|
June
11 , 2002
DISCLAIMER
Staff
Reports Detailed
staff reports on the items contained in this agenda are available from
the Planning Department the Friday before the meeting and are posted
for public viewing immediately prior to the meeting in the hallway outside
the chambers. The Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department is located
at City Hall at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. The Department's public counter hours are from
7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 4:30 p.m. to
5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday.
The telephone number is (310) 377-6008. Organization
of the Agenda The Planning Commission agenda is divided into the following sections:
Unless the Chairperson in his or her discretion should direct otherwise, the order of the presentation is generally as follows:
RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2002 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
SCHEDULING NOTES REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM. NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME. PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS NOT HEARD BEFORE ll:00 P.M. WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED AND WILL BE HEARD ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA. NEXT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-12 CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE: ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes): None 2. Staff: 3. Commission:
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items):
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2002 2. PAGE 23 OF MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2002
CONTINUED BUSINESS:
3. APPEAL OF FENCE, WALL AND HEDGE PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2001-00122): 32451 Searaven Drive / Foster (BY)
RECESS (approximately 8:30 P.M.):
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 928, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2276, VARIANCE NO. 487, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 586 and SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 9127: 4206 Admirable Drive / Barez (DB)
5. WIND ENERGY ORDINANCE (CASE NO. ZON2002-00228): Citywide (KF)
CONTINUED BUSINESS: (Continued)
6. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 899, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2151, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 573, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 745 3787 Coolheights Drive / Nassiri (AM)
7. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 941 and GRADING PERMIT NO. 2286: 3261 Crownview Drive / Iskander (KF)
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued)
8. HEIGHT VARIATION (CASE NO. ZON2002-00038): 27725 Longhill Drive / Lee (GR)
NEW
BUSINESS: (NO ITEMS)
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:
Staff 9. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 25, 2002. Commission
ADJOURNMENT:
The
next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, AGENDA RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2002 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. SCHEDULING NOTES REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM. NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME. PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS NOT HEARD BEFORE ll:00 P.M. WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED AND WILL BE HEARD ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA. NEXT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-12 CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE: ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes): None 2. Staff: 3. Commission:
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items):
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2002
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Duran Reed led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Also present were Associate Planner Blumenthal, Assistant Planner Yu, Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement Rojas, and Recording Secretary Peterson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Mueller asked that item 2 be taken off of the consent calendar and put at the end of the agenda. Chairman Cartwright also asked that items 1 and 4 be added to the end of the agenda. The Planning Commission agreed to the changes.
COMMUNICATIONS
Director/Secretary Rojas distributed a copy of a letter from Mr. Freeman regarding public information requests and a copy of an e-mail received at pc@rpv.com. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the City Council had heard an item on RV parking and requested that the item be agendized to the Planning Commission at a future date.
CONTINUED BUSINESS
3. Height Variation No. 899, Grading Permit No. 2151, Minor Exception Permit NO. 573, and Environmental Assessment NO. 745: 3787 Coolheights Dr Director/Secretary Rojas explained that at the last meeting there had been discussions about looking at alternatives, therefore the Director of Public Works has retained the services of a consultant to look at different cul-de-sac designs, therefore more time was needed and the continuance was requested. Commissioner Duran Reed moved to continue the item to June 11, 2002, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (6-0).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Appeal of Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit (Case No. ZON2001-00032): 32451 Searaven Drive Director/Secretary Rojas reported that the appellant had requested an extension to the meeting of June 11, therefore staff was recommending the continuance. Commissioner Tomblin moved to continue the item to June 11, 2002, seconded by Commissioner Duran Reed. Approved, (6-0). 6. Golden Cove Sign Program (Case ZON2001-00090): 31212-31244 Hawthorne Boulevard Assistant Planner Yu presented the staff report. She stated that staff reviewed the proposed sign program and found that it was generally consistent with the intent and purposes of the sign permit section of the Development Code, however staff had a few recommendations. She stated that staff felt the reader board should remain and not be replaced with individual tenant panels as proposed by the applicant and noted that the City Council had, in 1985, approved the non-conforming signs so that the reader board could be made available for community announcements. Additionally, for the freestanding signs, the applicant was proposing the face panels to be plexiglass with a vinyl background, however staff was proposing the face panels be aluminum covered with texcote with routed out letters. She showed examples of the two types of signs on a power point display and explained that the texcote would give a stucco appearance to the sign itself and the routed out letters would allow the light to shine through the letters only and not through the entire panel. She discussed the wall signs and stated that staff was recommending the signs to be reversed channel letters as opposed to the proposal of individual channel and flat aluminum letters and showed examples of the two. She discussed the colors of the signs and stated that staff felt the proposed colors were not compatible with the approved architectural style of the shopping center which allows for earth tone colors. Therefore, staff was recommending the sign colors be limited to teal, terra cota, and the trademark colors. She showed examples of the colors the applicant was proposing. She also stated that staff was suggesting that exposed neon not be allowed on the signs. She concluded by stating that overall staff felt the proposed sign program would be an enhancement to the shopping center and as such was recommending the Planning Commission approve the sign program subject to the staff recommendations as outlined in the conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Long asked staff to clarify what they meant by the trademark colors. Assistant Planner Yu explained that trademark colors were those colors used by businesses that were recognized nationally. She stated that the colors being recommended by staff were for businesses that do not have trademark colors. Vice Chairman Long asked if the trademark being discussed would be a federally registered trademark or a state registered trademark, as a state registered trademark was simply a matter of sending in a fee. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that staff’s proposal was intended to apply to nationally recognized businesses with federally registered trademarks but that it was up to the Planning Commission as to how that would be structured. Commissioner Duran Reed asked why the Admiral Risty was not included in the sign program. Assistant Planner Yu explained that when the shopping center remodel was approved in 1999 the Admiral Risty was not included in the remodel and as such the sign program does not apply to the Admiral Risty at this time. However, when they decide to remodel the building they will be subject to the sign program. Commissioner Duran Reed compared the two new signs on pages 3 and 5 of 19 in the staff report and noted they were slightly different in design and proportion, and asked why that was and why they could not be built to be proportional. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that if the Planning Commission wants the two signs to be proportional, they can require that. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there was any applicable code that regulated the square footage and height of the freestanding signs, as he felt the signs could be lowered. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that staff had looked at past approvals and found that in 1985 the City Council had acknowledged that the monument sign does not meet the code, as such signs are limited to a height of 16 feet in height for centers of this type and let the sign remain as is, and therefore staff did not take issue with the height of the signs. However, he explained that it was at the discretion of the Planning Commission if they wished to modify the signs. Vice Chairman Long asked what the Ordinance was that allowed the Planning Commission to regulate the signs and what discretion was given to the Planning Commission. He asked what findings had to be made to approve the signs. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the discretion was in the sign code and read the subsection regarding sign programs and sign criteria as well as the required findings. Vice Chairman Long noted that there was not a finding to determine the size of a sign nor was there a finding regarding the grandfathering of signs in existence before City incorporation. Chairman Cartwright asked if the monument signs existed before the City incorporated. Assistant Planner Yu answered that the signs were existing before incorporation. Commissioner Cote asked staff to clarify how they envisioned the reader board would look so that it would be compatible with the shopping center. Assistant Planner Yu answered that it was mainly the color of the reader board that staff was concerned with. She explained that it was currently a white board with black letters, and she suggested the board could be a teal color with white letters. Commissioner Cote asked if staff had considered an electronic reader board. Assistant Planner Yu explained that staff did not have specific recommendations for the reader board as long as the board was compatible with the freestanding sign. Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearing. Gus Navarro 701 N. Lakme Avenue, Wilmington discussed the reader board and did not feel a teal background with white letters would be readable at night. He discussed the Golden Cove sign which staff recommended an aluminum covered panel background with texcoated finish which he felt was fine, however he pointed out that being so close to the ocean would cause a high maintenance problem. He stated that staff was recommending cable illuminated letters which he also felt would cause a high maintenance problem being so close to the ocean and the moisture along the coast. Commissioner Duran Reed asked what some of the typical problems were on the type of signs the staff was recommending and who typically takes care of the maintenance of the signs. Mr. Navarro answered that in individual lit signs, each letters has its own individual neon system and each one can blow at any time. He stated that typically tenants are responsible for the maintenance of their signs. Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mr. Navarro about the signs depicted on pages 3 and 5 of 19 of the sign program. She did not feel the sign logos were consistent and asked if there was a reason for that. Mr. Navarro responded that the sign on page 3 was in a 12 foot by 12 foot established sign cabinet and the sign on page 5 was not quite as large. He explained that in order to integrate the logo into the smaller sign it had to be designed slightly differently. Commissioner Duran Reed felt it was important to have consistency in the two signs and suggested raising the piling a little higher on the sign on page 3 of 19 and lowering the piling on the sign on page 5 of 19. Mr. Navarro felt that could be done without a problem. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Navarro if he weren’t trying to maintain the 20-foot sign, what would have been a more effective sign design if he had to start over with a new sign. Mr. Navarro answered that, without knowing the wishes of the tenants, he would design a monument sign that said "Golden Cove Center" without the tenants on it. He felt the existing tenant sign lettering was very small and ineffective. Commissioner Cote asked Mr. Navarro about the reader board and any suggestions he may have for it. Mr. Navarro responded that almost all reader boards are white with colored letters so that it is easily read at night. He was concerned that a teal reader board with white lettering would be very blurry and ineffective at night. Commissioner Duran Reed asked if it were possible to have a teal reader board with white lettering, but have a light shine up on the board rather than from behind the board. Mr. Navarro stated that was called eyebrow lighting, and that it was a possibility. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Navarro if he was representing the management company or the architect, or was he at the meeting to give his technical insight on the signage. Mr. Navarro responded that he was the sign contractor and at the meeting to offer his technical knowledge on the signs. Hannibal Petrossi stated he was the architect for the Golden Cove project and explained that the sign program was designed to blend in with the architecture of the redesigned shopping center. He explained that the way the building was designed on the first floor there was no room to have a box or channel letters lit from the back of the fascia of the building. That was why they had designed the signs to be accessible from outside. On the second floor, he had no problem with the suggestions made by staff. He reminded the Planning Commission that the Admiral Risty was not part of this program and the Golden Lotus would be remodeling soon after the sign program was in effect. Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Petrossi how he would feel to a continuance of the sign program issue while the Planning Commission worked out incorporating changes into the proposed program or would he rather the Planning Commission work with the proposal in front of the Commission this evening. Mr. Petrossi answered that he preferred the Planning Commission work with the current proposal and approve a sign program at this meeting. He explained that he and the tenants were anxious to begin work on the renovation of the Golden Cove Center, which could not be done until the sign program was approved. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that when the Planning Commission approved the Golden Cove renovation plan there was a condition stating that a building permit could not be issued for the renovation of the two-story building until a sign program was approved for the entire center. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Petrossi what the maximum height of the buildings in the shopping center was. Mr. Petrossi responded that the maximum height was 35 feet. Vice Chairman Long asked where in the code was the size of the monument signs discussed. Director/Secretary Rojas read the section of the code stating that the Director may approve a sign up to 16-feet in height if it is the only feasible method of identification for a shopping center containing 4 or more individual establishments. Chairman Cartwright asked if it was staff’s contention that the changes being proposed were significant or that the changes are not sufficient to require that the signs be brought into compliance with the code. Assistant Planner Yu responded that it was staff’s opinion that the applicant was proposing to refurbish the existing signs and noted that the poles and faces on the existing signs are going to remain, and the changes were the color of the face of the signs and stucco the poles. She stated that staff felt the height and square footage of the signs would not change. Vice Chairman Long asked staff if they felt the restrictions of the code did not apply as the Planning Commission was not approving a new sign but rather the refurbishment of existing approved signs. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed with Commissioner Long’s statement and added that staff felt the sign was not intensifying or adding to the non-conformity. