Loading...
PC MINS 20160510 Approved 6/14/16 j.4 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING May 10, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:04 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Pro-Tem Campbell led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Commissioners Emenhiser and James were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Senior Planner Kim, Senior Planner Mikhail, Associate Planner Silva, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Tomblin suggested moving agenda item Nos. 5 and 6 to be heard after agenda item No. 1. There was no objection from the Commission. COMMUNICATIONS l City Council items: Mayor Pro-Tem Campbell thanked the Commission for their service to the Community, and reminded the Commission to exercise oversight and to apply their independent opinions when evaluating land use decisions. Director Mihranian reported that at the May 3rd meeting, the City Council considered the adoption of a Special Event Permit Ordinance pertaining to events occurring on City property or in the public right-of-way, which is different from a Special Use Permit issued by the Planning Department for temporary events of private property. Staff: Director Mihranian introduced and welcomed Associate Planner Silva to his first Planning Commission meeting. He also pointed out that the Commission's decision on the Bayridge project was appealed and will be considered by the City Council at its June 6th meeting. He noted that staff has received complaints regarding the brightness of the Shell Station L.E.D price sign approved by the Commission earlier this year, and that staff is working with the applicant to reduce the brightness of the sign. Staff: Vice Chairman Cruikshank reported his attendance at the Mayor's breakfast. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of April 12, 2016 Minutes The minutes were approved as presented, without objection. NEW BUSINESS 5. Green Hills Memorial Park Update: 27501 Western Avenue Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining that residents have voiced various concerns related to the current activities and operations at the Green Hills site, as well as questions on what is allowed, what is not allowed, and what types of reviews are required for certain improvements. She discussed these concerns, as outlined in the staff report. She noted there is a condition of approval that requires an annual review; therefore, the next annual review will be on or around November 17, 2016. Staff will prepare a report to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the activities and operations at the site are in compliance with all of the conditions of approval. Commissioner Nelson noted a series of approved plans mentioned in the staff report and asked staff for the date of the latest approved complete plan. Senior Planner Kim stated the dates Commissioner Nelson referenced are specifically for Inspiration Slope Mausoleum building only, and the most recent plan is dated November 25, 2013. Commissioner Nelson asked staff if they knew the date of the most recent approved plan for Green Hills in total. Senior Planner Kim answered the 2007 Master Plan is the most recent document for Green Hills, however she noted the most recent conditions of approval adopted by the City Council is November 17, 2015. Commissioner Nelson noted staff stated that any mausoleums submitted to the Planning Department for review will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He noted the 2007 plan showed five mausoleums in the southwest corner, and asked if those mausoleums are considered new and will they be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 2 Senior Planner Kim explained that any mausoleum that has not been constructed will come to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Leon asked if Planning Commission review would be required for modifications to a mausoleum. Senior Planner Kim answered that there is section in the Resolution that says any modifications that are determined to be significant by the Director will come before the Planning Commission for review. She added that what would be considered significant are any exterior changes, additions, or enlargements. Vice Chairman Cruikshank discussed the twelve feet of grading, and felt twelve feet is significant. He asked how and when the City feels 12 feet is significant, as opposed to not significant. Director Mihranian explained it depends on where the earth movement is occurring in relation to the property. He stated city staff would go to the site and look at where the grading is going to occur before making a determination. Vice Chairman Cruikshank referred to the Bolton Engineering statement regarding no ground burials to be within the 8 foot setback, and asked if ground burials means only in the ground, of if it means on top of the building as well. Senior Planner Kim stated that it is burials only in the ground, adding that the burial grounds immediately abutting the northern property line on the east side are for ground burials only and no above-ground burials or structures are allowed in that specific area. She stated there has been public concern about these burial plots appear to be within the 8 foot setback and staff has requested Green Hills measure the area to make sure that is not the case. Vice Chairman Cruikshank referred to page 4 of the staff report, and the discussion on rooftop burials. He asked if there is more information on where, if anywhere, rooftop burials are allowed. Senior Planner Kim explained that Area 6 is currently not developed and there are plans to have 5 to 6 mausoleum buildings in that area some time in the future. She stated there was a question as to whether or not rooftop burials would be allowed in this area, as there was a privacy concern expressed by the residents. She noted that the Master Plan does not show any rooftop burials on any of those buildings. Commissioner Bradley asked how the 8 foot setback is measured. Senior Planner Kim explained that the setback is measured from the property line to the face of the building, or in the case of in ground burial, from the property line to the closest edge of the plot. