-chairs. He noted that the next meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 25. Councilman Wolowicz asked that the updated calendar be included in the next agenda packet and for Committee members to notify Staff immediately if they cannot attend a meeting. Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt the updated Meeting Calendar, seconded by Committee Member Karp. The motion passed without objection. Councilman Wolowicz asked for any comments on the next agenda item Committee Task List. Senior Planner Mihranian explained that the Committee Task List before the Committee this evening was updated based on past Committee actions. He noted that Staff has been scheduling agenda topics based on the original list developed by the Committee at the beginning of its tenure. Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee if any topic items should be removed or added from the list. Committee Member Dyda asked Staff about the items that were identified as Citywide topics at the last meeting during the discussion on the Eastview Overlay District. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the items identified as Citywide items are included in the list for future discussion. Committee Member Karp asked about the item regarding increasing the Front Yard Open Space Requirement. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the item is under the Lot Coverage discussion scheduled for discussion at the July 25th meeting. Councilman Wolowicz asked that Staff identify it on the list. Senior Planner Mihranian informed the Committee that the November 7th meeting has been set aside for the neighborhood presentation on the Eastview Overlay District. as_� Page 2 of 11� j Commissioner Perestam raised a concern regarding topics that have not been introduced to date, such as uphill views, sloping lot step requirement, and architectural features, and whether additional time would be needed. He added that he fears the Committee will end up taking on a topic that is more complex than originally anticipated. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the calendar is designed to address items that get continued from one meeting to another. Councilman Wolowicz noted that if the Committee identifies an item that is bigger than its scope, the Committee should decide at the time of discussion whether to set that topic aside for discussion by the City Council or the Planning Commission. He prefers to see those items remain on the topic list. He also suggested that Staff update the calendar to account for some carryover items. Committee Member Dyda moved to accept the updated Committee Task List and corresponding Calendar, as amended, seconded by Committee Member Slayden. The motion passed without objection. J Page 3 of 1 ds the crit( J � Page 4 of 11 lal" neighborhoods mittee and the final ;ighborhood itywide scale.. Committee Member Slayden asked Staff`to explain what is meant by buildable versus n6h-=build6blearea. ifthborhood Compatibility r gulating structure size and that ry for determining the buildable lot Commissioner Gerstner seconded the motion. The motion passed without objection. J IY-L1_,,_200.5_.. C Page 5 of 11 ~ Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to introduce the next agenda topic on Second Story Setbacks. Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that this item was originally raised as a Staff concern because projects were taking too long to process and were costing property owners too much money because of the numerous revisions needed to incorporate the adequate amount of articulation. He stated that the concept of a second story setback was originally presented to the Committee during the discussion on setbacks. He mentioned that the concept was re -introduced during the discussion on the Eastview Overlay district. Based on the Committee's last meeting, direction was given to Staff to further evaluate this concept on a Citywide scale for consideration at tonight's meeting. Mr. Mihranian presented the Committee with a table that outlines Second Story Setback requirements for various residential tracts within the City such as Ocean Front Estates, Seacliff Hills, Seabreeze and Ocean Trails. He briefly explained the respective criteria listed on circle pages 22 and 23. He mentioned that establishing a second story setback would essentially provide a starting point rather than a box. Councilman Wolowicz referred to an appeal that was heard by the City Council recently were the term articulation was mentioned on several occasions. He asked Staff if there is a glossary definition of articulation. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that there is a definition of articulation on page 28 of the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook. He then stated that it is not defined in the Development Code. Councilman Wolowicz asked if the definition should be included in the Development Code. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the glossary definition of articulation is unique to the way he would define articulation because the City refers to it as massing. He stated that to him articulation is more focused on the detail of a building fagade, such as window molding, shutters or eaves to name a few, not so much as the massing of facades. He referred to the inappropriate use of the word bulk in the Development Code in the context meaning a large mass. He prefers the use of the word mass. Committee Member Karp would like the term articulation to be better defined. She thinks the Code should be clear as to where the starting point should begin aside from a square box. She thinks the clearer the Code is the better understood it is. Committee Member Dyda agrees and would like to better define the term articulation because it gives a better meaning to people who are referring to it. He referred to the various criteria and explained how they are inconsistent and may lead to confusion. Ju 1 Page 6 of 11 Commissioner Perestam believes second story setbacks ties with the open space and view preservation discussion. He mentioned that he believes in the concept of articulation and that it should be better defined. Committee Member Slayden mentioned that he did not like the 25 -foot setback requirement because it is too restrictive. He cited examples where such a setback would not be appropriate, such as Spanish Colonial homes. He prefers articulation to remain as a Neighborhood Compatibility matter. Commissioner Gerstner stated that there are numerous homes that are compatible with the neighborhood that do not have a second story setback. It is a look that corresponds to a certain architectural style and requiring a setback would be too prohibitive where neighborhood compatibility allows flexibility. He stated that Neighborhood Compatibility is an effective tool in getting the appropriate amount of articulation. We are looking for a way to avoid larger solid masses. Committee Member Slayden asked if the City has a second story setback requirement. Senior Planner Mihranian responded no, but stated that certain tracts have criteria that regulate the size of the second story through the conditions of approval for the tract. Councilman Wolowicz asked there are three alternatives to consider: 1) A quantitative requirement, 2) a conceptual definition on articulation, or 3) a combination of the two. Commissioner Perestam mentioned that in terms of the quantitative alternative there are two additional options to consider: 1) An exact number, which leaves no flexibility, and 2) A percentage, that provides more flexibility as to where the articulation is to be placed. Committee Member Dyda stated that regardless there should be a preamble that explains the intent with suggested guidelines. Committee Member Karp raised a concern with new construction that takes on the shape of a box with minimal articulation referring to homes in Beverly Hills that are changing the character of the area. Councilman Wolowicz asked how she would respond to his earlier questions. Committee Member Karp felt that a combination of an absolute number along with a conceptual requirement would be most effective. Committee Member Slayden believes that concept of articulation should be addressed by Neighborhood Compatibility. Committee Member Dyda believes that articulation should be addressed in the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook with a preamble. �., 1 2005.... Page 7 of 11 Senior Planner Mihranian proposed that rather than adopting a specific Development Standard to address articulation that the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook be amended to further define articulation and provide suggestions. Councilman Wolowicz added that the Handbook should provide an explanation on the intent of articulation. Commissioner Gerstner suggested that the language be written to provide guidance to a property owner as to what articulation is and how it will be analyzed. Commissioner Perestam does not believe a hard number can be assigned to second story setbacks without having a structure size limitation. He referred to how structure size is addressed by Neighborhood Compatibility and so should second story setbacks. He would like this issue to be addressed under Neighborhood Compatibility. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook already addresses the intent of articulation and that the concept can be further clarified. Committee Member Dyda stated that when referring to second story setbacks there should be some form of relief between the lower and upper levels. Committee Member Karp suggested that the glossary definition of articulation within the Neighborhood Compatibility handbook should be redefined. Councilman Wolowicz directed Staff to work with Commissioner Gerstner to further clarify the intent of articulation in the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook. He then asked that this be the first item on the upcoming July 25t agenda for Committee consideration. He then introduced the next agenda item on Balancing Open Space and View Preservation. Senior Planner Mihranian briefly explained the genesis of this topic stating that the intent was to provide property owners with an incentive, such as, increased lot coverage allowance if they decide to build outward rather than upward in cases of potential view impairment and vice versa. He added that the City Attorney believes the incentive is already built into the process through the Minor Exemption application and would only have to be expanded to include such projects. He indicated that Staff is seeking Committee direction on this agenda topic. Councilman Wolowicz asked where open space is referred to in the Development Code. Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that open space is implied through setback and front yard landscape requirements. Councilman Wolowicz then spoke on view preservation stating that the Development Code requires a Height Variation application for projects above the permitted height 11 Page 8 o limit. He then stated it is at that time when the issue of view impairment is addressed and the decision makers work with the property owner to mitigate view blockage, stating that the decision makers can decide to increase the lot coverage allowance to address view impacts. Committee Member Slayden noted that an incentive exists under the City's View Ordinance. Committee Member Dyda agreed stating that the View Ordinance already addresses this matter and does not believe this should be changed because the incentive is already in place. Committee Member Slayden moved that the Development Code and the View Ordinance not be changed to address incentives as stated in Agenda Item No. 5, the motion was seconded by Committee Member Dyda. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Wolowicz asked for New Business. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that there was no New Business to report. PUBLIC COMMENTS Councilman Wolowicz asked for any public comments. Madeline Ryan introduced herself as a resident and member of the City's Equestrian Committee. She mentioned that she is at tonight's meeting because the Equestrian Committee (Committee) is concerned about the loss of horse property in the City with today's housing trend. She explained the Committee's proposal stating that a property within the Q -District that is 15,000 square feet or larger would be required to set aside 800 square feet for the keeping of large domestic animals. She then discussed some exceptions to the proposal and stated that the intent is not to prohibit development but rather to protect property for horse keeping. She then briefly recapped the process the Committee has been through with the City to initiate the possibility of amending the Development Code so that properties in the City's Q -district overlay district would preserve area within each lot for horse keeping. She indicated that this concept is not new and that it currently exists in the City of Rolling Hills and Rolling hills Estates. She mentioned how the Committee presented its proposal to the City Council and to the Planning Commission. She said the Planning Commission couldn't support the proposal and suggested that the Committee present its proposal to the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee, which is why she is here this evening. She requested that the Committee place her item for discussion on a future agenda. Councilman Wolowicz asked for comments from the two Planning Commissioners who heard this item when it was presented to them earlier this year. 2005 Page 9 of 1 f -� Commissioner Gerstner indicated that the Commission was looking for statistical data that documented how many properties within the Q -district are developed in a manner that precludes horse keeping. He stated that the Commission raised a concern that 800 square feet was too large of an area to be dedicated for horse keeping when you consider that average size of a lot minus the setbacks and structure footprint. He stated that if a property owner wants to maintain horses on their property and there is not enough undeveloped land on their lot, if they really want it they would modify their lot, such as demolish certain improvements, to accommodate an area for horse keeping. He emphasized that requiring land to be set aside for horse keeping was too prohibitive to property owners and that it eliminates choices property owners can make. Ms. Ryan stated that in her belief this is an issue of compatibility and if properties in the Q -District do not maintain area for horse keeping then the properties that do have horses will be considered incompatible. Committee Member Dyda shared a similar concern with Commissioner Gerstner reiterating that 800 square feet is too restrictive when you start subtracting out setbacks, setbacks for horse keeping, and the building footprint, you then have restricted the developable area on a lot. Ms. Ryan mentioned there is a hardship clause for such cases. Committee Member Dyda responded that once you provide people with an out people will abuse it. He said that the Q -District ordinance exists to be permissive. Committee Member Slayden asked where the Q -Districts are in the City. Ms. Ryan mentioned that there are four areas: Portuguese Bend, Ridgecrest area, North of the Library off Palos Verdes Drive East, and Via Campesina. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there is any statistical information on possible changes to the Q -District that may have occurred in the past that has resulted in adverse impacts to the properties in this area. Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that it was his belief that the Q -District has not undergone any Code changes and that Ms. Ryan's concern is most likely based on the current housing trends. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there is information on how many lots have been developed in a manner that no longer allows for horse keeping. Ms. Ryan stated she is aware of four at this time. She stated that there are approximately 1500 lots within the Q -District. July 11 2 age 10 of 11 Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the City does not have that kind of data readily available and that it would be quite difficult to ascertain that information without having to survey each property within the Q -District. Councilman Wolowicz reiterated Commissioner Gerstner's earlier comment that a property owner who wants to keep horses will decide how to improve their property accordingly and that reserving a portion of a property for horse keeping is what would ultimately occur under this proposal. He then asked the Committee if they would like to make a decision tonight or would like to see this on a future agenda. The Committee agreed that this item should not be placed on a future agenda. Mr. Tom Redfield briefly spoke on his purpose for attending this evening's meeting. He expressed how important Neighborhood Compatibility is for the City and how the composition of this Committee with representatives from the City Council, Planning Commission and the community bring valuable insight to the topics being discussed. ADJOURNMENT Committee Member Dyda moved to adjourn the meeting. Committee Member Perestam seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Jul1y 2D115 Page 11 of 1 fi''