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mueller agreed with staff’s interpretation that the existing sign was being refurbished. He felt that Golden Cove Center was fairly well known but agreed that two signs were needed for the shopping center, one on Hawthorne Blvd. and the other on Palos Verdes Drive West and also felt it was important to have the individual tenant signs. He felt the Planning Commission should consider what type of illumination to allow for the reader board. He agreed with staff’s suggestions for the lighting of the other signs. He felt it was important to define exactly what type of trademark signage would be allowed. Commissioner Duran Reed also agreed with staff’s recommendations regarding the signs and the retention of the reader board, however she suggested the eyebrow lighting for the reader board to make it easier to read at night. She felt consistency in the logo was important as well as the pylons in the sign be proportional. She too felt the tenant signs should remain. She too felt it would be nice to have a lower sign, but agreed that the sign was existing and that the proposal was a refurbishment. Commissioner Tomblin felt that the Planning Commission and City Council spend quite a bit of time trying to blend in some of the things that happened during the County time that were not necessarily the right things for the City. He did not think the current 40-foot sign was working since the owner has applied for three more restaurant signs where the reader board is currently located. He felt the 40-foot sign was a huge albatross that lights up the sky at night, which was not effective for the tenant, the City, or anyone else. He would rather see two smaller pylon signs in its place, which would allow more signs for the tenants, be less obtrusive, and blend in to a higher quality center. He felt that if the Planning Commission was going to consider a sign program, they should consider one that would be beneficial to the tenants, owners, and City and felt that the current signs should be taken down and all new signs be constructed. He would not be opposed to allowing the applicant to go forward with the construction while the Planning Commission was working out the sign situation to make sure the signs were appropriate. Commissioner Cote agreed with Commissioner Tomblin’s concerns regarding the signs. She felt a lot had happened in the Golden Cove area since the City Council originally approved the large sign and reader board at Golden Cove such as Ocean Trails, the Oceanfront Estates development, and the proposed Long Point development. She wondered if the City Council would approve the same sort of sign today if it were before them and wondered if the reader board was still an important element to the City and wondered if it was still needed. Vice Chairman Long stated that one of his primary concerns has been satisfied and the Planning Commission has more latitude than he originally thought they had. He was torn on the issue, however he felt he could suggest a precise condition for allowing trademark owners to use colors. He suggested allowing the trademark owners use the colors as reflected in the registered trademark with the Federal Patented Trademark Office and that the trademark whose colors are being used should be on the principal register and the manner in which the trademark should be used by the sign owner should be for one of the same classes of goods or services as is reflected on the registered mark. Further, the trademark colors could only be used for so long as the trademark is validly registered. He was very much undecided on the rest of the aspects of the sign program. He understood Commissioner Tomblin’s point of view and was inclined to agree that it might be better if all of the signs were redesigned, but was not sure that sort of a decision was in the scope of the Planning Commission’s discretion. Chairman Cartwright also felt that it might be best to scrap the current signs and start all over, however the signs have existed for quite a while and were considered legal, non-conforming signs approved by the City. He felt that the applicant had designed the modifications to the signs based on an understanding that if they didn’t significantly change the signs that the height and square footage would be approved. He felt it was a little late in the game for the Planning Commission to require the applicant to redesign the signs. Therefore, he would support the existing height of the signs. He agreed with the Vice Chairman’s suggestions for the trademark colors. He also felt the eyebrow lighting for the reader board was a good suggestion. Director/Secretary Rojas discussed the Planning Commission’s latitude to reduce the height of the signs. He explained that the signs were non-conforming structures and that there was no longer a section in the Code discussing non-conforming signs. He stated that staff was relying on was the general code section regarding non-conforming structures which says that no physical changes or enlargements can be done. Staff felt that these signs did not increase the non-conformity. Vice Chairman Long stated that if a proposal were to be made for a house that had non-conforming construction and the proposal was made in such a way that the changes that were going to be made were not going to be sufficient so as to trigger a requirement to make the house conforming, then the Planning Commission could not say they required the applicant to bring the house into conformance. Similarly, if the same general standard were applied to this application and the Planning Commission could determine that what is being done to the signs is just a refurbishment that does not increase the degree by which they are non-conforming, then the same principal would apply. Commissioner Duran Reed asked if it was possible to allow the remodel of the two-story structure to begin while the Planning Commission works out the details of the sign permit. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that the sign program was a condition of the Conditional Use Permit for the Golden Cove Center, which was not before the Planning Commission at this time. To waive a condition of the Conditional Use Permit would require a public notice and it could not be done at this meeting. Commissioner Cote felt that the Planning Commission had the latitude to ask the applicant to design signs that were conforming and more acceptable. She did not understand why the Planning Commission, in approving the redevelopment of the shopping center, did not allow for latitude in approval of the sign program. Vice Chairman Long stated that if the applicant had proposed a sign program that had new and different signs as opposed to simply refurbishing the existing signs, then the Planning Commission would have the latitude to impose all of the requirements of the Ordinance. Chairman Cartwright recalled the Planning Commission, at the time of approval of the Golden Cove refurbishment, was concerned with signage and therefore had conditioned the approval that signage be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. He felt that the Planning Commission did have some latitude as far as the signage in regards to the lighting, the colors, and the type of signs allowed. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the applicant could place two 16-foot signs on Palos Verdes Drive West. Director/Secretary Rojas felt it would be difficult as there are three building that have yet to be built in the shopping center along Palos Verdes Drive West. Chairman Cartwright re-opened the public hearing. Commissioner Duran Reed asked Mr. Petrossi if he would voluntarily lower the height of the sign at the center. Mr. Petrossi answered that a 16-foot high sign would only be visible to traffic traveling west on Palos Verdes Drive West, as there is an approximate 4-foot elevation difference between the west bound traffic and the east bound traffic. He did not think that would be satisfactory and did not think the owner of the shopping center would agree to lowering the height of the sign. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mueller felt that the one big sign could be seen from a distance from both directions of travel on Palos Verdes Drive West and that a lower sign would get lost and possibly blocked by the new buildings. He also felt it was important to maintain an open view with the tall sign. He also did not feel the Planning Commission could ask the applicant to lower the sign as it was considered legal, non-conforming. He felt that the wording suggested by the Vice Chairman in regards to the trademark signs should be incorporated into the Resolution. Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt staff’s recommendations regarding the reader board, lighting, and colors, as well as to incorporate the language suggested by Vice Chairman Long regarding the trademark signs and colors, seconded by Vice Chairman Long. Commissioner Duran Reed asked Commissioner Mueller if his motion included the use of eyebrow lighting for the reader board. Commissioner Mueller responded that eyebrow lighting was sufficient but would like to allow flexibility to allow staff the discretion to determine the best lighting for the reader board. Chairman Cartwright suggested an amendment to the condition indicating that the reader board have eyebrow lighting or other suitable lighting as approved by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Commissioner Mueller agreed to the amendment, as did the Vice Chairman. Commissioner Duran Reed discussed the consistency and proportionality of the two signs and proposed an amendment that language be included that the design of the signs be consistent and the pylon edges of the two signs be proportional, making the two signs appear more similar. Commissioner Mueller was leery to add a condition that would dictate that the pylons would have to go 2/3 of the way up the sign and felt the current sign proposal looked reasonably symmetric. Commissioner Tomblin seconded the proposed amendment made by Commissioner Duran Reed. The proposed amendment to the motion failed by a vote of 3-3, with Commissioners Cote and Mueller, and Chairman Cartwright dissenting. Director/Secretary Rojas repeated the motion for the Planning Commission, stating that the motion was for the approval of the sign program with the recommendations by staff and with the language regarding trademark colors as suggested by Vice Chairman Long. Also that the reader board have a teal background with eyebrow or other lighting at the Director’s discretion. Vice Chairman Long stated that the wording should be that the trademark colors shall be only those that are a federal trademark that are registered in the principal register with the patent trademark office for the class of goods or services as used by the tenant and in effect at the time that the tenant is using said colors. Director/Secretary Rojas noted that there was no condition included addressing the hours the signs could be on at night, and suggested language be added that the lighting be turned off at the time that the last tenant closes at night, as the closing of the businesses are staggered throughout the evening. Vice Chairman Long suggested an amendment to the motion to add a condition that the lights are to be turned off no later than the time of the closing of the tenant and shall not be turned back on until the opening of the first tenant on the following day. Commissioner Mueller accepted the amendment to the motion. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 4-2 with Commissioners Cote and Tomblin dissenting. Commissioner Cote explained that she had voted no because she felt the Commission had more discretion in the approval of the sign program, and that the height of the non-conforming sign should have been addressed. She did not agree with the thought process that the sign was non-conforming and therefore the Planning Commission had to leave the sign at the current height.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
At 8:55 p.m. the Commission to a short recess to 9:15 p.m. at which time they reconvened.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT)
7. Height Variation, Coastal Permit, Variance, Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2002-00035): 112 Spindrift Drive Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report. He described the project and the need for the various applications. He explained that typically the height limitations of the Municipal Code cannot accommodate construction of three story homes. However the existing flat roof of the house, in conjunction with the proposed new flat roof, accommodates a design which a three-story house can built, and it should be noted that the first floor of the structure consists entirely of a subterranean garage. He stated that all findings for the Height Variation could be made as well as the findings for the Variance and the Minor Exception Permit. He explained that the subject property is located on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive South and therefore located within the Coastal Specific Plan. Accordingly, a Coastal Permit is required for approval of an addition to the subject property and staff has determined that the required findings could be supported for approval of the Coastal Permit. Therefore, staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the project, subject to the conditions of approval. Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearing. Gary Wynn 27525 Valley Center Road, Valley Center, stated that he was the engineer for the proposed project as well as the property located next door to the project. He stated that the project was designed to maintain the privacy and views of the neighbors. He pointed out that there were open space areas behind both the projects which helped minimize any impacts from these projects. He stated that both projects have the approval of the Portuguese Bend Club HOA architectural review committee. Andrew Ely 112 Spindrift Drive explained that he was proposing the addition to accommodate his growing family and was available to answer any questions. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioners Cote and Tomblin were both impressed with the way the privacy issues were dealt with and saw no view impairment issues at the site. Therefore, they were in favor of the project. Commissioner Duran Reed felt the neighborhood was changing, but had no issues with the project. Commissioner Mueller asked about the vacant parcel behind the subject property. He noted that it was owned by the Homeowners Association and wondered if the land was preserved as open space for as long as the HOA owned the property. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the HOA ownership of the parcel, in conjunction with the moratorium on new buildings in that area, would preserve the area as open space. Commissioner Mueller wondered if the moratorium were lifted and the HOA were to sell the property, if the land could then be built on. He asked if the Planning Commission had any obligation to preserve the views from the vacant parcel, which at this point in time is not developable only because no new structures can be built in the area. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that it would first have to be determined if they were legal conforming lots. He stated that the view ordinance does protect views from vacant property, however from staff’s perspective this was not developable property under the current code and therefore there was no view that needed to be protected. Vice Chairman Long noted that the vacant properties were on a substantial slope and even if there were any building ever allowed on the lots they would most likely be at a significantly higher elevation. He stated that he had driven around the area and saw no issues with potential view impairment or potential privacy issues. Given staff’s explanation, Commissioner Mueller agreed with their analysis regarding the vacant property behind the residence. He questioned why staff had not included the lot sizes when doing their analysis of the project. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that in that area of the Portuguese Bend Club the houses sometimes traverse the lot lines and there may be multiple houses on a single lot. He stated that the information staff has is the taken from the County Assessor maps and the County Assessor’s tax information which does not coincide with each other or with the information provided by the applicant. Therefore, the lot size information was omitted. Chairman Cartwright re-opened the public hearing. Gary Wynn explained that the boundaries in the Bend Club were determined subsequently by a Record of Survey, where the property lines were basically retrofitted where they felt the fence lines were located. He also clarified that the CC&R’s for the area specified that the open spaces would be held forever as open space. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lyon stated that he had walked the property and had specifically noted a substantial grid separation between the house and the property behind it and therefore had no doubt there would be no view impact if there were ever anything developed on the vacant lot. Chairman Cartwright also could see no view impairment or privacy issues and agreed with the staff’s analysis. Commissioner Lyon moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2002-09 thereby approving the Height Variation, Coastal Permit, Variance and Minor Exception Permit as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Duran Reed. Approved, (7-0). 8. Height Variation, Coastal Permit, Variance, Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2002-00036): 113 Spindrift Drive Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report. He explained the project and the need for the various applications. He noted that the entire first floor was a subterranean garage, which does not have access to the interior of the house. He noted that all necessary findings could be made for the applications and staff was recommending approval, with conditions. Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearing. Gary Wynn 27525 Valley Center Drive, Valley Center, stated that one thing unique to this project was the Variance for the one-car garage. He stated that it was just short of a two-car garage and the reason they applied for the Variance was because where the foundations currently fall it would be a tremendous hardship to move one wall one foot and another wall three feet in order to comply with the code. Although the garage was being represented as a one-car garage he felt it could be considered a small two-car garage. Commissioner Mueller asked about the large tree on the north side of the property. Mr. Wynn stated that the tree would be removed, as it was too close to the foundation and impedes with the proposed upper level. Kathy Cushman 113 Spindrift Drive stated that she too was requesting the addition to her residence to accommodate the size of her family. She felt she has worked hard with her engineer and neighbors to conserve everyone’s view, make the house more beautiful, and improve the neighborhood in general. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Chairman Cartwright asked if the removal of the tree on the property should have been included in the conditions of approval. Associate Planner responded that staff had not noted any view impact caused by the tree and therefore did not include it in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Mueller asked why staff had used the phrase enclosed parking used in the staff report. He asked if that was the same as a one-car garage. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that the proposed garage does not qualify in dimensions as a two-car garage. He stated that the proposed garage would have a single garage door. He stated that the term, enclosed parking space is used interchangeably with the term one-car garage. Commissioner Lyon moved to adopt P.C. Resolution NO. 2002-10 thereby approving the Height Variation, Coastal Permit, Variance and Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2002-00036) as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (7-0). Chairman Cartwright noted that during his 6 years on the Planning Commission there have been numerous applications for modifications in the Portuguese Bend area and in his memory there has never been one without some type of issue from someone in the neighborhood. He noted that the applications at 112 and 113 Spindrift had no outstanding concerns or issues from the neighbors or HOA, and he congratulated the applicants and Mr. Wynn on the work they had done.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of May 14, 2002 Chairman Cartwright noted an e-mail from Commissioner Duran Reed regarding her requested changes to the minutes. The Commissioners discussed the procedure to be used on e-mailing suggested revisions to the minutes prior to the meeting. It was determined that the Planning Commissioners e-mail their proposed changes to pc@rpv.com so that the revisions could be viewed by all Commissioners and they could be addressed at the meeting. Commissioner Lyon briefly discussed his concern that the Planning Commission continues to spend more time reviewing the minutes than necessary. He reminded the Commission that changes made to the minutes should only be to correct what was said at the meeting and not what one intended to say. Chairman Cartwright stated that e-mailing suggested modifications to the minutes was merely an attempt to try and not use quality meeting time to debate the minutes. Vice Chairman Long noted an omission on page 8 of the minutes. Director/Secretary Rojas reviewed the e-mailed comments from Commissioner Cote regarding a typo on page 11 of the minutes and change the word "acceptable" to "reasonable" on page 21 of the minutes. Chairman Cartwright referred to page 9 of the minutes and read a sentence from a statement by Commissioner Duran Reed. He then asked Commissioner Duran Reed if this is what she recalled saying. Commissioner Duran Reed felt the minutes reflected what she had said. Commissioner Mueller noted one clarification to page 1 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Long discussed the e-mail from Commissioner Reed discussing the changes on page 23 of the minutes. He agreed with her proposed addition regarding view obstruction below sixteen feet in height. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that rather than no response, he had stated that Section 17.02 of the Height Variation Guidelines states that views apply only to portions over 16 feet in height. Commissioner Lyon felt a statement should be added that this was an issue that had been discussed previously. Commissioner Duran Reed and Vice Chairman Long agreed to the two changes. Commissioner Lyon felt that the recording secretary should listen to the tape of the meeting and record what was said at this point in the hearing rather than taking what someone has drafted. He felt that the minutes should reflect the record of the meeting rather than what someone recalls. Chairman Cartwright felt that in this case, since it was a quick exchange, it may make sense for the recording secretary to listen to the tape of the meeting for the accurate exchange of conversation. Vice Chairman Long agreed. Vice Chairman Long moved to adopt the minutes as amended, with the exception of the last item discussed, and instruct staff to listen to the tape of the meeting and bring the minutes back on the next Consent Calendar for the Planning Commission to look solely at that paragraph, seconded by Commissioner Duran Reed. Approved without objection. 2. Adoption of new Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Resolution Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the material received in this packet was identical to the material received in the last packet. He noted that all changes had been conceptually approved by the Planning Commission at the last meeting and to be brought back at this meeting in written form so that the Commission could review and agree on the language. Commissioner Mueller discussed page 4 regarding staff reports and direction to staff. He questioned the section that stated that any explicit direction should come through the Chairperson as a result of the consensus of the Planning Commission. He did not like the work "consensus", as in the past the Commission has been allowed to direct staff provided there was a majority of the Commissioners present that felt that was important to do. He felt the word "consensus" could allow one or two Commissioners to disagree with a direction and not allow the remaining part of the Commission to gather additional information to understand an issue. Therefore, he suggested deleting the word "consensus" and adding "or as a result of a majority of the Planning Commissioners present". Chairman Cartwright explained that he had made the suggestion for the wording. He explained that the reason for the wording was so that staff would not be confused when one of the Commissioners requested something and the rest of the Commission did not say anything. He felt the Chairman needs the latitude to be able to give the staff direction and he had used the term consensus to mean most but not all, as there could not be a consensus with less than the majority of the members. Vice Chairman Long suggested adding to the end of the statement "or by formal motion" so that the option is available. He noted that this does not address the specific comment made by Commissioner Mueller regarding "consensus". He felt that even if a minority of the Commissioners want information that other Commissioners feel they don’t need, they should be allowed that information. Chairman Cartwright suggested adding the wording "or a majority " to the wording as he believed the Commission always has the latitude to put something to a formal vote. Commissioner Lyon agreed with Commissioner Mueller’s thought, however he did not think the last sentence belonged in the paragraph it was currently in or even under the heading of Staff Reports and should be in a separate heading of its own. He felt it should be put in a new paragraph and suggested titling the paragraph "Direction to the Staff". He read consensus to mean a majority of the people present and didn’t see a problem with the word. Commissioner Mueller felt that replacing the word "consensus" with the word "majority" would make the meaning much more clear. Vice Chairman Long discussed the issue of the minority of the Commission requesting information, and stated that if called upon to vote as to whether the information should be obtained, he would judge his vote by two questions: 1) is the information relevant to him and, 2) even if he doesn’t think the information is relevant to him does he think that at least one of the other Commissioner’s think its relevant and is it unreasonable or unduly expensive for the staff to gather that information. Commissioner Duran Reed added that having a formal vote on a motion will address the minority issue. Vice Chairman Long moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2002-11 thereby approving minor amendments to the Planning Commission Rues and Procedures, with the amendment to move the second sentence of the second paragraph under Staff Reports be moved to its own section and titled "Direction to Staff" and restating "any explicit direction to staff should come through the Chairperson or as a result of a consensus of the Planning Commission or by formal motion." Seconded by Commissioner Duran. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Lyon discussed the problem of introducing a new concept or thought in a public hearing or in front of an applicant that is new to the Commission. He felt it was more appropriate to discuss the new concept separately and not in a context of whether the Planning Commission approves or disapproves a specific application. Vice Chairman Long felt that including in the rules the concept that the Planning Commission could not discuss something new that has never been discussed before would so unduly limit the Commission when forming conditions that the Planning Commission would be hogtied beyond belief and be extremely damaging. Commissioner Duran Reed agreed and felt that new ideas could not be looked at in a vacuum and new ideas come from applications before the Planning Commission and if the Planning Commission knew all of the answers they would have written them down. She felt it was very important to be able to discuss new ideas during a meeting. Commissioner Lyon clarified that he was not proposing this as a Planning Commission rule, but rather as a point of discussion and procedural matter. Commissioner Cote commented that if a Commissioner had a new approach or new way to deal with an issue or a questions, that could be discussed with staff prior to the meeting and staff could then give the rest of the Commissioners notice that the Commissioner would be bring the subject up at the meeting. This would give the Commissioners some forewarning about what new issues may be discussed during the hearing. Commissioner Tomblin agreed that it would be good to know ahead of time if new issues were going to be brought up, but acknowledged that new issues and ideas will periodically come up during the meeting. Commissioner Mueller did not want to be restricted on anything new during the meeting as the creativity and ideas that the Commissioners come up with during the meeting may be stifled. He felt that if this issue was going to be further discussed, it should be agendized at a future meeting so that it can be thoroughly discussed. Chairman Cartwright stated he agreed with everything that had been said and that it was important for the Commissioners to inform staff if they know they are going to introduce something new during the meeting. He felt it was extremely important that the Planning Commission understand what their authority is and the discretion the Commission has. He did not feel there was a consensus to make any changes to the rules and procedures regarding this topic at this time. Commissioner Lyon repeated that he was not suggesting the rules and procedures be changed, but merely that the Planning Commission discuss the issue. To that end, he felt that the Planning Commission had accomplished everything that he had in mind. Vice Chairman Long stated that it was very difficult and not unusual that, after reading the staff report, all of his comments on a project may not be formulated until the day of the meeting. He agreed that, to the extent the Commissioner could do so, the more in advance of a meeting the comments were made available the better. He hoped that in the future the Planning Commissioners would give thought to how they could share with the other Commissioners the important issues before them, to the extent they could do so.
CONTINUED BUSINESS (CONT)
4. Institutional Memory Table Director/Secretary Rojas explained that staff had been directed by the Planning Commission to create an institutional memory file and that staff should create some type of summary. He distributed a handout showing a sample of staff’s idea of what the summary should consist of. He stated that staff was seeking direction as to whether this should be incorporated into the follow-up agenda or if it should be a separate type of file. Chairman Cartwright felt it should be made part of the follow-up agenda, as it would save time in duplication of generating two very similar things. Vice Chairman Long agreed, and felt that the summary distributed was an excellent summary. He acknowledged that the follow-up agenda may be slightly longer, but it will have a very succinct synopsis that may help people understand what happened without having to read the more lengthy minutes. He felt staff should have a way to access the information off of the follow-up agendas for use in the future. Director/Secretary Rojas felt some type of sort could be done using key words or key addresses. Commissioner Duran Reed felt this would help others in the future to understand and look at what had been done. Commissioner Cote felt staff had created a very good summary and wondered if there was a way to summarize a staff report and include the overall findings of the report in the summary. Commissioner Mueller agreed that the summary was a good idea and felt that there should be a short discussion at the end of the end of the Planning Commission meetings to discuss the summary to add any pertinent information. Director/Secretary Rojas felt that if more information was required other than what was in the summary, then one could go to the minutes of the meeting for that information. Commissioner Duran Reed stated that the institutional memory would be used as a research tool and that the summary should be sufficient and if, after reviewing the institutional memory, one felt they needed more information they could then review the minutes. Vice Chairman Long agreed that the institutional memory was not the official record of the meeting, and unless the Planning Commission felt that staff was not doing a good job in writing the summary, let the summary staff writes stand. Chairman Cartwright felt this was a good beginning to the institutional memory process.
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS
Commissioner Tomblin questioned the upcoming wind energy ordinance and what it was. Director/Secretary Rojas responded that there was a recent Assembly Bill passed that says if a City fails to adopt the Wind Energy Ordinance by July 1, 2002 it must then approve applications for small wind energy systems by right if they comply with the criteria in the Assembly Bill. Therefore, the City Attorney has drafted something so that the City will not lose local control and can regulate the wind energy systems. Commissioner Mueller asked if the Planning Commission could get a draft of the Wind Ordinance as soon as it was available. Director/Secretary Rojas stated he would try to get it to the Planning Commissioners as soon as possible. Commissioner Lyon reported that he would not be at the next Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2002.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. 2. PAGE 23 OF MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2002 Page 23 of Minutes of May 14, 2002: Senior Planner Mihranian answered that it was taken from a standing position. Commissioner Mueller agreed that the main viewing area of the house was the dining room and asked if the portion of the structure that obstructs ocean and cove view is above 16 feet in height. Senior Planner Mihranian answered that it was above 16 feet. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Farooq if, in sitting down in the dining room, he could see the point on the coastline and asked if the silhouette obstructs that view. Mr. Farooq answered that he could currently see the point and the silhouette does obstruct that view. Senior Planner Mihranian reminded the Commission that the intent in locating the proposed residence on the slope rather than on the pad area was to address staff’s concern that if the structure was built to a height of 16 feet it would impair Mr. Farooq’s ocean view. He clarified his previous comment by stating that the view impairment is caused by the portion of the proposed structure that is below the permitted height limit of 16 feet. Commissioner Duran Reed asked if, in a height variation application, there were potential view impairments up to 16-feet would those view impairments be taken into consideration. Senior Planner Mihranian answered that a resident can build up to 16 feet in height by right and if there are view impacts they are in the by-right height limit. Vice Chairman Long stated that when a height variation application is required one of the findings that must be made is there is no significant impairment of view, and asked where in the ordinance it was stated that view impairment was only considered from the portion that was over 16-feet in height. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that this requirement was in the height variation section of the code. Commissioner Lyon recalled having this discussion at past meetings. Vice Chairman Long stated that this was an area where there are alternative interpretations among the Planning Commissioners. Nick Trutanich 3751 Coolheights Drive showed a slide of seven houses on Coolheights which represented 13 children under the age of 11 in the neighborhood. He then pointed out other homes in the neighborhood, including an in-school house that had 15 children under the age of 8. He discussed the trucks that come down the street that
CONTINUED BUSINESS:
3. APPEAL OF FENCE, WALL AND HEDGE PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2001-00122): 32451 Searaven Drive / Foster (BY)
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: JUNE 11, 2002 SUBJECT: FENCE WALL AND HEDGE PERMIT, CASE NO. ZON2001-00122 (FOSTER, 32451 SEARAVEN DRIVE) Staff Coordinator: Beilin Yu, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION Continue the item to the June 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. BACKGROUND On May 9, 2002, the Planning Director approved with conditions Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit (Case No. ZON2001-00122) to allow an existing 5’-0" hedge, located along the east side property line to remain. The approval included a condition requiring that the portion of the hedge located closest to Mr. and Mrs. Foster’s residence be lowered to and maintained at a maximum height of 2’-6", as measured from the higher adjacent grade. On April 29, 2002, the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Foster, submitted a letter appealing the Director’s decision. On May 9, 2002, notices were mailed to the adjacent property owners, informing them of the appeal, and the time and place of the May 28, 2002 public hearing. During the noticing period the City received no correspondence pertaining to the proposed project. On May 28, 2002, pursuant to a request from the appellant, the Planning Commission continued this item to the June 11, 2002 meeting. On June 4, 2002, the appellant contacted Staff regarding the June 11, 2002 agenda. Staff informed Mr. and Mrs. Foster that the agenda is fairly full, and that this item would likely be heard after other continued items. As such, on June 4, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Foster submitted a letter requesting that the item be continued to the June 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. DISCUSSION Based upon the applicant’s request, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the subject application to the June 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. ATTACHMENTS Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Foster dated June 4, 2002.