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 3 Commissioner Nelson referred to page 3 of the staff report, and asked how far away the mausoleum will be from the neighbor's property, what kind of wall finish will be allowed, and how tall that mausoleum will be. Senior Planner Kim stated the height generally allowed within a Cemetery Zone is 16 feet. The façade treatment and overall height will be subject to the Planning Commission's review. She stated the mausoleums in Area 6 will be 40 feet from the south property line. Director Mihranian displayed the Green Hills map that is on the City's website and the notations that the ground burials will be setback 8 feet from the property line and above- ground structures will be set back 40 feet from the property line, per the conditions of approval. Chairman Tomblin felt that the credibility of any of the engineers that have submitted documents both to the State and to the City have been called into question, and noted that in regards to the north west corner, Green Hills engineers certified that those plots were not in the setback. However, it was later found that there were 13 internments in the north west corner that were interned in the setback and 6 plots sold that were within the 8 foot setback. With that, he did not feel it was in the best interest of the staff or the City to rely on the Green Hills engineers. He stated he was going to ask the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council and to staff that the City checks and verifies the certifications of the Green Hills engineers. Chairman Tomblin referred to the rooftop burials on the Memorial Terrace, and asked if the engineer's report certified that that first row of burials were not within the setback, or was that even addressed by the engineer's certification letter. Senior Planner Kim stated she would have to check that information and get back to the Commission with an answer. Chairman Tomblin asked who knows where the vaults were buried when Bolton Engineering certified that nothing was built into the setback. He noted that just measuring the location of the edge of the headstone to the property line does not accurately represent where the vaults are underground, and without knowing the exact location of the vaults he did not know how an engineer could accurately certify that the vaults are not within the setback. He asked the Commission if they would agree that, for the protection of the new Community Development Director and the city staff, that the Planning Commission request the Community Development Director and staff not be put into a position of direct over the counter or Director's approval, that items such as this be brought back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Nadia Georgieva displayed a power point presentation and discussed Green Hills Area 11 mausoleum. She felt Green Hills was currently not in compliance with condition No. 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 4 of their Conditional Use Permit, which discusses setbacks for below ground internments. She discussed how she felt Green Hills was not in compliance because of the way the underground vaults are placed. Chairman Tomblin noted her power point, and asked where she obtained the information in regards to condition No. 6. Ms. Georgieva answered that the condition came from Resolution No. 2015-102. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if Ms. Georgieva quoted the correct condition. Senior Planner Kim stated Ms. Georgieva quoted the correct condition for ground internment sites, noting that the setbacks are 16 feet from the north property line. However, noted that condition No. 8a states that setbacks for the Pacific Terrace Memorial Mausoleum is 8 feet. She explained that this means any vaults contained within the building, on the building, and the building itself has a setback of 8 feet from the property line. Senior Planner Kim read aloud the entire condition. Sharon Loveys displayed a photo taken from inside the mausoleum, stating that everything shown in this photo is within the 8 foot setback. She questioned if the vaults and niches inside the mausoleum are considered in-ground or above-ground. She felt there are 252 wall vaults and 47 niches that are all illegal. Debbie Landes showed a photo of a burial taken from her window. She stated that Green Hills is required to put up shades on the fence to help block the service, and pointed out the one very small shade that had been put on the fence. She also showed a video of the view from her pool area of a large wall and the small amount of view that they have left. Chairman Tomblin recalled there was supposed to be a hotline set up for the residents, and asked staff what has happened to that. Director Mihranian agreed that it doesn't appear enough screening is being installed to help block the services, and staff will discuss this with Green Hills. Mike McClung stated this issue with Green Hills will not be solved here tonight, but rather will be solved in a court of law. He wanted to remind everyone of the next step that is coming up, which is the mausoleum that just down Western Avenue. He stated that the problem is the permanent pile of dirt that is just up from the mausoleum where there appear to be plans for two more mausoleums. He questioned why the dirt is staying there, noting there is no place to put the dirt. He stated there are plastic tarps on this large pile that are torn, and when the wind blows the dust blows into people's house and one can hear the tarps flapping in the wind. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked Mr. McClung if he has contacted the City in regards to this dirt pile. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 5 Mr. McClung answered that he just did. Bernadette Sabath stated the type of burial being discussed is not in the current zoning law, and no other cemeteries in the area have this type of roof top burial. She felt it would be wise for the Commission to lay down the law and establish restrictions and boundaries. She suggested that if nearby residents are already contending with disturbances from the cemetery, then the Commission should make sure the rooftop burials won't add to their grief. She played a recording taken from a nearby residence where music could be heard. She stated that rooftop burials are in place, there was no hearing before the City, and no opportunity for the neighbors to comment. She asked why the procedure she was told would take place regarding the rooftop burials did not take place. Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Sabath where her home is located. Ms. Sabath responded that her home is at 1860 Peninsula Verde Drive. Chairman Tomblin asked if Ms. Sabath could reproduce the recording and would like the recording and the pictures submitted into the record. Chris Martin stated he lives on Avenida Feliciano at the end of the cul de sac, and showed on the Green Hills map the location of his home. He stated that in looking at the Master Plan he sees a road that goes along the property line. He noted that there does not appear to be any room for screening, and has heard that Green Hills is planning to remove the existing trees which would be removing any potential screening of the future mausoleums that exists. He requested the plan be modified to provide for tree screening and green space for screening purposes. He stated that having the road so close is a concern, as his swimming pool and backyard area will abut this road. He felt that because this is a long stretch of road at the back of the cemetery, cars may be accelerating and there will be a lot of car noise in the area. He did not think speed bumps would be a good solution, as he would then hear the cars as well as the suspension when the cars go over the speed bumps. He reiterated that Green Hills has been consistently adding dirt and raising the grade in this area and there is now a mountain of dirt in the area. Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Martin if he is having any trouble with dust or dirt because of the added dirt in the area. Mr. Martin stated that he does see dust and dirt coming up, and he does hear the equipment moving in the area on a daily basis. Joanna Jones-Reed questioned why the City is allowing her view to be destroyed by this monstrous mausoleum. She did not think the residents were victims of oversights, as this mausoleum and the burials are too much of an income generator. She thought Green Hills was supposed to be a not for profit organization, but realized they are a big business. She felt that this is a planned deception. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 6 Jane Gualeni showed a short video taken from her child's bedroom window. She noted that the burial taking place was over 500 feet away and the mariachi band could be heard very clearly from inside her home. Director Mihranian noted that the audio was not working, and suggested Ms. Gualeni email a copy of the video to pc@rpvca.gov so that all Commissioners as well as staff will receive a copy of the video, and it will be a part of the record. Ms. Gualeni expressed her concerns regarding Area 6 of Green Hills as shown on the approved Master Plan. She stated she has concerns about the setback distance of the projected 6 mausoleums. She felt that even at 40 feet, the mausoleums are too close. She felt there is room at Green Hills to move the proposed mausoleums farther from the property line and the existing homes. She stated that without a sound and visual barrier the entire neighborhood will be able to hear the music and services being performed. She pointed out the City's Municipal Code requires a cemetery to provide buffering and screening techniques when the cemetery abuts a residential zoning district. She too was concerned about the road shown on the Master Plan, reiterating that there will be no room for anything to be planted along this road for screening. She also showed a photo of trees and shrubs at Green Hills that are planted along the property line. She stated that she has been told by Green Hills staff that those trees and shrubs will be removed. She showed photos of the dirt hill at Green Hills, noting it goes well above the six-foot wall and above the shrubs. Noel Weiss felt this item should be continued rather than have the item filed and received. He stated that the reason for that is because the report is incomplete, as it does not refer to the storage of vaults on the rooftop of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. He stated there is nothing in the original or the 2007 Master Plan that allows for storage of any vaults on rooftops. He felt that Green Hills should have to apply for a special permit or a CUP to allow the storage of the vaults on the rooftops, noting they have not done so and therefore this is an additional violation at the site. He felt staff should alert and provide the Planning Commission copies of the emails between Mr. Willmore and Green Hills so that the Planning Commission is up to date on exactly what is going on. He stated that what happened to his clients on Vista Verde will happen again unless the Planning Commission is kept in the loop and knows everything that is going on. He also felt that the language in the Code is vague and unclear, and should be updated and clarified. He stated he does not think the Director's decision on mausoleums is sufficient and that a CUP should be required for every mausoleum that is proposed, not only the structure location but also the use. Commissioner Nelson noted Mr. Weiss recommended to not receive and file this report, but rather continue the public hearing until the subject of the storage of the vaults is heard by the Planning Commission, and asked Mr. Weiss to clarify this statement. Mr. Weiss stated that the public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council does not know what is going on at Green Hills. He felt that the only ones that know what is going on are the City Manager and Green Hills, and that is not open and transparent Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 7 government. He stated rooftop burials were never discussed in 2007, now there is storage on the rooftops which was never contemplated in 2007 and it's now important for this Commission to decide if the City is sanctioning another violation. April Sandell stated that even though the staff report states that the plans for Area 6 may not happen for 30 years, it still matters and she highly recommended that the residents stay on top of the situation. She stressed the need for transparency in the entire process. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bradley asked staff if there is an actual definition of in-ground and above- ground, as well as below-grade and above-grade burials. Director Mihranian stated staff can check to see if the code gives a definition. Commissioner Bradley asked if the storage of vaults on a rooftop, buried in a substantial amount of dirt is something that needs to be permitted. Director Mihranian explained that the vaults were originally going to be stored on the slope next to the mausoleum. He stated there was some discussion on how to minimize the visual appearance of the vaults and whether they should be moved over to Area 6, which is the staging area for all of the construction, or whether they should stay on that slope. He stated that was what was discussed at the City Manager level. Commissioner Bradley asked if here was a permit or long-term plan for the movement and storage of large quantities of disturbed earth at Green Hills, and how that movement of earth is monitored. Director Mihranian answered that it is established in the conditions of approval that Area 6 would be the staging area. Staff has an approved plan that shows the grades that establishes the baseline. Therefore, any alterations will be compared to that base grading plan. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if the base plan is the 2011 survey. Senior Planner Kim stated that was correct. Vice Chairman Cruikshank felt that the City has to lean towards looking at every project that occurs at Green Hills. He felt the City should be more proactive at the site, but noted there are too many moving parts for a busy City staff to be monitoring a site for where dirt is being moved and having to wait for complaints. He questioned if it would be more efficient to break up the projects into individual projects rather than looking at the entire Master Plan and trying to monitor that. Director Mihranian understood what the Commission and the public were saying, however he noted that the City Council approved conditions of approval and those conditions are Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 8 what staff is enforcing as Green Hills moves forward with this project. He stated the direction and comments given by the Commission have to be germane to the conditions that were adopted by the City Council. As an example, he noted the Commission has indicated they would like to see some of the aspects of the Master Plan heard at the Commission level, but staff will have to see how that is described in the conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Cruikshank understood what the Director was saying and that the Commissioners are here at the pleasure of the Council, however he felt the Planning Commission has an obligation as a citizen Commission to listen and learn and provide feedback that could make things better for everyone. Director Mihranian understood, noting that the Planning Commission can direct staff to go before the Council and report the Commission's concerns and have the Council consider those concerns. Commissioner Leon asked staff if the Planning Department has interpreted the setbacks for the rooftop burials, as requiring they be below ground and requiring there be a 16 foot setback and for the interior internments being governed by the setback of the building. Director Mihranian stated he would have to go back and look at some of the past decisions made pertaining to this project. However, he believed that for the Pacific Terrace mausoleum the 8 foot setback for that structure also applied to the burials on the rooftop and within the interior of the building. North of that area, he felt is where the 16 foot setback applies. Commissioner Leon referred to the City Council's conditions, and asked if the condition that the Planning Commission suggested that there be screens around the funerals was included in the conditions of approval. Senior Planner Kim answered that condition is included under tenting. Commissioner Leon stated that the little piece of canvas on the fence that was shown in the photo was nothing like what was discussed when the Planning Commission discussed the topic of screening. He recalled the discussion that screening would be brought in on tractors to provide an appropriate acoustical screen, and that piece of canvas was not an appropriate screen. He suggested the Planning Department enforce the condition that was approved by Council. In regards to the dirt and excavations, he felt there should be some type of a grading plan which includes where the dirt that was taken out is to be stored. He suggested staff check with the Building Official to verify that Green Hills is in compliance with their grading plan. Lastly, he noted that there is discussion in the Development Code regarding screening, and he assumed that Green Hills should be in compliance with the Development Code as well. He felt the entire south east corridor needs to maintain some type of screening. He suggested the Planning Department review the detail of how Green Hills is going to have the road along the property and make sure there will be enough dirt between so that some type of screening can take place. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 9 Commissioner Nelson asked that at the next meeting the Planning Commission be provided the Council adopted conditions of approval and would like to see the current Conditional Use Permit. He also asked that staff provide information to the Commission that covers the storage of vaults and he wanted to see something that tells Green Hills they have to remove the dirt in Area 6. He was concerned about Green Hills modifying the grade in Area 6 and felt it was important to have something in writing stating the mausoleums will be built at the original grade. Chairman Tomblin stated that the Commission works at the pleasure of the Council, however he felt the Council appointed the Commission to do this homework and to work with staff to make sure the Codes are enforced and what is approved is being enforced and followed. Chairman Tomblin moved the following: 1) Recommend to the City Council that, because of the contentious situation and the high visibility of the Green Hills potential violations, in an effort to protect all city staff, including the City Manager, no projects regarding Green Hills shall be approved over-the counter, and that items of magnitude would come back to the Planning Commission for review; 2) That staff have at the meetings all of the City codes and conditions regarding Green Hills for easy reference during the meeting; 3) The inspector from the Building and Safety Division that is in charge of reviewing the code be part of the Planning Commission meeting when Green Hills is on the agenda; 4) That an agenda item be added where all of the conditions of approval of the latest Conditional Use Permit be reviewed; 5) Staff brings in an outside certified engineer and/or a professional certified land surveyor to verify Bolton Engineering's report and verify that the burial vaults throughout the cemetery are not in the setbacks; 6) That the filed, recorded map that was certified by the Green Hills engineer be provided to the Planning Commission and be part of the staff report. Commissioner Leon added to the motion that the Planning Department review the plans for screening the funerals from the residents and make sure Green Hills is compliant with the conditions of approval. In addition, the Planning Department put in writing their interpretation of the rooftop burial setbacks and mausoleum internment setbacks. Chairman Tomblin added to the motion that the Commission can clarify the language of an approved Master Plan by the City Council, and that a future agenda item be added that the Commission clarify the definitions of in-ground burials, roof- top burials, and setbacks of mausoleums. Commissioner Bradley requested that the first item of the motion be severed from the other items, as he felt it was a bit different from the other items and would be better if two separate motions were made. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 10 Chairman Tomblin agreed to have the first item concerning the Director and staff as a separate motion. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated he was generally in favor of everything in the motion suggested by the Chairman. He felt this is a very difficult issue and the Commission needs the information clarified so that the right decision is made. Commissioner Nelson seconded both motions made by the Chairman. Chairman Tomblin explained the purpose of his motion to have the over-the-counter decisions brought to the Planning Commission was that there has been an internal investigation that was stemmed from this project, there are new staff members now working on the Green Hills project, there is a new Director, and he felt the Commission should make sure staff is protected and there is as much transparency as possible. He asked for Planning Commission discussion on the first motion, in regards to no over-the- counter approvals for Green Hills projects. Commission Nelson stated he supported the motion. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated he did not want to micromanage how staff does their job, however he felt that some clarification should be added to the motion in regards to what types of approvals and decisions regarding Green Hills should be brought back to the Planning Commission, and which should not. He did not necessarily think that all modifications should be brought to the Commission, as there are many things that the Commission would not have to see. Commissioner Nelson suggested that for any modification at Green Hills there be a staff review as well as a review by the Planning Commission chairman. Vice Chairman Cruikshank suggested saying no project modifications shall be approved over the counter. Director Mihranian emphasized that there are conditions of approval for Green Hills that have been adopted by the City Council, and the motion reflects a somewhat different position than what is in the conditions of approval, as the conditions of approval do say there are some aspects of the project that can be approved by the Director. He stated that it was his understanding from the motion that the Planning Commission will be directing staff to report to the Council what this motion is for their consideration. If the Council is in agreement to all or a portion of what is being recommended, that will require the conditions of approval to be reopened and the conditions to be modified. Commissioner Bradley asked staff if there is precedence for a Commission doing something like this. Director Mihranian stated that, to his knowledge, there was not. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 11 Commissioner Bradley realized there was some contention with Green Hills, however he felt staff has a responsibility to provide the function of staff. He felt there are certain things that should still happen over the counter that are just a function of Green Hills continuing to do business. He was not sure that taking that responsibility away from staff was justified, especially if staff hasn't requested some type of shielding. He explained that this is why he asked to have this portion of the motion severed from the rest, as he was not sure it was justified taking this responsibility away from staff. Chairman Tomblin agreed that the Planning Commission has never micromanaged the staff. However, before this current staff has gotten involved with Green Hills there were several projects that had major revisions to them without Commission involvement. Commissioner Bradley felt the Planning Commission routinely becomes involved in contentious issues, and he would hate to see a precedent set where the Commission takes away the staff's general ability to manage the City business on behalf of the Commission and Council every time there is a contentious issue. He did not think this was necessary the role of the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked the assistant city attorney if she felt there was better language to encapsulate what the Commission is trying to say. Assistant City Attorney Burrows stated that the language typically used and the language that is currently in the conditions of approval is minor modification. She stated that short of making a list of the types of applications the Commission would like to see before them, she was not sure there was the perfect language. Vice Chairman Cruikshank agreed that a list would be a good idea, however he questioned how long this list would be and was afraid that the Commission would miss many items. He preferred the wording "substantial modification". Commissioner Nelson asked the Assistant City Attorney if there was a legal definition of the word substantial. Assistant City Attorney Burrows stated there is a definition of substantial compliance in the Code, but was not sure that would apply in this situation. Director Mihranian noted that, being the Director, he felt that he had good sense in making this type of call, and the Commission needs to have that confidence in staff. He stated that staff is committed to being transparent and to bring any major changes back to the Commission. Chairman Tomblin asked staff to read the motion back. Director Mihranian read the motion as follows: The Planning Commission is directing staff to advise the City Council that, because of the contentious nature and high visibility of the Green Hills project, the Commission recommends that in an effort to protect all city Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 12 staff, including the City Manager and the Community Development Director, to not approve any substantial modifications to projects over the counter in relation to Green Hills. The motion was approved, (5-0). Chairman Tomblin asked staff to read back the second motion. Director Mihranian questioned if the following items were meant to go to the City Council for consideration or if they were general direction to staff: 1) Staff and the City Attorney have all City code and conditions of approval related to Green Hills at each meeting for Commission discussion; 2) The Building Official who applies the Building Code for the Green Hills project be a part of Planning Commission meetings whenever Green Hills is on the agenda in order to address any possible violations; and 3) Staff is to bring back a future agenda item to review the entire Conditional Use Permit and conditions of approval adopted by Council. Chairman Tomblin did not feel these items needed to be part of the City Council consideration, and the Commission agreed. Commissioner Leon noted, however, that there has been some discussion on the part of Council and legal staff that the Green Hills issue be centralized under the Council and separate from the Planning Commission. Therefore, he felt the item regarding review of the Conditional Use Permit should be something the Commission has the Council weigh in on. Chairman Tomblin agreed. Director Mihranian continued with 4) Direct staff to bring in an outside engineer or professional land surveyor to verify the Bolton land survey in regards for the vaults to determine they are not within the setbacks, and that the survey contains an attached plan that indicates the meets and bounds. Director Mihranian felt this should be part of the Council consideration as there is a cost involved with this direction, and the Commission agreed. Continuing, Director Mihranian stated that 5) that staff obtain and provide to the Planning Commission the filed and recorded map that was certified by the Green Hills engineer that was recorded with the County. Chairman Tomblin felt this request did not need to go to the City Council as part of the motion, and the Commission agreed. Director Mihranian continued with 6) That the Community Development Director review plans and conditions of approval in the Council adopted conditions for compliance with the intent of the acoustical screening; 7) That the Community Development Director put Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 13 in writing the interpretation for rooftop and in-ground burial setbacks; 8) The Commission can clarify the condition adopted by the Council in regards to setbacks pertaining to in- ground burials, above-ground burials, and mausoleums as a separate agenda item. Chairman Tomblin felt that these items should be split into two motions, one for Planning Commission consideration and one as a recommendation for City Council consideration. Director Mihranian then read motion number 2, for Planning Commission consideration which was: 1) staff have available at each meeting when Green Hills is on the agenda all city codes and conditions applicable to Green Hills; 2) citizens file complaints in regards to Green Hills to city staff; 3) the Building Official will attend Planning Commission meetings whenever there is an item on the agenda related to Green Hills in order to address any concerns; 4) the Community Development Director review the conditions of approval as it relates to the conditions of approval for the acoustical screening during services. Commissioner Nelson noted that the Director indicated codes and conditions of approval for Green Hills would be available at each meeting when applicable, however it was his understanding that each Commissioner would receive a copy of the Council adopted conditions and the Conditional Use Permit. Director Mihranian clarified that staff would provide each Commissioner with hard copies of both the conditions and the Conditional Use Permit. He added that, as the fifth item of the motion, staff will also provide copies of the maps and exhibits prepared by the Green Hills engineer that have been filed and recorded with the County. Director Mihranian read motion number 3, for City Council consideration: 1) a future agenda item for the Planning Commission will include an item to review the conditions and Conditional Use Permit for Green Hills; 2) direct staff to bring in an outside engineer, a professional land surveyor, to verify the Bolton land survey in regards for the vaults to determine they are not within the setbacks, and that the survey contains an attached plan that indicates the meets and bounds; 3) the Community Development Director put in writing the definition of the terms, and the interpretation for rooftop and in-ground burial setbacks and that the Commission can clarify the condition adopted by the Council in regards to setbacks pertaining to in-ground burials, above-ground burials, and mausoleums as a separate agenda item. Vice Chairman Cruikshank complimented staff for all of the information that is being provided on the City's web page in regards to Green Hills. Motion number 2 was approved, (5-0). Motion number 3 to seek Council input on the Commission's recommendations was approved, (5-0). 6. Director's implementation of the minor modification condition Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 14 Director Mihranian gave a brief staff report, noting staff's recommendation is for the Commission to continue this item to the May 24th agenda since there are some Commissioners who are not present at this meeting and staff would like to have this discussion when the entire Commission is present. However, he explained that at the previous Commission meeting the Commission had asked staff, based on some past decisions made by the Director as it relates to the minor modification condition, to clarify how that minor modification condition is implemented. He explained that standard language in all applications that are heard by the Planning Commission and City Council includes a condition that allows the Director to make minor modifications to the project. He stated this item will be brought back to the Commission for discussion on May 24th Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Noel Weiss did not think this agenda item was appropriately or accurately agendized, because it does not explain what type of minor modification was being discussed. He stated that, at a minimum, the Brown Act requires a better staff report and a much clearer indication of what exactly the issue is. With regard to this particular item, he felt the appropriate request would be to bring the item back with a better staff report and better clarity as to the subject matter of the item and what is the nature of the minor modification with regards to the Green Hills project. In addition, he pointed out per the Municipal Code, that the Planning Commission is empowered to initiate an interpretation review where there are ambiguities with regards to matters of approved applications. He stated this process requires public notice, and that the Planning Commission's interpretations can then be appealed to the City Council. Chairman Tomblin stated he would like to separate out this issue into two agenda items to be placed on the next agenda. Assistant City Attorney Burrows clarified that the two items would be an item discussing minor modifications and another agenda item discussing interpretations. Commissioner Leon commented that the reason why this is being discussed is because the matter has already been appealed to the City Council, and he felt this is why it is at the Council level. He stated it is no longer before the Planning Commission to have hearings and now the Council is having those hearings instead of the Planning Commission. He felt that is why this discussion is complicated, in terms of what the Commission can and cannot do and what the Council does as opposed to what the Commission does. Director Mihranian stated that when the Commission directed staff to bring this item before them it was a very broad direction in a sense that it was not specific to a certain project but rather applied to various projects where minor modifications had been approved by the Director, and the Commission wanted to understand how and why that was done and how that condition was being implemented. He did not feel the direction given to staff was specific to the Green Hills project, the Crestridge project, or to Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 15 Marymount, but rather a very broad agenda item regarding the minor modification condition, which is not encapsulated in the Municipal Code. He stated that staff can bring back two agenda items, one regarding the Director's implementation of the minor modification condition and another regarding the interpretation. He stated he had planned to put these two together into one staff report, noting they dovetail into one another since the minor modification condition stems from the lack of language in the code in the interpretation section. Therefore, he could combine the two under one agenda item and discuss how the interpretation code requirement is applied and how it dovetails into the minor modification condition. He noted this is not a public hearing item, but rather a regular business item which is why there is no public notification. Chairman Tomblin agreed that the two items could be combine, however he would like to see the item as a public hearing. Commissioner Nelson stated it was important that there was no mistake in what the public feels a minor modification is or how staff or the Commission interprets something, and therefore agreed the topic should be a noticed public hearing. Director Mihranian stated that the item would therefore be continued to the June 14th meeting to allow for the noticing period. The Commission unanimously agreed. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation — (Case No. ZON2016-00078): 3608 Coolheights Drive Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report briefly describing the scope of the project and the need for the height variation. He stated staff performed a neighborhood compatibility analysis with respect to the twenty closest homes and found the proposed addition would be compatible with respect to size, architectural style, materials, and setbacks. He stated staff also analyzed potential view and privacy impacts and found the proposed addition did not cause a view or privacy concern to neighboring properties, and staff did not receive any comments regarding view or privacy issues as a result of the public notice. He stated that staff was able to make the required findings and was therefore recommending the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution and thereby approve the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Bradley noted that the residence is currently the largest in the immediate neighborhood and will be further increasing, making it almost 40 percent larger than the average home in the neighborhood. He asked how this is considered in the neighborhood compatibility analysis in terms of size. Associate Planner Silva answered that staff felt that the way the proposed addition is designed, with the addition at the rear of the residence, it would not create a bulk and mass issue and the addition was staying within the existing ridgeline of the residence. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 16 Director Mihranian added that just because a home is the largest in the neighborhood and a proposed addition will make it even larger does not make that addition incompatible with the neighborhood. He explained that staff looks at how that structure and how that addition fits in the context of the entire neighborhood. He stated that in this case, looking at the street views and factoring in the topography of the neighborhood, this addition in the rear of the house is not going to extend beyond the footprint of the neighboring homes and will not be seen from the street. Therefore, staff can make the finding that the proposed addition will be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Nelson pointed out that the living area of the house is 3,019 square feet with 1,000 square feet of garage. He explained that staff includes the garage in the square footage calculation, however it is not habitable space. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Fred Boettcher explained that the owners want to improve the existing deck area, as it isn't being used as a deck. He explained that the addition is only enclosing the existing deck space and no additional area will be added. He stated he was available for questions. John Peterson (owner) explained they would like to enclose the deck, noting the deck has leaked for the last several years. He stated they would like to push the house out and enclose the deck, as the deck is currently wasted space. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted that this project will be enclosing an existing deck and there are no windows proposed on this addition. Therefore, there are no privacy issues involved and he was in favor of the project. Commissioner Bradley asked staff if they received any negative comments from neighbors as a result of the public notice. Associate Planner Silva answered that staff has received no comments from neighbors in regards to the proposed project. The motion to approve the project as conditioned by staff was approved, (5-0) and PC Resolution 2016-007 was thereby adopted. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 17 Chairman Tomblin suggested moving agenda item No. 4 to be heard before agenda item No. 3, with no objections from the Commission. 4. General Plan Update Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining that previously the City Attorney had determined the General Plan, as is, was legally insufficient. Therefore, to properly update the General Plan the base traffic analysis, air analysis, and noise quality studies needed to be updated. She explained staff had a difficult time finding a consultant to do the work within the six month time frame expected by the City Council, and the contract is currently being drafted. She noted an extra delay will be in regards to the traffic count, as it cannot be done while the schools are not in session. She stated staff anticipates bringing a final draft to the Planning Commission in spring 2017. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Minas Yerelian began by stating anyone who violates their Conditional Use Permit should be penalized and if it is violated consistently the CUP should be suspended or revoked. In addition, he felt that aerial photos of Green Hills should be done on a monthly basis so that there was a record of dirt being moved. In regards to the General Plan and the noise element, he stated that review of large commercial projects are not permanent, they are temporary, and should fall under the same category as a Special Use Permit for temporary events. He suggested the language should say "review every Conditional Use Permits and require noise monitoring for events and activities that are likely to create a noise on the surrounding residential neighborhood." He stated there should be a separate paragraph for every Conditional Use Permit, large or small, with no adjectives added to it, across the board. The noise levels should apply to all, across the board. He noted that the language currently added to the General Plan does not apply to Conditional Use Permits. He stated there should be language that says, review Conditional Use Permits and require noise monitoring for events that are likely to create noise. For clarification, Director Mihranian explained that what Mr. Yerelian was referring to was the annual update on the implementation of the General Plan policies. He noted this update had been heard by the Planning Commission and has been adopted by the City Council. He explained that one of the comments heard was that the City monitor both temporary events through the Special Use Permits, and Conditional Use Permits for noise. He explained that the City currently does this through the conditions of approval, and it is implemented in an on-going process. He explained that what is unique are the events that are temporary in nature, such as the Events Garden. He stated that direction to staff was to make sure this is memorialized in the update that is filed with the State. Mr. Yerelian understood, however did not agree. He felt the Conditional Use Permit should be spelled out in the General Plan and not presumed that it will be taken care of. He stated this should apply to Green Hills with the music and the noise, noting nobody is monitoring the noise at the site. Director Mihranian agreed, stating this can be reflected in next year's report. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 18 Commissioner Nelson asked staff what they know about Environmental Science Associates (ESA), and if the City has used them before. Senior Planner Kim answered that the Public Works Department has used them in the past, but was not aware of how often they had been used. Commissioner Leon stated he was very disappointed that the General Plan update is being extended yet again. He asked if the City Attorney's office has now given all of their input. Assistant City Attorney Burrows answered that the City Attorney's office is still reviewing the CEQA document and will also review the studies submitted by ESA. Commissioner Leon felt that this update has taken a very long time, and questioned if the cost of the update has exceeded its value. Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted that the school district is about to do an update to their Master Plan for all of their schools, and part of that will include a traffic study. He questioned if there was a way the City could coordinate with the school district to do just one traffic study, rather than both the school district and the City paying for separate traffic studies. Director Mihranian stated his concern would be that the intersections that the City will want to study will vastly differ from those the school district may want to study. Vice Chairman Cruikshank suggested that the City might communicate with the school district, letting them know the City is doing a traffic study and it may be possible for the school district to use that traffic study in their update, in order to save the school district some money. Director Mihranian stated staff will look into contacting the school district. The Planning Commission unanimously accepted and filed the report. 3. Compliance Review of Point View Master Plan (Case No. ZON2010-00087) Director Mihranian presented a brief staff report, explaining the acoustical noise studies that were needed to prepare the staff report had not yet been completed. He explained the applicant has indicated there will be an event held in May that is the largest booked event for the season, and wanted to use this event for the noise study in order to give a depiction of a worst case scenario. In light of that information, staff agreed, and is asking the Planning Commission to continue this item to the June 14th meeting. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 19 Commissioner Leon stated he lives near the area and has been getting negative comments from the adjacent neighbors with respect to noise and traffic, especially where the service personnel are being staged. Director Mihranian stated this item will be publically noticed, so the residents will receive a notice and will be able to share their comments and concerns. Vice Chairman Cruikshank questioned if allowing the applicant to choose the event in which to make the sound study was the best course, noting that this may be the largest event but it may not necessarily be the loudest. He questioned if it would be better to do a random sound study when the applicant wasn't prepared for it. Director Mihranian explained the City does not do the sound study, nor does the City hire a consultant to do it, as it is the applicant's responsibility to do the study. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if staff has received noise complaints from the community. Director Mihranian recalled there had been complaints when the Commission first heard this item, but did not think there had been complaints recently. The unanimously agreed to continue this public hearing to June 14, 2016. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on May 24, 2016 Director Mihranian noted that the item shown on the pre-agenda will be taken off of this agenda and brought back on June 14th. Therefore, there are currently no items scheduled for the May 24th meeting. Commissioner Bradley noted he will not be in attendance on May 24th Chairman Tomblin felt that, because there are currently no items on the May 24th agenda, that the meeting should be cancelled. Chairman Tomblin stated that there has been more and more discussion lately on the Sol y Mar project, and requested there be a staff report on the modifications to the roofs as well as an update on the landscaping at the site. He also requested that staff report on the density at the site, and if additional townhomes had been added at the site. He requested the Building Official attend the meeting to explain why the railings were installed and to answer any questions that may arise. He also requested the applicant attend the meeting. Commissioner Nelson requested staff provide the Commission with a copy of the CUP for the project. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 20 Director Mihranian recommended this item be brought before the Commission at their June 14th meeting He noted the items to be discussed in the staff report included an update on the wall on the front slope and the need for the railing, how the roof pitch changed to a mansard roof, an update on the roof color, the density, and the landscaping. Secondly, Chairman Tomblin understood the City does not have jurisdiction over school district sites, however with the latest situation at Ladera Linda with the possible contaminated soil, he asked if there was some compliance issues the City should be aware of. Director Mihranian stated that he did not recommend agendizing an item related to Ladera Linda, as it is school district property that is not governed or regulated by the City. He explained the City has not been involved in any of the activity at the school site, and if a Commissioner wants an update staff can ask the City Manager to provide an update to the Council with a copy to the Commission. Chairman Tomblin agreed, however noted that the City owns the property next door. He stated he has been closely following the situation that is happening in the city of Vernon and the liability the city of Vernon is going to have based on contamination of soil. Director Mihranian understood the concerns, noting that there is very limited information that is coming through the city since it doesn't involve city property. He noted that the next door property is public land and the Commission reviews private property applications and entitlement, and therefore this land is not under the Commission's purview. He again recommended the Commission not agendize an item related to the school district. Chairman Tomblin agreed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 21