RECESS (approximately 8:30 P.M.):
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 928, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2276, VARIANCE NO. 487, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 586 and SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 9127: 4206 Admirable Drive / Barez (DB)
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: JUNE 11, 2002 SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 928, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2276, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 9127, AND VARIANCE NO. 487, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4206 ADMIRABLE DRIVE Staff Coordinator: Dave Blumenthal, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the request to withdraw the application. BACKGROUND On April 9, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a proposed addition at 4206 Admirable Drive. Due to staff and neighborhood concerns, the Planning Commission continued the matter until June 11, 2002; in which time, the applicant was directed by the Commission to address the concerns listed in the staff report and to meet with the neighbors to address their concerns. DISCUSSION On June 3, 2002, the applicant submitted a letter to staff requesting to withdraw the application. In the letter the applicant states that the property owner no longer expresses an interest in completing an addition to the residence. ATTACHMENTS: Letter of application withdrawal, dated May 31, 2002 5. WIND ENERGY ORDINANCE (CASE NO. ZON2002-00228): Citywide (KF)
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: JUNE 11, 2002 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT (CASE NO. ZON2002-00228): DRAFT WIND ENERGY ORDINANCE Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Review the draft Wind Energy Ordinance, and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. BACKGROUND On May 6, 2002, the City Attorney’s office advised Planning Staff of the need for the City to adopt standards for small wind energy systems, as mandated by Assembly Bill 1207 (Longville). AB 1207 requires all California cities—including both general law and charter cities—to adopt ordinances to provide for the siting of small wind energy systems in non-urbanized areas by July 1, 2002. If a city fails to adopt a wind energy ordinance by July 1, 2002, it must then approve applications for small wind energy systems "by right," if they comply with the criteria set forth in Assembly Bill 1207, until such time (if any) that a wind energy ordinance is adopted. In order for the City to retain maximum control over land use decisions within its borders, Planning Staff and the City Attorney’s office have prepared a draft wind energy ordinance to govern the installation and operation of small wind energy systems. DISCUSSION This code amendment is comprised of miscellaneous additions and amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC). The specific amendments are described briefly below, and in full detail in the attached draft Wind Energy Ordinance.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The subject of this code amendment is potentially applicable citywide and would require direct notification of more than one thousand property owners. Therefore, pursuant to Section 65091(a)(3) of the California Government Code, a one-eighth-page public notice for the June 11, 2002 public hearing on the draft Wind Energy Ordinance was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on May 25, 2002. Notice was also posted on the City’s website. As of the date this report was completed, Staff had received no comments in response to the public notification for this code amendment. CONCLUSION Planning Staff and the City Attorney’s office have prepared the draft Wind Energy Ordinance to enact the standards for small wind energy systems mandated by AB 1207. Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval for this code amendment (Case No. ZON2002-00228) to the City Council, via Minute Order. Please note that the City Attorney will be present at tonight’s meeting to address any legal questions the Planning Commission may have about AB 1207 and draft Wind Energy Ordinance. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration:
Please note that if the City does not adopt a Wind Energy Ordinance by July 1, 2002, its ability to regulate the placement of small wind energy systems in the City will be severely limited. This matter has already been agendized for City Council review on June 18, 2002. As such, Staff strongly recommends that the Planning Commission not continue this matter beyond tonight’s meeting. Attachments: Draft
Wind Energy Ordinance DRAFT WIND ENERGY ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. ___
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: California has a shortage of reliable electricity supply. In 2001, the Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1207 in response to this shortage. Assembly Bill 1207 encourages the use of wind energy by requiring local governments to adopt ordinances that provide for the installation and operation of small wind energy systems in locations outside of "urbanized areas" in the jurisdiction. Each local agency has until July 1, 2002, to adopt such an ordinance. If a local agency fails to adopt an ordinance which provides for the installation and operation of small wind energy systems in non-urbanized areas, the local agency must approve applications for small wind energy systems if they comply with the criteria set forth in Assembly Bill 1207. In order to retain maximum control over land use decisions within its borders, the City desires to enact appropriate regulations to govern the installation of small wind energy systems within its jurisdictional borders. Section 2:Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.76.150 to Chapter 17.76 to read as follows: "17.76.150 Small Wind Energy Systems.
(1) To provide for the installation and use of small wind energy systems in certain non-urbanized areas of the city to encourage the use of alternative energy sources; (2) To minimize visual impacts of wind energy towers through careful design, siting and vegetation screening; (3) To avoid damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through careful design and siting of tower structures; and, (4) To ensure that wind energy towers are compatible with adjacent uses.
Section 3: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.96.2355 to Chapter 17.96 to read as follows: "17.96.2355 Wind energy system, small. For the purposes of this Section, ‘small wind energy system’ shall mean a wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine (approved by the California Energy Commission as qualifying under the Emerging Renewables Fund of the Commission's Renewable Investment Plan or certified by a national program recognized and approved by the California Energy Commission), a tower, and associated control or conversion electronics, which has a rated capacity that does not exceed the allowable rated capacity, as defined under the Emerging Renewables Fund of the Renewables Investment Plan, and which is used primarily to reduce onsite consumption of utility power." Section 4: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.96.2105 to Chapter 17.96 to read as follows: "17.96.2105 Tower height, small wind energy system. Tower height means the height above grade of the fixed portion of the tower, excluding the wind turbine." Section 5: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.14.030 of Chapter 17.14 (Commercial Limited (CL) District) to read as follows: "17.14.030 Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit. The following uses and development may be permitted in the commercial limited (CL) zone, if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.14.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):
Section 6: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.16.030 of Chapter 17.16 (Commercial Neighborhood (CN) District) to read as follows: "17.16.030 Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit. The following uses may be permitted in the commercial neighborhood (CN) zone if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.16.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):
Section 7: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.18.030 of Chapter 17.18 (Commercial Professional (CP) District) to read as follows: "17.18.030 Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit. The following uses may be permitted in the commercial professional (CP) zone, if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.18.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):
Section 8: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.20.030 of Chapter 17.20 (Commercial General (CG) District) to read as follows: "17.20.030 Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit. The following uses may be permitted in the commercial general (CG) zone if it is found in each individual case by the planning commission, that the criteria and limitations imposed on such uses by other provisions of this title are satisfied, and if specific conditions are imposed to carry out the intent and purpose set out in Section 17.20.010 of this chapter and Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):
Section 9: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.26.030 of Chapter 17.26 (Institutional (I) District) to read as follows: "17.26.030 Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit. The following uses may be permitted in the institutional district, pursuant to a conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):
Section 10: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.28.030 of Chapter 17.28 (Cemetery (C) District) to read as follows: "17.28.030 Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit. The following uses may be permitted in the cemetery district, pursuant to a conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):
Section 11: Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 17.34.040 of Chapter 17.34 (Open Space Recreation (OR) District) to read as follows: "17.34.040 Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit. The following uses may be permitted in the open space recreation district pursuant to a conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):
Section 12: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 13: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. Section 14: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2002.
ATTEST:
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. ___ passed first reading on _____, 2002, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on _____, 2002, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES:
ASSEMBLY BILL 1207 BILL NUMBER: AB 1207CHAPTERED
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Longville FEBRUARY 23, 2001
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
(1)Existing law prohibits the legislative body of any city or county from enacting an ordinance that prohibits or unreasonably restricts the use of solar energy systems other than for the preservation or protection of the public health and safety. This bill would authorize until July 1, 2005, a local agency to provide, by ordinance, for the installation of small wind energy systems, as specified, and to issue a conditional use permit for this purpose. The bill would also authorize a local agency to impose conditions on the installation of these systems, as specified. This bill would also require a local agency to approve an application for a small wind energy system by right if specified conditions are met and would authorize the local agency to charge a specified fee. By increasing the duties of local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 65892.13 is added to the Government Code, to read:
(1) California has a shortage of reliable electricity supply, which has led the Governor to proclaim a state of emergency and to issue numerous executive orders to lessen, and mitigate the effects of, the shortage. The executive orders, among other things, expedite and shorten the processing of applications for existing and new powerplants, establish an emergency siting process for peaking and renewable powerplants, and relax existing air pollutant emission requirements in order to allow power generation facilities to continue generating much needed electricity. (2) Wind energy is an abundant, renewable, and nonpolluting energy resource. When converted to electricity, it reduces our dependence on nonrenewable energy resources and reduces air and water pollution that result from conventional sources. Distributed small wind energy systems also enhance the reliability and power quality of the power grid, reduce peak power demands, increase in-state electricity generation, diversify the state's energy supply portfolio, and make the electricity supply market more competitive by promoting consumer choice. (3) In 2000, the Legislature and Governor recognized the need to promote all feasible adoption of clean, renewable, and distributed energy sources by enacting the Reliable Electric Service Investments Act (Article 15 (commencing with Section 399) of Chapter 2.3 of Part 1 of Division 1 of the Public Utilities Code). As set forth in Section 399.6 of the Public Utilities Code, the stated objectives of the act include to "increase, in the near term, the quantity of California's electricity generated by in-state renewable energy resources while protecting system reliability, fostering resource diversity, and obtaining the greatest environmental benefits for California residents." (4) Small wind energy systems, designed for onsite home, farm, and small commercial use, are recognized by the Legislature and the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission as an excellent technology to help achieve the goals of increased in-state electricity generation, reduced demand on the state electric grid, increased consumer energy independence, and nonpolluting electricity generation. In June 2001, the commission adopted a Renewable Investment Plan that includes one hundred one million two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($101,250,000) over the next five years, in the form of a 50 percent buydown incentive for the purchasers of "emerging renewable technologies," including small wind energy systems. (5) In light of the state's electricity supply shortage and its existing program to encourage the adoption of small wind energy systems, it is the intent of the Legislature that any ordinances regulating small wind energy systems adopted by local agencies have the effect of providing for the installation and use of small wind energy systems and that provisions in these ordinances relating to matters including, but not limited to, parcel size, tower height, noise, notice, and setback requirements do not unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners, farms, and small businesses to install small wind energy systems in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance. It is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of small wind energy systems and to limit obstacles to their use.
(1) "Small wind energy system" means a wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine, a tower, and associated control or conversion electronics, which has a rated capacity that does not exceed the allowable rated capacity under the Emerging Renewables Fund of the Renewables Investment Plan administered by the California Energy Commission and which will be used primarily to reduce onsite consumption of utility power. (2) "Tower height" means the height above grade of the fixed portion of the tower, excluding the wind turbine.
(1) The ordinance may impose conditions on the installation of small wind energy systems that include, but are not limited to, notice, tower height, setback, view protection, aesthetics, aviation, and design safety requirements. However, the ordinance shall not require conditions on notice, tower height, setbacks, noise level, turbine approval, tower drawings, and engineering analysis, or line drawings that are more restrictive than the following:
(2) The ordinance may require the applicant to provide information demonstrating that the system will be used primarily to reduce onsite consumption of electricity. The ordinance may also require the application to include evidence, unless the applicant does not plan to connect the system to the electricity grid, that the electric utility service provider that serves the proposed site has been informed of the applicant's intent to install an interconnected customer-owned electricity generator. (3) A small wind energy system shall not be allowed where otherwise prohibited by any of the following:
(4) In the event a small wind energy system is proposed to be sited in an agricultural area that may have aircraft operating at low altitudes, the local agency shall take reasonable steps, concurrent with other notices issued pursuant to this subdivision, to notify pest control aircraft pilots registered to operate in the county pursuant to Section 11921 of the Food and Agriculture Code. (5) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (1), a local agency may, if it deems it necessary due to circumstances specific to the proposed installation, provide notice by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the local agency in which the installation is proposed. (6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or affect existing law regarding the authority of local agencies to review an application.
(1) The size of the parcel where the system is located is at least one acre and is outside an "urbanized area," as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 21080.7 of the Public Resources Code. (2) The tower height on parcels that are less than five acres does not exceed 80 feet. (3) No part of the system, including guy wire anchors, extends closer than 30 feet to the property boundary, provided that it also complies with any applicable fire setback requirements pursuant to Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code. (4) The system does not exceed 60 decibels (dBA), as measured at the closest neighboring inhabited dwelling, except during short-term events such as utility outages and severe wind storms. (5) The system's turbine has been approved by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission as qualifying under the Emerging Renewables Fund of the commission's Renewables Investment Plan or certified by a national program recognized and approved by the Energy Commission. (6) The application includes standard drawings and an engineering analysis of the tower, showing compliance with the Uniform Building Code or the California Building Standards Code and certification by a licensed professional engineer. A wet stamp is not required if the application demonstrates that the system is designed to meet the most stringent wind requirements (Uniform Building Code wind exposure D), the requirements for the worst seismic class (Seismic 4), and the weakest soil class, with a soil strength of not more than 1,000 pounds per square foot, or other relevant conditions normally required by a local agency. (7) The system complies with all applicable Federal Aviation Administration requirements, including any necessary approvals for installations close to airports, and the requirements of the State Aeronautics Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 21001) of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code). (8) The application includes a line drawing of the electrical components of the system in sufficient detail to allow for a determination that the manner of installation conforms to the National Electric Code. (9) Unless the applicant does not plan to connect the system to the electricity grid, the application includes evidence, that the electric utility service provider that serves the proposed site has been informed of the applicant's intent to install an interconnected customer-owned electricity generator. (10) A small wind energy system shall not be allowed where otherwise prohibited by any of the following:
(11) In the event that a proposed site for a small wind energy system is in an agricultural area that may have aircraft operating at low altitudes, the local agency shall take reasonable steps, concurrent with other notices issued pursuant to this subdivision, to notify pest control aircraft pilots registered to operate in the county pursuant to Section 11921 of the Food and Agriculture Code. (12) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for a local agency to deny the siting and operation of a small wind energy system under this subdivision. (13) No changes in the general plan shall be required to implement this subdivision. Any local agency, when amending its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the approval of small wind energy systems, must do so in a manner consistent with the requirements of this subdivision and the Permit Streamlining Act (commencing with Section 65920).
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
CONTINUED BUSINESS: (Continued)
6. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 899, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2151, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 573, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 745 3787 Coolheights Drive / Nassiri (AM)
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: JUNE 11, 2002 SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 899, ET. AL. / 3787 COOLHEIGHTS DRIVE (THOMAS GUIDE PAGE: 823 / E-5) Staff Coordinator:Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Review the "turn-around" design alternatives and make a determination as to which "turn-around" alternative should be utilized at the terminus of Coolheights Drive; 2) Discuss the draft findings and draft conditions of approval for the project applications; and 3) If deemed appropriate, adopt P.C. Resolution 2002-__, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2002-___; approving, with conditions, Height Variation No. 899, Grading Permit No. 2151, Minor Exception Permit No. 573, Variance No. 488 and Environmental Assessment No. 475. BACKGROUND On May 14, 2002, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing to receive public testimony on the subject applications. At the meeting, concerns were raised regarding the design of the applicants’ proposed hammerhead turnaround, a potential view impairment caused by the proposed residence, public trail access from Coolheights Drive and the City owned Forrestal property, and brush clearance mandated by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. As a result, the Commission unanimously moved to continue the public hearing to its May 28th meeting so that Staff may further research the concerns raised at the public hearing. Specifically, the Commission directed Staff to consider alternatives to the applicants’ hammerhead turnaround, including the design of a cul-de-sac, at the terminus of Coolheights Drive. Additionally, in continuing the public hearing, the Commission directed Staff to conduct a meeting with the applicant and neighboring property owners to consider the feasibility of the alternative "turnaround" designs. In preparing the necessary plans, Staff realized that additional time would be necessary to complete the drawings, as well as conduct a meeting with the neighbors, and therefore respectfully requested that the Commission continue the public hearing to its June 11th meeting. On May 28, 2002, the Commission continued the public hearing to June 11th, thereby allowing Staff additional time to complete the necessary analysis. It should be noted that a courtesy notice was mailed to all interested parties informing them of the date change. On June 5, 2002, Staff conducted a neighborhood meeting to discuss the turn-around design alternatives prepared by the City’s engineer for the terminus of Coolheights drive. The outcome of that meeting will be discussed later in this report. DISCUSSION The following discussion involves Staff’s analysis of the turn-around issue which the Commission directed Staff to research, as well as other concerns raised during the May 14th public hearing and subsequent comment letters. Turn-around Alternatives In response to resident and Commission concerns on the design of the hammerhead turn-around proposed as part of the applicants’ development application, the Commission directed Staff to analyze possible turn-around design alternatives, including a cul-de-sac design, at the terminus of Coolheights Drive. As such, the Public Works Director commissioned a civil engineer, who routinely works for the City, to prepare the alternative turn-around designs. The turn-around alternatives prepared by the engineer include seven (7) designs; two (2) hammerhead designs (including the applicants’ proposal) and five (5) cul-de-sac designs (including a design proposed by the neighbor at 3776 Coolheights Drive). The design of the alternatives was based on the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s minimum standards (see attachment). Furthermore, each of the seven (7) alternatives has been designed to provide an additional 2.5 feet of space between the curb face and the edge of the easement to accommodate the opening of vehicle doors. In order to compare the seven (7) design alternatives, Staff has prepared a matrix that identifies decision criteria, such as construction cost, parking availability, impacts to the project site, impacts to adjacent properties, and pedestrian accessibility to name a few. The matrix has been attached to this report, and will be available at the meeting, in the form of a power point presentation, for Commission discussion. In summary, all seven (7) of the turn-around alternatives provide adequate public access because they meet the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s standards and provide access for vehicles and pedestrians. The difference between the hammerhead and cul-de-sac design alternatives appears to be focused on construction costs, impacts to the location of the proposed structure, and impacts to the project site’s building pad and the neighbor’s property. Hammerhead Designs: The two (2) proposed hammerhead design alternatives result in the least amount of encroachment onto the building pad of the project site, do not encroach onto the neighbor’s property, would not require the proposed structure to be redesigned or relocated (provided that a Variance application is processed), and would cost the least to construct. In regards to costs, the City Attorney is of the opinion that since the Settlement Agreement requires a Hammerhead Turnaround to be constructed at the terminus of Coolheights Drive, that the applicants would be responsible for all construction costs. It should also be noted that the applicants have previously agreed to pay for the costs of constructing the hammerhead turn-around. It should also be noted that the hammerhead design alternatives are consistent with the Settlement Agreement and would not require an amendment to the Settlement Agreement by the City Council. Cul-de-sac Designs: As for the cul-de-sac design alternatives, there are three (3) designs with a 32-foot radius and two (2) designs with a 42-foot radius. The 32-foot radius represents a cul-de-sac design typically used by the Fire Department for single-family residential development, whereas the 42-foot radius represents a cul-de-sac design typically used by the Fire Department for streets that maintain a width of 28 feet or more. The width of Coolheights Drive is greater than 28 feet. One of the 32-foot radius designs does not encroach onto the neighbor’s property, but occupies approximately 3,577 square feet of the 8,960 square foot building pad area, and would require modifications to the proposed residence. The remaining two (2) 32-foot radius cul-de-sac designs would encroach the least onto the building pad of the project site, but would encroach onto the neighbor’s property. All three of the 32-foot radius cul-de-sac design alternatives will cost significantly more to construct than the hammerhead designs because of the grading needed to accommodate the cul-de-sac on the site. Both of the two (2) 42-foot radius cul-de-sac designs would require modifications to the proposed residence. One 42-foot radius design does not encroach onto the neighbor’s property, but occupies approximately 7,863 square feet of the 8,960 square foot building pad area. The other 42-foot radius design encroaches onto the neighbor’s property and occupies 6,653 square feet of the 8,960 square foot building pad area of the project site. Both of these designs are the most expensive to construct because of the significant amount of grading required to prepare the site. It should also be noted that in reviewing the five (5) cul-de-sac design alternatives, Staff has observed that a cul-de-sac would provide a very desirable vista point that may appeal to visitors during the day and evening hours. This, in turn, may create public and/or nuisance concerns for the neighbors. It should also be noted, that the construction costs associated with a cul-de-sac design would have to be paid for by the City unless a neighborhood assessment district is established. Right-of-Way: At the May 14th Planning Commission meeting, a concern was raised during public testimony that if the turn-around were to remain on private property and a public access easement were to be conveyed to the City to ensure public access to all, it may be difficult to properly maintain the turn-around and enforce any restrictions (e.g. no parking). In response, the City Attorney has determined that the applicants should be required to convey a public street easement, rather than a public access easement, to the City for the turn-around. Under this scenario, the turn-around would remain on private property and would not alter the configuration of the property lines. Nevertheless, pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.48.030, on lots abutting a private street (street easement), setbacks shall be measured from the edge of the street easement. Therefore, if the City Attorney’s recommendation is implemented, the location of the proposed structure would encroach into the required front yard setback. Front Yard Setback: In light of the City Attorney’s decision, Staff is of the opinion that relocating the proposed structure further back into the property to meet the required front yard setback from a publicly dedicated street easement would result in adverse impacts to the surrounding environment. Such impacts include additional grading on the abutting slopes, altering the location of the drainage swales, and increasing the impacts to habitat as a result of amendments to the required Fuel Modification Zones. As such, Staff is recommending that the structure remain in its current location and that a Variance application be processed to reduce the front yard setback requirement. Staff’s analysis on the required Variance findings can be found in the attached Resolution. It should be noted, that the actual setback distance depends on the turn-around design alternative selected by the Commission. Neighborhood Meeting On June 5, 2002, Staff conducted a meeting with the applicants and the neighboring property owners to discuss the proposed turn-around design alternatives. At the meeting, Staff presented the neighbors with six (6) design alternatives that were prepared by the City commissioned engineer. During the meeting, the neighbor at 3776 Coolheights Drive, Mr. Ralph Ortolano Sr., presented a symmetrical cul-de-sac design alternative that was not considered by the City’s engineer. According to Mr. Ortolano Sr., his alternative, designed as a symmetrical cul-de-sac with a 32-foot radius, is the superior design because of its minimal impacts to the building pad area of the project site and its ability to provide adequate maneuverability. Staff informed the neighbors that this design alternative was not considered because a power pole would have to be relocated. In response, the neighbors indicated that it was there understanding that the relocation of the power pole would be the utility company’s responsibility. Staff is currently researching this information and will report its findings to the Commission at the meeting. Nevertheless, the neighbors requested that Staff consider Mr. Ortolano’s cul-de-sac proposal as a 7th alternative. Based on the previous discussion for the turn-around alternatives, Staff has included the neighbor’s proposal in the comparative matrix (see attachment). In summary, other than the decision to consider Mr. Ortolano’s design alternative, the neighbors and the applicants were unable to come to a general consensus on a turn-around design. The neighbors indicated a preference for a cul-de-sac with a radius of 32-feet. The neighbors felt that a cul-de-sac with a 42-foot radius was inappropriate because of its impacts to the project site’s building pad and the adjoining canyon. The applicants indicated their preference for the "S" shaped hammerhead turnaround, as proposed on their project. According to the applicants, the property was purchased with the understanding that a "hammerhead" turnaround would have to be improved at the terminus of Coolheights Drive. They stated that any design other than a hammerhead is not within the spirit of the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the applicants indicated their disapproval of the neighbor’s preference of a cul-de-sac design alternative. Views At the May 14th Commission meeting, a concern was raised by the neighbors to the immediate east, at 3777 Coolheights Drive (Dr. and Mrs. Farooq), that the proposed residence impairs their ocean and coastline views. As indicated in the May 14th Staff Report, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will impair approximately five (5) percent of the view, as viewed from the dining room’s viewing frame. Furthermore, as Staff indicated at the May 14th meeting, the ocean and coastline views taken from the viewing frame in the dining room are impaired by the proposed project’s "by right" height limit, as depicted by the project silhouette. Nonetheless, the property owners submitted an additional comment letter since the May 14th meeting (see attachment) reiterating their concern that the project impairs their coastline and ocean views. According to the comment letter, the property owners request that the proposed residence be reduced by the 2-3 feet, from the southern facade, in order to preserve their views. Staff is of the opinion, that since the view impairment occurs within the proposed residence’s "by right" 16 foot height limit, that a reduction in the building footprint is not warranted. Furthermore, the applicants originally intended on situating the proposed residence within the designated "building pad." However, since Staff expressed a concern that the placement of the proposed residence on the building pad may result in an impairment of views from the neighboring property, the applicants opted to relocate the proposed residence off the building pad, towards the northeastern portion of the property, in order to minimize any potential view impacts. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed project has been designed in a manner that minimizes an impairment of views from neighboring properties. Silhouette In addition to the above view concerns, the comment letter (see attachment) submitted by the property owners at 3777 Coolheights Drive indicated that the project silhouette appears to have been increased in height by approximately three (3) feet since the original public notice was issued. Furthermore, the property owners request that portions of the proposed project that are within the "by right" 16 foot height limit be depicted by the silhouette. In regards to the alleged height increase to the project silhouette, the applicants informed Staff that the height depicted by the project silhouette has not been modified since its height was verified by Staff. However, the applicants did indicate that on numerous occasions, the silhouette poles and flags have been vandalized. Therefore, as a part of the maintenance of the silhouette, the applicants have had to secure the poles and flags, which may have been misconstrued as an alteration to the original silhouette. Nonetheless, Staff will re-measure the depicted height and verify the placement of the project silhouette and verbally report its findings at the June 11th meeting. Habitat At the May 14th meeting, a concern was raised with regard to project related impacts to surrounding habitat. As the Commission may recall, the subject property is located in a High Fire Hazard Area. As such, the Fire Department is requiring the clearance and thinning of brush along the slopes off the building pad which contain protected habitat. Because of the impacts the project related brush removal or thinning will cause to habitat, the Fire Department has reduced its setback requirements in order to minimize such impacts, as depicted in the approved Fuel Modification Plan (see previous Staff Report). Pursuant to a policy memo issued on February 2, 1995 (see attachment in the previous Staff Report) by the Resource Agencies, habitat losses that are a result of mandated health and safety orders (e.g. weed abatement) are exempt from the interim habitat loss process and do not require mitigation. Notwithstanding, the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) identifies losses to Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) and concludes that mitigation would still be necessary as a result of this development project because impacts to habitat would not have occur if it were not for this project. Such mitigation would involve either the applicants restoring offsite habitat at a 3:1 ratio or by providing permanent protection for existing on-site habitat at a ratio of 1:1. On-site habitat preservation may be achieved by conveying an Open Space Conservation Easement on the project site to the City. Staff is of the opinion that the Conservation Easement would be the preferred choice because the lot contains extreme slopes and CSS habitat that should be preserved in perpetuity along with the abutting City owned Forrestal Property. It should be noted that as a mitigation measure, the applicants are required to conduct a focused Spring Survey for Lyon’s pentachaeta by a qualified biologist. At the May 14th meeting, the applicants’ attorney requested that the Commission reconsider this mitigation measure because of the costs associated with such a study and the likelihood that such a plant exists within the Fuel Modification Zone. The applicants’ attorney has since withdrawn this request and has agreed to the mitigation (see attachment). Trails As reported to the Commission at the May 14th meeting, there are trail segments that are identified in the City’s Conceptual Trails Plan and the City’s Forrestal Management Plan that traverse the subject property. As such, public trail easements are proposed to be conveyed to the City for the following trail segments that traverse the subject property:
*It should be noted that a small area of the easement for this segment may be labeled as the Pirate Trail (No. A15) in the Trails Plan. It should be noted that the specific location of the Ganado Trail (A16) segment from the project site has not been determined as this point. This is because in order to reduce impacts to habitat, it is desired that the trails be located within the area that will be impacted by the Fire Department’s required brush clearance. Notwithstanding, attached to the Conditions of Approval (see Exhibit B) is a site plan that sets parameters for the location of said trails. The site plan excludes the "residential" area of the project site from consideration. This is to help the privacy of the applicants’ residence and yard area, as well as to provide a trail experience that is in a more natural setting. As the Commission may recall from the May 14th meeting, the applicants’ architect requested that the Commission consider modifying the boundary line, as shown in Exhibit B, for the "no trail zone" so that less area is set aside for the alignment of the Ganado Trail Segment. Subsequent to the May 14th meeting, the applicants have agreed to the "no trail zone" identified in Exhibit B of the Conditions of Approval, provided that the applicants are involved in the City’s process of defining the trail alignment. The purpose of this request is to ensure that the trail does not infringe on their privacy. Applicants’ Concerns In addition to the previously discussed concerns raised by the applicants’ attorney at the May 14th meeting, the applicants are requesting that the Commission modify the conditions of approval for the proposed spa location and the height restriction of plantings along the proposed front property fence/wall. As originally recommended by Staff, the conditions of approval previously transmitted to the Commission indicate that the spa shall be setback at least ten (10) feet from the top of the slope. In looking at the applicants’ request, Staff is of the opinion that a five (5) foot setback from the top of the slope will still minimize impacts to the slope, which was the intent of the setback. Therefore, if the Commission is inclined to approve the applicants’ request, Staff recommends that the condition be modified to require that the proposed spa be setback at least five (5) feet from the top of the slope. As for landscaping along the proposed front property wall/fence, Staff has a concern that vegetation exceeding 42 inches in height, the "by right" height of a front property wall, may result in potential view impacts to neighboring properties. Therefore, Staff originally recommended that the Commission impose a condition on the project that limits the height of all vegetation plantings along the fence to 42 inches. At the May 14th meeting, the applicants requested that the Commission modify this condition so that vegetation may be used to visually screen a storage shed located on the neighbor’s property (3778 Coolheights Drive). Staff is of the opinion that the condition limiting the height of all plantings along the front property wall/fence to 42 inches is appropriate and should remain. However, Staff is also of the opinion that the area located between the neighbor’s wall post (3778 Coolheights Drive) and the edge of the neighbor’s dining room window closest to Coolheights Drive (3776 Coolheights) can accommodate plantings that will exceed 42 inches in height, up to a maximum height of 6 feet, since no views will be impaired from this area. Therefore, if the Commission is inclined to do so, Staff believes that the Planning Commission may modify the condition accordingly (see attached Conditions of Approval). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION P.C. Resolution / Conditions of Approval In light of the proposed modifications, the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval for consideration by the Planning Commission at this evening’s meeting have been updated to reflect the changes discussed in this report. The modifications are shown in a strikeout/underlined format. Time Limits As the Commission may recall, at the May 14th meeting, Staff indicated that the action deadline, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is June 9, 2002. Therefore, with only one meeting (May 28th) remaining before the June 9th action deadline, the Commission continued the public hearing to its May 28th meeting. After further investigation, Staff has clarified that the action deadline is July 9, 2002, thereby allowing the public hearing to be continued to tonight’s meeting. It should also be noted that the action deadline applies to the adoption of the environmental document. According to CEQA, once the environmental document (Mitigated Negative Declaration) is adopted, the clock for the Permit Streamlining Act is triggered, which requires the City to render a decision on the project applications within sixty (60) days from the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss and select a turn-around design alternative to be improved at the terminus of Coolheights Drive, and if deemed appropriate, conditionally approve Height Variation No. 899, Grading Permit No. 2151, Minor Exception Permit No. 575 and Variance No. 488 to allow the construction of a new 5,409 square foot (garage included) single-family residence and 819 cubic yards of associated grading. ATTACHMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__
WHEREAS, on November 17, 1999 the subject applications, Height Variation No 899, Grading Permit No. 2151 and Minor Exception Permit No. 573 were submitted to the Planning Department by the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Nassiri of 3787 Coolheights Drive, to allow the construction of a new 5,409 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with 819 cubic yards of associated grading; and, WHEREAS, on February 24, 2000 the City’s Geotechnical Engineer reviewed and conditionally approved the applicants’ geotechnical reports and studies; and, WHEREAS, after several meetings attended by Staff and the property owners and their architect, revised plans were submitted and deemed complete for processing on September 26, 2000; and, WHEREAS, during the public noticing period for the November 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the City received several comment letters from surrounding property owners expressing concern regarding the proposed project and its impacts to neighboring views, public trail access, brush clearance, habitat, and turnaround improvements. In light of the public comments letters, Staff determined that additional information and studies needed to be completed in order for the Commission to consider the project’s merits; and WHEREAS, at its November 14, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the public hearing for the proposed project in order to allow Staff and the applicants ample time to complete the necessary information needed to process the project applications; and, WHEREAS, as a result of the Fire Department’s requirement to clear brush on the slopes that extend beyond the building pad, it was determined that the project would result in potential impacts to protected habitat and could therefore not be processed as a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the proposed project required the preparation of an Initial Study, thus requiring the applicants submit new information along with a revised application; and, WHEREAS, on March 8, 2001, Environmental Assessment No. 745 along with revised plans were submitted to the Planning Department on behalf of the property owners for the preparation of the appropriate environmental documents; and, WHEREAS on October 9, 2001 the project applications were deemed complete for processing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration and project approval, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Height Variation No. 899, Grading Permit No. 2151, Minor Exception Permit No. 573, and Variance No. 488 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, the Initial Study was prepared on April 10, 2002 and distributed for circulation and review on April 11, 2002 through May 13, 2002; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared, and is attached to the Environmental Assessment No. 745 and Resolution as Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 2002 at which all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, at the May 14, 2002 meeting, the Commission unanimously moved to continue the public hearing to its May 28th meeting so that Staff may further research the concerns raised at the public hearing. Specifically, the Commission directed Staff to consider alternatives to the applicant’s hammerhead turnaround, including the design of a cul-de-sac, at the terminus of Coolheights Drive; and, WHEREAS, at its May 28, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to its June 11th meeting in order to allow Staff additional time to complete its analysis on the outstanding issues, including the turn-around design alternatives; and, WHEREAS, on June 11, 2002, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing discussion at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The subject applications would permit the construction of a 5,409 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with 819 cubic yard sof associated grading. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is a permitted use within the RS-1 zoning district, and would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. In making this finding, the Planning Commission considered the project's mitigation measures that address the issues of Biological Resources, Geology, and Recreation. Section 2: The subject property is currently zoned for single-family residential (RS-1) development in an area that abuts the City’s Natural and Urban Overlay Control Districts. The Planning Commission finds that the site will be improvement to accommodate the construction of a new single-family residence in an area of the 2.30 acre site that was previously disturbed when the neighboring tract was developed in the 1960’s. As such, the proposed residence will not significantly impact the City’s required land use designation. Section 3: The proposed project will not alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population in the area above what is forecast in adopted City plans and policies, nor will the project affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing. The project will not create a significant additional demand for fire or police protection, maintenance of public facilities (including roads), or other governmental services. The project will not result in the need for new systems, or substantial alterations to utilities, including power or natural gas, communication systems, water, sewer or septic tanks, storm water drainage, or solid waste disposal. Furthermore, the proposed project will not result in an increase in population, thereby warranting new recreational facilities. Notwithstanding, public trails identified in the City’s Conceptual Trails Plan and Forrestal Management Plan traverse the subject property that will be conveyed to the City in the form of a public access easement. Therefore, the proposed project results in no significant impacts to existing parkland. Section 4: The proposed project will require approximately 819 cubic yards of earth movement to prepare the project for the construction of the proposed residence. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project will not result in significant adverse affects to topography; destruction, covering, or modification of unique geologic or physical features; impacts to archeological or paleontological resources; or expose persons to seismic ground failure, landslides, or other known hazards; or create a wasteful or inefficient use of the energy already being consumed on the site. Although on-site grading is proposed, a Geotechnical Report addressing the scope of the project grading has been reviewed and approved in the Planning Stage by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant. Nonetheless, additional reports may be required for final review and approval by the City’s Building Official and the City’s Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of building permits. Furthermore, the Geotechnical Report shall provide the developer with applicable conditions for which the project shall be constructed, along with other conditions that the City’s Building Official and City’s Geotechnical Consultant find necessary to ensure the project is constructed in a manner that does not jeopardize the public’s health, safety and welfare. As such, the mitigation measures will ensure that the proposed project will not cause any significant geological impacts. Section 5: The project site is located within an area identified by the Los Angeles County Fired Department as a High Fire Hazard Area, thereby requiring the removal or thinning of brush on slopes that extend beyond the project site’s building pad. Pursuant to the Fire Department’s approved Fuel Modification Plan, the required brush clearance may impact sensitive Plant Life or Animal Life. As such, the Fire Department has reduced its setback requirements for the various zones requiring fuel modification. Additionally, the environmental analysis conducted for the proposed project revealed that such impacts to habitat may be reduced to a level of insignificance provided that the appropriate mitigation measures are adopted. Such mitigation includes the applicants responsibility to preserve offsite habitat at a 3:1 ratio, or by providing permanent protection for existing on-site habitat at a ratio of 1:1. it has been determined that on-site habitat preservation may be achieved by conveying an Open Space Conservation Easement on the project site to the City or a land management agency. As such, the Planning Commission finds that with the appropriate mitigation measures, potential impacts to habitat may be reduced to a level of insignificance. Section 6: The proposed project will not change the current, the course or the direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters, since the project site is not located in such a setting. Although there may be slight changes in the absorption rates, drainage patterns, and surface run-off on the subject site as a result of the proposed project. A proposed drainage plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval pertaining to the implementation of mitigation measures that address potential impacts to water patterns. Furthermore, in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits, as it pertains to implementation strategies that reduce stormwater runoff. As such, the Planning Commission finds that such conditions will ensure that water patterns will not significantly impact the surrounding environment. Section 7: The proposed project is for the construction of a new single-family residence in an area developed with similar structures. As such, the planning Commission finds that the proposed project will not create substantial impacts to circulation patterns, parking capacity, or traffic congestion. Section 8: Although the construction of the proposed project is anticipated to generate noise levels uncommon to the surrounding environment, such noise will be temporary in nature and that the City has imposed conditions, in accordance with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ Municipal Code, that limits construction between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays, with no construction permitted on Sundays and legal holidays (as identified in the City’s Municipal Code). As such, the Planning Commission finds that the mitigation measures imposed will ensure that noise levels do not adversely impact surrounding properties. Section 9: In regards to aesthetics, the City’s Development Code requires that improvements to the project site be designed in a manner that is compatible to the neighboring homes on Coolheights Drive. As proposed, the project is designed so that the structure aligns with the homes on the "non-view" side of the street, while integrating articulation between the lower and upper levels to visually soften the structure’s massive and bulky appearance. Furthermore, the proposed residence is located at the terminus of Coolheights Drive on a lot that was not created when the neighboring tract was developed. Notwithstanding, the project site’s location at the terminus of the street further minimizes its impacts to the character of the immediate neighborhood because it will not be highly visible. In regards to a scenic vista from surrounding properties, including the City owned Forrestal Property, the proposed residence has been designed and plotted in a manner that restricts its visibility from neighboring properties. furthermore, the proposed structure’s maximum roof ridgeline is significantly lower than the public trails that traverse the project site and the Forrestal property, with views oriented in the opposite direction than the proposed development. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project will be compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood despite its distinctive difference in lot area and lot configuration, and will not result in a significant view impairment of protected views of the Pacific Ocean from surrounding properties and the City owned Forrestal Property. Section 10: For reasons discussed in the Initial Study, which is incorporated herein by reference, the project will not have any potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals, nor would the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Section 11: The applicant has consulted the lists prepared pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and has submitted a signed statement indicating whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site which is included on any such list, and has specified any such list. The Lead Agency has consulted the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, and has certified that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not included in these lists of known Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites as compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Section 12: The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit "A", attached hereto, are incorporated into the scope of the proposed project. These measures will reduce those potential significant impacts identified in the Initial Study to a less than significant level. Section 13: Any interested person aggrieved of this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.60.060 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 14: For the foregoing reasons and based on its independent review and evaluation of the information and findings contained in the Initial Study, Staff Reports, minutes, and records of the proceedings, the Planning Commission has determined that the project as conditioned and mitigated will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration making certain environmental findings in association with Environmental Assessment No. 745 to allow the construction of a new 5,409 square foot, two-story, single-family residence on property located at 3787 Coolheights Drive. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: _____________________ _______________________________ RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__
WHEREAS, on November 17, 1999 the subject applications, Height Variation No 899, Grading Permit No. 2151 and Minor Exception Permit No. 573 were submitted to the Planning Department by the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Nassiri, to allow the construction of a new 5,409 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with 819 cubic yards of associated grading; and, WHEREAS, on February 24, 2000 the City’s Geotechnical Engineer reviewed and conditionally approved the applicants’ geotechnical reports and studies; and, WHEREAS, after several meetings attended by Staff and the property owners and their architect, revised plans were submitted and deemed complete for processing on September 26, 2000; and, WHEREAS, during the public noticing period for the November 14, 2000 Planning Commission, the City received several comment letters from surrounding property owners expressing concern regarding the proposed project and its impacts to neighboring views, public trail access, brush clearance, habitat, and turnaround improvements. In light of the public comments letters, Staff determined that additional information and studies needed to be completed in order for the Commission to consider the project’s merits; and WHEREAS, at its November 14, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the public hearing for the proposed project in order to allow Staff and the applicants ample time to complete the necessary information needed to process the project applications; and, WHEREAS, as a result of the Fire Department’s requirement to clear brush on the slopes that extend beyond the building pad, it was determined that the project would result in potential impacts to protected habitat and could therefore not be processed as a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the proposed project required the preparation of an Initial Study, thus requiring that the applicants submit new information at which time the applicant also submitted revised plans that constituted revised applications; and, WHEREAS, on March 8, 2001, Environmental Assessment No. 745 along with revised plans were submitted to the Planning Department on behalf of the property owners for the preparation of the appropriate environmental documents; and, WHEREAS on October 9, 2001 the revised project applications were deemed complete for processing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration and project approval, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Height Variation No. 899, Grading Permit No. 2151, and Minor Exception Permit No. 573 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed on April 10, 2002 and distributed for circulation and review on April 11, 2002 through May 13, 2002; and, WHEREAS, Notice of Intent to Adopt and Notice of Availability of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to responsible agencies and interested parties on April 11, 2002, and notification of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was provided by publication in the P.V. Peninsula News newspaper on April 11, 2002; and, WHEREAS, after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 2002 at which all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, at the May 14, 2002 meeting, the Commission unanimously moved to continue the public hearing to its May 28th meeting so that Staff may further research the concerns raised at the public hearing. Specifically, the Commission directed Staff to consider alternatives to the applicant’s hammerhead turnaround, including the design of a cul-de-sac, at the terminus of Coolheights Drive; and, WHEREAS, at its May 28, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to its June 11th meeting in order to allow Staff additional time to complete its analysis on the outstanding issues, including the turn-around design alternatives; and, WHEREAS, on June 11, 2002, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing discussion at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2002-__, which in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That in regards to Height Variation No. 899:
Section 2: That in regard to Grading Permit No. 2151:
Section 3: That in regard to Minor Exception Permit No. 573: Pursuant to the Development Code, a Minor Exception Permit may be requested to allow the construction of a six (6) foot high fence within the required front yard area provided that one of the following findings can be made:
In order to physically identify the property lines while maintaining a level of security from potential trespassers seeking use of the public trails located within the Forrestal Property, the construction of a five (5) foot high wrought iron fence with six (6) foot high columns in an area that the Development Code currently restricts the height of a wall or fence to forty-two (42) inches is warranted since prohibiting the proposed fence would be inconsistent with the general intent of the Code to provide general health and safety. Furthermore, the proposed fence will be constructed from wrought iron that will allow the fence to remain predominantly open, preventing a fortification feeling from the street. This is achieved since the design of the fence is approximately eighty (80) percent of it is open/permeable. Section 4: That in regard to Variance No. 488:
Section 5: A Notice of Decision shall be given to the applicant, to all property owners adjacent to the subject property and any interested party informing them of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 6: Any interested party may appeal this decision or any portion of this decision to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(j) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the city, in writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following the date of the Planning Commission’s adoption of this resolution. Section 7: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Height Variation No. 899, Grading Permit No. 2151, Minor Exception Permit No. 573, and Variance No. 488 thereby approving the construction of a new 5,409 square foot, two-story, single-family residence at a height not to exceed 26’, as measured from the highest pre-construction grade (752.00’) to the top of the highest roof ridgeline (778.00’), subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT:
_______________________________ EXHIBIT ‘A’ CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL GENERAL
A SETBACK CERTIFICATION SHALL BE PREPARED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR AND SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, INDICATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED FRONT YARD SETBACK PRIOR TO A FOUNDATION INSPECTION.
7. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 941 and GRADING PERMIT NO. 2286: 3261 Crownview Drive / Iskander (KF)
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: JUNE 11, 2002 SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 941 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2286 (ISKANDER, 3261 CROWNVIEW DRIVE) Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2002-__ conditionally approving Height Variation No. 941 and Grading Permit No. 2286. BACKGROUND On May 14, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed and conceptually approved this application for a new single-family residence on Crownview Drive in the Miraleste Hills community*. However, the motion to approve the project included two additional stipulations: 1) that the conditions of approval recommended by the City’s geotechnical consultant be included in the conditions of approval for the project; and 2) that Staff research the availability and financial feasibility of requiring the applicant, Mr. Iskander, to obtain insurance, a bond or some other instrument to indemnify the immediate downslope property owners, the Wans. *The vote on the motion was 6-1, with Chairman Cartwright dissenting. DISCUSSION City Geotechnical Consultants’ Conditions In response to the Planning Commission’s direction, Condition No. 21 of the attached draft Resolution has been revised as follows (new text is underlined): 21. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall obtain final approval of the project from the City’s geotechnical consultant. In so doing, the applicant shall also comply with the following conditions:
These three additional conditions are taken directly from the City geotechnical consultant’s conceptual approval of December 21, 2001 (see attachments). Indemnification of Downslope Property Owner In reviewing the City’s files, Staff has found no instances where the developer of an individual single-family residence was required provide proof of insurance to the City. There have been a couple of recent instances where such a condition was placed upon a commercial project or a larger tract of single-family homes. Below is a copy of a condition imposed upon the construction of a new commercial building for the Peninsula Montessori School at 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West (adjacent to the Villa Capri townhome community) in December 2000:
Staff has researched the availability and cost of obtaining such general liability insurance. Such policies are readily commercially available, but the premiums can be quite high, depending upon the extent of coverage and the value of the project. Since the proposed project involves only one single-family residence, it might be appropriate to reduce the applicant’s liability to $1,000,000, but even this could cost at least $2,500 to $3,000*. *These figures are based upon a telephone conversation with a representative of Driver Alliant (formerly Robert Driver & Co.), an insurance broker for the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA). As an alternative, the applicant has suggested including himself (and the City, if so desired) as an "additional insured" on the liability insurance policies carried by the geotechnical consultant, grading contractor and other contractors that would be involved in the construction of the house. A copy of such an insurance certificate for Applied Earth Sciences, Mr. Iskander’s geotechnical consultant, is attached to this report. This certificate lists both Mr. Iskander and the City as additional insureds, and the additional cost to Mr. Iskander of this coverage is negligible. If the Planning Commission wishes to require the applicant to show proof of insurance in this manner, the following condition of approval could be included in the attached draft Resolution:
Staff believes that requiring the applicant to provide these insurance certificates would provide equivalent and less expensive coverage than requiring him to obtain his own general liability policy for the project. The Planning Commission may also decide that, based upon additional discussion at tonight’s meeting, it is not necessary for the applicant to provide proof of insurance to the City in any form. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On May 16, 2002—two days after the Planning Commission hearing—Staff received the attached letter from Dr. Lawrence Wan, the owner of the adjacent, downslope property at 3249 Crownview Drive. Both Dr. and Mrs. Wan addressed the Planning Commission at the May 16th hearing to express their concerns about the project. In his letter, Dr. Wan asked three additional questions about the project, which Staff would like to address briefly in this report:
*The Wan property lies to the north of the subject property and was unaffected by this former discrepancy in the survey data.
CONCLUSION Based on the discussion at the May 14, 2002 public hearings, the Planning Commission has expressed its belief that all of the required findings for the approval of a height variation and grading permit can be made for the proposed project. Based upon the additional discussion in this Staff report, Staff believes that the conditions of approval for the project have been modified to comply with the Planning Commission’s direction, and that requiring the applicant to provide insurance certificates from his consultants and contractors would provide equivalent and less expensive coverage than requiring him to obtain his own general liability policy for the project, if the Planning Commission wishes to require proof of such coverage. Therefore, Staff recommends adoption of P.C. Resolution No. 2002-__, thereby conditionally approving Height Variation No. 941 and Grading Permit No. 2286. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration:
Please note that the action deadline for this project was already been extended for ninety (90) days by mutual agreement of the applicant and Staff, and cannot be extended beyond August 3, 2002. Attachments: P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2001, the applicant, Samuel Iskander, submitted an application for Grading Permit No. 2286 to allow the construction of a new, single-family residence on Crownview Drive in the Miraleste Hills community; and, WHEREAS, on October 11, 2001, the applicant submitted an application for Height Variation No. 941 for the same project to allow the proposed house to exceed the City’s 16-foot height limit; and, WHEREAS, on February 27, 2002, the applications for Height Variation No. 941 and Grading Permit No. 2286 were deemed complete by Staff; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Height Variation No. 941 and Grading Permit No. 2286 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 3, Section 15303(a)); and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on April 9, 2002, May 14, 2002 and June 11, 2002, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a height variation to allow a 4,257-square-foot, 3-story single-family residence in excess of the 16-foot height limit:
Section 2: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a grading permit to allow 2,131 cubic yards for a single-family residence and access driveway:
Section 3: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1)(j) and 17.76.040(D)(10)(e) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following May 14, 2002, the date of the Planning Commission’s final action. Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Height Variation No. 941 and Grading Permit No. 2286 for a new, 3-story, 4,257-square-foot single-family residence and 2,131 cubic yards of related grading on a vacant lot in the Miraleste Hills community, located at 3261 Crownview Drive, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the area. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11th day of June 2002, by the following vote: AYES:
EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL General Conditions:
Prior to building permit final, the applicant shall provide dump receipts for the export of 1,455 cubic yards of material form the site.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS: (Continued)
8. HEIGHT VARIATION (CASE NO. ZON2002-00038): 27725 Longhill Drive / Lee (GR)
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: JUNE 11, 2002 SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION (CASE NO. ZON2002-00038) PROJECT ADDRESS: 27725 LONGHILL DRIVE
PHONE: (310) 396-8258
PHONE: (310) 541-6653 STAFF COORDINATOR: GUS ROMO, CONTRACT PLANNER REQUESTED ACTION: A REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST AND SECOND-STORY ADDITIONS WITH A TOTAL AREA OF 1,051 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING 2,328 SQUARE-FOOT TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT A PROPOSED HEIGHT OF 23’-2", AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST FINISHED GRADE COVERED BY STRUCTURE TO THE HIGHEST ROOF RIDGELINE. THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS CONSIST OF A LIVINGROOM EXPANSION AND NEW OFFICE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND A NEW MASTER BEDROOM, CLOSET, AND RETREAT ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR. RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-___; APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, HEIGHT VARIATION (CASE NO. ZON2002-00038). REFERENCES: ZONING: RS-4 LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTIONS: 17.02 AND 17.48 GENERAL PLAN: RESIDENTIAL 2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TRAILS PLAN: N/A SPECIFIC PLAN: N/A CEQA: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) ACTION DEADLINE: JULY 3, 2002 P.C. MEMBERS WITHIN 500’ RADIUS: NONE BACKGROUND The subject application was submitted to the Planning Department on January 18, 2002. Upon reviewing the application submittals, Staff determined that the application was incomplete based on the required construction of a temporary building silhouette. As such, the application was deemed incomplete on February 14, 2002. The silhouette was erected shortly after, and the application was deemed complete on May 3, 2002. Public notices were mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property on May 3, 2002 and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on May 4, 2002. No written comments or other correspondence have been received with respect to the project as of the date this report was prepared. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff has determined this project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Class 3 exempts construction of up to three single-family residences in urbanized areas. Since the proposal is for additions to an existing single-family residence, this exemption automatically applies. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site consists of a rectangular lot measuring 53 feet in width by 140 feet in depth with an approximate slope of 60% in the rear one-third of the property. A two-story residence on a level building pad occupies the site. The home was constructed in 1966 and is approximately, 2,328 SF in size, including an attached two-car garage. The home is set back approximately 30 feet from the top of the rear slope, which slopes down towards commercial property located along Silver Spur Road between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Boulevards. The property owner has a view of the shopping areas and hills along the rear of the site and of Torrance and inland areas along the front. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project entails expanding the living room further towards the front of the house by approximately 12 feet, adding a 220 SF room to be used as an office in the rear of the house, and expanding the existing second-story by adding a master bedroom with fireplace, walk-in closet, and retreat room. Overall, the additions will increase the floor area of the home by 1,051 SF, resulting in a 3,379 SF home, including the existing two-car garage. The Development Code limits additions within the subject RS-4 zone to no more than 16 feet in height unless a Height Variation permit is granted. The existing home is 20’-6" in height from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade. The proposed second-story addition will increase this height to 23’-2". With a Height Variation Permit, a height allowance of up to 24’ may be granted. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(a)(iii) of the Development Code, a height variation permit must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission if certain scenarios apply. In this case, the area of the proposed and existing structure that exceeds 16 feet in height (second-story footprint) exceeds 75% of the existing first-story footprint. When this occurs, the project is automatically referred to the Planning Commission for a decision. CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS The following discussion covers the Height Variation application as it relates to the standards set forth in the City’s Development Code for an RS-4 zoning district. Each subsection presents the findings of fact required under that application and provides Staff’s analysis in order to qualify a decision from the approving body. The required findings appear in boldface type, followed by Staff’s analysis in standard type. Additionally, if applicable and under the appropriate finding, Staff’s analysis includes public comments and concerns expressed in correspondence received during the public notification period. A. HEIGHT VARIATION
The applicant has completed the Early Neighborhood Consultation process by canvassing property owners within 500’ of the subject property and informing them of the proposed project. Under the Early Neighborhood Consultation process, the applicant is required to obtain signatures from 60% of the property owners within the 500’ radius or obtain signatures from 25% of the property owners within 500’ and 70% within the 100’ radius of the subject property. The applicant chose to obtain signatures from 60% of the property owners within the 500’ radius. Based on documentation provided to the City, Staff has determined that 41 of the 65 properties (63%), excluding the applicant, within the 500’ radius of the subject property signed the required form.
According to the City’s General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan, the subject property, which is located in a residential tract on the northeast side of Silver Spur Road between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Boulevards, is not located in an area that impairs views from a City-designated viewing area. Therefore, this finding can be made.
According to the Development Code, a ridge is defined as an elongated crest or linear series of crests of hills, bluffs, or highlands. A promontory is defined as a prominent mass of land large enough to support development that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides. No portion of the lot is located on a ridge or promontory. As such, this finding can be made.
Staff has analyzed the proposed second-story addition as it pertains to mass and bulk and direct impacts to views from surrounding properties and has determined that the project has been designed to minimize the impairment of "protected views" from surrounding properties. As proposed, the applicants’ request to add a second story and increase the overall height of the home by 2’-8" towards the east side of the lot does not impair any views. A silhouette of the second-story addition constructed per City requirements revealed no view obstructions. Adjacent property owners were notified and have indicated no objection after viewing the silhouette for more than 30 days. As such, the structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of a view, and this finding can, therefore, be made.
Properties in this neighborhood with views are located to the sides of the subject site. None have views behind or in front of the site. Commercial properties are located behind and well below the site, along Silver Spur Road and next to the Shops at Palos Verdes and the Peninsula Shopping Center. None of the properties in this commercial area have views that overlook the residences on Longhill Drive. The homes across the street from the subject site have views that face away from the site, towards Torrance and the inland area. Therefore, the granting of this application will cause no significant cumulative view impairment, and this finding can be made.
The construction of the required silhouette allowed Staff to analyze the proposed project as it pertains to view impacts from neighboring properties. Pursuant to the Development Code and the Height Variation Guidelines, a protected "viewing area," is established from the primary living spaces, such as the living room, dining room, kitchen or family room, located on the level nearest grade. The only exception that would allow "protected views" on a second story is when a residence is designed so that the primary living spaces are contained within the upper level of the structure. Furthermore, a master bedroom is considered "viewing area" only when it is the only view from a residence and is located on the same level as the primary living spaces. The following discussion encompasses Staff’s analysis as it pertains to surrounding properties and potential view impacts: NORTH – As previously mentioned in this report, the lots north of the site are located down slope from the site within the commercial corridor of Silver Spur Road. These properties have no views over the subject site and, therefore, will not be impacted. SOUTH – The properties to the south are located well below the site and have no views over the site. They face the shopping areas known as the Shops at Palos Verdes and the Peninsula Shopping Center. EAST – The properties directly to the east are located at a slightly lower elevation than the subject property and have no views in its direction. All of their views face away from the subject site. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed project will not impair any views from these parcels. WEST – The properties directly to the west are at a slightly higher elevation but also have views that face away from the subject site. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed project will not impair any views from these parcels. Based on the above analysis, Staff believes the proposed project will not significantly impair views from the defined "viewing areas" of properties to the north, south, east or west of the subject site, and, thus, this finding can be made.
According to Staff’s analysis, the existing residence, although constructed under the guidelines of Los Angeles County, currently complies with the Residential Development criteria for an RS-4 zoning district, as it pertains to setbacks, lot coverage, and structure height. Furthermore, Staff has also determined that the proposed 1,051 SF additions comply with the current Development Code requirements. The proposed addition will be constructed in compliance with the City’s General Plan, Development Code, Uniform Building Code, and all applicable State and Federal laws. In addition to having to obtain planning approvals, the applicant is required to obtain approvals from the City’s Building and Safety Division and the City’s geotechnical consultant prior to issuance of building permits. Therefore, Staff believes this finding can be made.
TABLE 1
* The above lot calculations were obtained from the Los Angeles County Tax Assessors information. ** Please note that the above calculations for structure size are based on building permits on file with the City and include the garage area, which, if not documented on the building permit, was calculated based on the Development Code’s minimum dimensions for an individual parking stall of 9’x20’ (180 sq. ft.).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The City mailed 65 notices to property owners within 500’ feet of the subject property to inform them of the proposed project. During the noticing period, no written or verbal correspondence was received by the Planning Department. A foliage analysis was also conducted during Staff’s review. Staff determined that no mature foliage currently exists on the subject property that exceeds the ridgeline or a height of sixteen (16) feet and impairs views from surrounding properties. CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve Height Variation (Case No. ZON2002-00038) to allow the construction of 1,051 SF of first and second-story additions to an existing two-story, single-family residence at a proposed height of 23’-2" as measured from the lowest finished grade covered by structure to the highest roof ridgeline. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration in addition to Staff’s recommendation (see page 1):
ATTACHMENTS: P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2002 an application for Height Variation (Case No. ZON2002-00038) was submitted to the Planning Department to allow the construction of 1,051 square feet of first and second-story additions to an existing 2,328 square-foot two-story, single-family residence at a height of 23’-2" as measured from the lowest finished grade covered by structure; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2002 the subject application were deemed complete for processing by Staff; and, WHEREAS, on May 3, 2002 the required public notices were mailed to property owners within a 500’ foot radius of the subject property informing them of the proposed project and the scheduled public hearing on June 11, 2002. Furthermore, a notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on May 4, 2002; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision of the California Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et.seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Height Variation (Case No. ZON2002-00038) would have a significant effect on the environment, and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 3); and, WHEREAS, after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 11, 2002, at which all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The applicants successfully completed the Early Neighborhood Consultation process by obtaining a minimum of 60% of property owner signatures from properties within the 500’ radius (41 of 65 or 63%). Section 2: The subject lot is not located in an area designated by the City’s General Plan and the City’s Coastal Specific Plan as a viewing area and therefore the proposed structure does not impair any public views. Section 3: The subject lot is located on a manufactured slope that was created at the time the building pads for the subject tract were graded and is not located on a ridge or promontory, as defined by the City’s development Code. Section 4: The proposed project has been designed to minimize the impairment of "protected views" from surrounding properties. As proposed, the applicants’ request to add a second story and increase the overall height of the home by 2’-8" towards the east side of the lot does not impair any views. A silhouette of the second-story addition constructed per City requirements revealed no view obstructions. Adjacent property owners were notified and have indicated no objection after viewing the silhouette for more than 30 days. Section 5: Properties in this neighborhood with views are located to the sides of the subject site. None have views behind or in front of the site. Commercial properties are located behind and well below the site, along Silver Spur Road and next to the Shops at Palos Verdes and the Peninsula Shopping Center. None of the properties in this commercial area have views that overlook the residences on Longhill Drive. The homes across the street from the subject site have views that face away from the site, towards Torrance and the inland area. As such, the granting of this application will cause no significant cumulative view impairment. Section 6: The proposed project will not create a view impairment from surrounding properties. The lots north of the site are located down slope from the site within the commercial corridor of Silver Spur Road. These properties have no views over the subject site. Properties to the south are located well below the site and have no views over the site. They face the shopping areas known as the Shops at Palos Verdes and the Peninsula Shopping Center. Properties directly to the east are located at a slightly lower elevation than the subject property and have no views in its direction. All of their views face away from the subject site. Properties directly to the west are at a slightly higher elevation but also have views that face away from the subject site. Section 7: The proposed structure complies with the residential development standards for a RS-4 zoning district. The proposed additions will be constructed in compliance with the City’s General Plan, Development Code, Uniform Building Code, and all applicable State and Federal laws. In addition to having to obtain planning approvals, the applicant is required to obtain approvals from the City’s Building and Safety Division and the City’s geotechnical consultant prior to issuance of building permits. Section 8: The proposed additions are compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood for the following reasons. The additions are proposed only on one side of the home. The gable roof design is such that the home will reach 23’-2" only along a six-foot wide ridgeline located in the center of the home. The roof will continue to slope down towards the side property lines to maintain the scale of the existing home as well as surrounding homes. In addition, the predominant architectural styles found in the neighborhood are Mediterranean and California Contemporary. The subject residence was built with a contemporary design, which incorporates a low pitch roof, stucco exterior, and direct-access attached garage. The applicant is proposing to maintain the contemporary style by constructing the additions to match the existing home. Third, the site shares property lines with other residences only along its side yards. No homes are located directly in front or to the rear of the site. Furthermore, the proposed building footprint results in lot coverage of approximately 30%, well below the 50% maximum allowed by the RS-4 Residential Development Standards. Last, the existing structure currently complies with the required twenty (20)- foot front yard setback. The proposed addition is set back further than the existing home at 25’-7". According to Staff’s analysis, the majority of the homes in the area are developed with a minimum twenty (20)-foot front yard setback, as required by the Development Code. Therefore, as proposed, the structure will result in a home that is compatible with neighborhood. Section 9: The proposed project will not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy provided that the second-story master bedroom window along the east elevation is restricted to a clerestory (minimum 5’ high from finished floor) or translucent window or that the window is deleted from the proposal to mitigate potential privacy infringement. Section 10: A Notice of Decision shall be given to the applicant and to all interested parties informing them of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 11: Any interested party may appeal this decision or any portion of this decision to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040.C.1.j of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following the date of the Planning Commission’s adoption of this resolution. Section 12: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Height Variation (Case No. ZON2002-00038), thereby approving the construction of 1,051 square feet of first and second-story additions to an existing 2,328 square-foot two-story, single-family residence at a proposed height of 23’-2", as measured from the lowest finished grade covered by structure to the top of the highest roof ridgeline, subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 2002, by the following vote: AYES:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-____ EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL GENERAL
The addition shall not exceed 23’-2" in height from lowest finished grade covered by structure as shown on the approved plans (HEIGHT CERTIFICATION SHALL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO FRAMING INSPECTION SIGN-OFF).
NEW
BUSINESS: (NO ITEMS)
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:
Staff 9. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 25, 2002. PLANNING
COMMISSION
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2002
CONTINUED BUSINESS: (NO ITEMS)
2. APPEAL OF FENCE, WALL AND HEDGE PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2001-00122): 32451 Searaven Drive / Foster (BY)
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (NO ITEMS)
NEW BUSINESS: (NO ITEMS)
Date prepared: Thursday, June 6, 2002 Commission
ADJOURNMENT:
The
next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,
|
