Loading...
PC MINS 20060328CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2006 CALL TO ORDER Approved April 25, 2006 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knight at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Karp, Lewis, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Knight. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Senior Planner Schonborn, Senior Planner Alvarez, and Associate Planner Dudman. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to hear Agenda Item No. 3 after Agenda Item No. 6. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed two items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2 and the draft minutes of the March 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. He also reported that the Planning Commission decision regarding a home on Ocean Terrace Drive has been appealed to the City Council. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -Agenda items). None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2004-00638: 3764 Coolheights Drive Director/Planner Rojas presented the staff report, explaining the applicant has decided to redesign the project in such a way as to not need Planning Commission approval, therefore what is before the Planning Commission is the withdrawal of the application. The Planning Commission unanimously accepted the withdrawal of the requested Height Variation application. 2. Appeal of View Preservation Permit No. 78 Associate Planner Dudman presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and showing photographs of the view taken in 1997 and photographs of the view taken last week. She discussed the submitted grounds for the appeal, and answering the questions raised in the appeal. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked for clarification as to what foliage is on the appellant's property and what foliage is on other properties. Associate Planner Dudman explained that the appellant is questioning the location of the Brazilian Pepper. She explained that staff made the determination that the Brazilian Pepper is on the appellant's property, noting however that if the appellant can show proof the Brazilian Pepper is not on his property staff will be willing to revise the recommendation. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Shelby Jordan 29208 Posey Way explained that because of privacy, safety and noise issues, he and his wife made the decision to remove the ivy from their backyard and plant ficus hedges along the top of their property that would grow to provide privacy as well as serve as a sound and safety barrier. He explained the plants were planted in 1992 and were fully established by 1994. He explained that the applicant moved into their home some time after 1994, and when they moved in the ficus hedges were completely mature and serving the purpose for which they had been planted. He questioned the authenticity of the photograph provided by the applicant showing a view of the ocean and Santa Monica Mountains. He stated that the applicant also has a loud barking dog and have intruded onto their privacy. He felt that, even with the hedges cut, the applicant will not have a view over the roof of his home. He felt that once the hedges are cut the applicant will look over his roof and see the two-story home across the street from him which has two mature pine trees adjacent to it. He did not feel there is any view of the ocean over his home. He did not think the applicant has entered into agreements with other neighbors regarding their foliage and felt he was being singled out, Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Jordan if his main issue was that of privacy. Mr. Jordan answered that privacy was his main concern and asked that the hedges be allowed to remain for privacy and not be reduced to the rail height. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 2 Commissioner Perestam noted that Mr. Jordan had claimed the photograph used by the applicant to show their previous view was inaccurate, and asked Mr. Jordan if he had a photo that would dispute the applicant's claim. Mr. Jordan stated he may be able to find one; however he was concerned that he was the only one approached, while the neighbor's foliage is larger than his and much of the foliage discussed is not on his property. Donzella Jordan 29208 Posey Way stated the Pepper Tree identified in the photograph is absolutely not on her property, and noted there are trees which originate on two other properties that are visible in the photograph. Commissioner Perestam asked Mrs. Jordan if she has had the opportunity to look at the view from the applicant's property and viewing area. Mrs. Jordan answered that she has never been extended the invitation to do so. Joseph Park 6755 El Rodeo Road stated that the lights in his yard have not been working for several years and he and his family do not have loud conversations in the backyard. He stated that he has not had his view for many years and from his backyard and living room he cannot see any view. Additionally, there is no longer a view from the second story area of his home. He stated he is asking Mr. Jordan to trim the ficus, the Brazilian pepper tree and the two Palm Trees so he can have some view of the ocean and Santa Monica Bay. He stated that two other neighbors have cooperated with his request to trim trees on their properties. He stated that the pictures submitted have not been altered, and even if they had, it would not make a difference. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Park if the photograph presented was unaltered. Mr. Park answered that it was an unaltered photograph taken from his home in 1997 taken by his wife in the backyard. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Park if it was his intention to fix the broken lights in the backyard. Mr. Park answered that he was not intending to fix the lights and if Mr. Jordan does not want the lights on he may consider taking the lights out. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Park when he moved into his home. Mr. Park stated he moved into his home in early 1993. Commissioner Tetreault referred to the picture and asked Mr. Park if between 1993 when he moved in and 1997 when the photograph was taken, if the ficus hedge ever extended above the rail. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Park answered that it did not. Mr. Jordan (in rebuttal) did not think this case was reasonable, as his neighbors had not been contacted at the same time he had been contacted, and his neighbors have foliage that is quite overgrown. He questioned why the neighbors have not been contacted but has not received a reasonable answer. He also asked that the Parks write a letter certifying that they will not put their animal out on the deck between midnight at 5:00 a.m. He stated that one neighbor has provided an agreement that they will trim their foliage, however the other neighbor has not. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Jordan to clarify his reasons for claiming the photograph presented by the Parks has been altered. Mr. Jordan explained that the extent of his yard ends at and approximately one third of the Park's deck extends beyond his property line. Within that one third area there was foliage taller than his. Therefore, when the Parks approached him about trimming his foliage, he questioned why he was receiving the certified letters and sent them back. He explained that when the City contacted him he met with staff and questioned if the neighbors had been contacted, which they had not. He questioned that if the photograph had not been doctored, why the Parks didn't realize that one third of their yard was being obstructed by foliage that was on his neighbor's yards and not his. Further, if they knew the foliage was on his neighbor's yard, why didn't the Parks contact the neighbors at the same time he was contacted, or why didn't they let the City know the foliage was in a neighbor's yard. Commissioner Karp felt some very serious allegations were being made and wanted to see a tract map which would show the property boundaries. Commissioner Lewis agreed and asked what would happen if a Resolution was adopted and then the City determines the Pepper Tree is not on Mr. Jordan's property. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that a condition can be put on the decision that requires a survey be performed prior to trimming, which will dictate the action. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if there is any requirement in view preservation that the properties be adjacent to the applicant. Associate Planner Dudman answered that there is no such requirement. Mr. Park (in rebuttal) asked that some decision be made this evening by the Planning Commission, as he did not want to wait any longer for a final decision. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 4 Commissioner Karp asked if there were any deadlines in making a decision on this application. Director/Secretary Rojas stated there is no decision deadline for this application. Commissioner Karp felt that there was factual information that the Planning Commission does not have in order to make decision. He stated that he visited the site and felt it was important for all of the Commissioners to visit the site, even though it is not required. He felt it was important to have a tract map available, and was not prepared to make a decision without viewing the map. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that information provided by Mr. Jordan was submitted to staff only yesterday and therefore staff was not able to address the information in the staff report. He stated that if the information provided by Mr. Jordan raises questions that require more staff analysis, the item can be continued. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if the information provided by the Jordans alters the staffs recommendations. Associate Planner Dudman responded that the issue of the ownership of the Brazilian pepper tree may alter staff's recommendations. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he has heard many factual disputes that have been mentioned, however virtually none of them concern him too much. Whether or not other neighbors were brought into this doesn't really relate to the issue of whether or not the foliage owner's foliage interferes with the view rights of the applicant. He was sympathetic to the Jordans issues with barking dogs and privacy, however he noted there is nothing in the Ordinance which allows someone to block a view because they have barking dogs or other nuisances or annoyances. He did not feel this is an area where the Planning Commission has a lot of discretion. If a view has been established and foliage is growing into that area, the view owner has the right to request the view be restored or preserved. He felt it was very obvious that the view is seriously impaired by the ficus trees that come well above the railing. He stated that he was a little disturbed that it took so long for the Jordans to present their grounds for the appeal, as it makes it very difficult for the staff and the Planning Commission to respond. However, he felt a decision could be made at this meeting, with the exception of the Pepper Tree. Commissioner Perestam agreed with the Commissioner Tetreault's comments, adding he does have an issue with the ownership of the Pepper Tree. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that some, if not most, of the foliage exists on the appellants property and blocks a view that existed at one point in time, as shown in the photograph. He felt that the view should be preserved and the issue of the Pepper Tree should be resolved. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 5 Commissioner Lewis felt that without a tract map a decision made this evening may not be accurate. He felt that before ordering someone to cut their trees it would be wise to have staff readdress the issue, provide a tract map, and give the Jordans an opportunity to show any photographs of how their backyard looked when they planted their foliage. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt he needed more substantial evidence before he could accept the accusations made by the Jordans. He also did not think it was necessary to continue this item, as portions of the Park's view are blocked by the appellant's foliage. Chairman Knight understood the concern to view a tract map, however he did not think the Planning Commission should be put into a position to look at the tract map to determine which trees are located where. He felt that if there is a question, a survey can be done to determine property lines and where the individual foliage is located. Director/Secretary Rojas noted that a tract map will not show which property the trees are located on, only how the lot lines relate to each other in terms of more accurate distances. He stated that the only true way of determining which property the foliage is on would be through a survey. Chairman Knight noted that barking dogs and other issues raised, while very irritating to the neighbors, cannot be addressed in a view preservation hearing. He therefore felt he had enough information to make a decision on the matter at this meeting. Director/Secretary Rojas discussed the Brazilian pepper tree, and noted that the best way to determine ownership of a tree is through a survey. However, staff felt that since this is a View Preservation case rather than a View Restoration case, where the burden is on the foliage owner to meet the Code, a survey could be performed by the foliage owner named in the decision to prove that the tree is not on his property. He suggested that language could be added to the Resolution which states that, unless the foliage owner can prove through a survey that the Brazilian Pepper Tree is not on his property, the Brazilian Pepper Tree is to be trimmed. Commissioner Tetreault felt that it would be very difficult to order someone to prove they don't own something and make them pay for it, and would not be in support of such language. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that there may be a methodology for the Jordans to show staff that the Pepper Tree is not on their property without a survey, especially if the tree is not right on the property line. Commissioner Lewis felt that a continuance would allow time to show where the Pepper Tree is located and provide for a cleaner decision by the Planning Commission. Chairman Knight felt that the only way to determine ownership of a tree is through a survey, and it was not clear to him who should have to pay for the survey. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 6 Commissioner Karp felt that whoever benefits from the survey should have to pay fo and in this case if the Parks feel the Pepper Tree is blocking their view, they should have to pay for the survey. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed with Commissioner Karp's comment that the Parks are the ones benefiting from the survey. However, he noted that the survey cannot be done without the Jordans cooperation. Therefore the condition would have to read that the survey be performed by the Jordans at the expense of whoever the Planning Commission determines should pay for the survey. Commissioner Tetreault questioned if the City can ask the View Preservation applicant to pay for a survey, as this is view preservation and the applicant is asking for a view that should be preserved. Director/Secretary Rojas felt that was a question that staff should bring to the City Attorney. Chairman Knight stated that he would like to make a decision at this meeting, however there appears to be issues that can't be resolved at this meeting. Chairman Knight moved to continue the public hearing to a future meeting, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Vice Chairman Gerstner did not see a need to continue the item, as there appears to be no controversy regarding the ficus. He noted that view preservation is a free application to the applicant and if, after the ficus has been trimmed, the applicant wants to further pursue the Pepper Tree, he can present another application to the City. He felt this would expedite the process for everyone involved. Chairman Knight modified his motion to follow staffs recommendation to deny the appeal regarding the Ficus bushes, and if there is still an issue with staff regarding the Pepper Tree, to have that issue come back before the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Tetreault suggested that a decision be made on the Ficus and then have the Parks submit a new application for the Pepper Tree, naming both neighbors in the application. Director/Secretary Rojas felt that the simplest solution would be for the Planning Commission to go with staff recommendation, except for the Brazilian pepper tree. That would allow for the ficus to be trimmed and if the applicant still feels the Pepper Tree needs to be trimmed they can try working with the neighbors or submit a new application to the City. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 7 Chairman Knight modified his motion to accept staff's recommendation regarding the trimming of the trees with the exception of the Brazilian pepper tree, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to amend the motion to include a statement that the Planning Commission requests or recommends that the applicant considers removing the lights from the railing as a sign of good faith to the neighbor that they truly don't want to be a bad neighbor. Commissioner Karp felt this was a good suggestion. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he understood and shared the sentiment of the motion, however he was not sure it was appropriate to put in a formal motion. Vice Chairman Gerstner withdrew his suggested amendment. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2006-15 thereby accepting staff's recommendation to deny the appeal regarding the ficus trees and Palm and to make no determination on the Pepper Tree was approved, (5-2) with Commissioners Lewis and Ruttenberg dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:45 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:50 p.m. at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional Use Permit, Sign Permit, Site Plan Review. and Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2005-00294: 31186 Hawthorne Blvd. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief description and history of the site. He explained the scope of the project and the need for the four applications. He described the Environmental Assessment that was done and the mitigation measures that have been included in the Conditions of Approval. He discussed the Conditional Use Permit, noting that staff determined all necessary findings could be made in a positive mariner. He discussed traffic, noting that the applicant submitted a traffic study that analyzed the project's potential impact to the intersection. He explained that the City's Traffic Engineer found that, although there would be some additional vehicular trips, it was not substantial or significant enough to impact the current level of traffic at that intersection. He discussed the other applications and stated staff was able to make all of the necessary findings for a convenience store, findings for the overlay and the findings for concurrent sale of beer and wine. Therefore recommending approval of the applications as conditioned. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 8 Commissioner Karp noted that there will be quite a bit of mechanical equipment associated with this use and asked where that equipment will be located. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the equipment will be placed on the flat roof behind the mansard. Commissioner Karp asked if the residents above the property will be able to see the mechanical equipment from their houses or yards. Senior Planner Schonborn felt that it would be difficult to see the equipment from the houses due to angles and topography, however there may be some slight views of the equipment from some of the yards. Commissioner Tetreault referred to Conditional Use Permit 153, which applied to the Union 76 station that was at the site. He asked, with the abandonment of the gas station from the site, what is the status of that Conditional Use Permit. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the Conditional Use Permit still governs the site, however the Conditional Use Permit was specifically for the canopy and the canopy height. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff to explain the requested revision to the Conditional Use Permit. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the current canopy will be maintained and the applicant is proposing to build a new mansard roof and fascia around that existing canopy. He explained that the new Conditional Use Permit will cover not only the new canopy but the uses of the site as well. Commissioner Karp referred to condition of approval No. 35, stating that mechanical equipment shall only operate from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and noted that refrigeration equipment must run 24 hours. He suggested changing the language to reflect the situation. Commissioner Tetreault asked if automotive repair would be allowed at the site, since the Conditional Use Permit allowed it with the former use. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the Union 76 station and auto repair were approved under the County, and the Conditional Use Permit did not cover that component of the use. Therefore, the applicant would specifically have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for that use again at the site. Chairman Knight referred to page 11, finding 3 of the staff report which makes reference to Section 17.76.090 (automobile service stations). He felt that additional language should be added to clarify that 17.76.090 does not apply because the 0C4 supersedes that finding. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 9 Senior Planner Schonborn agreed. Chairman Knight felt that the 20 foot height requested was rather tall and asked staff if there was a reason the applicant was requesting a 20 foot height for the building. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that some of the height is to allow for the mansard roof, which staff encouraged in order to be consistent with the appearance of the Golden Cove Center. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Ron Taylor 330 E. Lambert, Brea (applicant) stated he was representing 7- Eleven. He discussed the hours of operation, noting that the hours suggested by staff are really not standard hours of operation for the 7- Eleven chain. He explained that he was hoping to sell gasoline after midnight, as there are not many gas stations in the area. He also noted that 7- Eleven would like to open at 5 a.m. to serve those on their way to work. Bob Fiscus 330 E.Lambert, Brea (construction manager) stated that the equipment will be in the well above the store. He discussed the 20 foot height of the building and explained that there is a ceiling height inside the store of 10 feet, the trusses will take up another 4 feet, and the equipment will take up another 4 to 5 feet. He stated that the parapet and mansard roof will absolutely screen the equipment on the roof. He stated that all deliveries are done by a van type truck rather than an 18 wheeler, except for the gasoline, which is done with the traditional gasoline truck. He hoped that all deliveries would be done in a very non -intrusive manner. Commissioner Lewis asked what the residents can expect from the mechanical equipment that will be running all night in terms of noise. Mr. Fiscus stated the equipment will cause absolutely minimal noise, noting that the only equipment running at night will be very small condensers and compressors on top of the roof, which will be quieter than the traffic. Chairman Knight discussed the building lights and asked Mr. Fiscus why he chose different lighting than the current standards at the Golden Cove Center. Mr. Fiscus explained that he would prefer to use their light standards, as they are less intrusive because of the flat lenses, shielding, and hoods. Further, since his lights will be out on the perimeter, a real effort should be made to make the lights less intrusive than the ones currently at Golden Cove. Chairman Knight asked Mr. Fiscus if he was aware of the easement on the property and what that easement may be for. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 10 Mr. Fiscus answered that he was not sure what the easement was for, but they were keeping the building, trash enclosure, etc. out of the easement. He stated that he would work with staff to identify the easement, however any landscaping put in the easement would not interfere with the use of the easement. David Amastov 2401 E KateIla, Anaheim (project architect) stated he has worked with staff to design a project that he felt was very compatible with the Golden Cove Shopping Center. He pointed out on a rendering that the 20 foot height discussed earlier was actually to the peak of the roof and not the mansard height, which is 17 feet 10 inches. Chairman Knight noted that the lighting at Golden Cover is a bluer type light rather than the yellow sulpher lighting, and asked Mr. Amastoy what type of lighting was being proposed at the 7- Eleven. Mr. Amastoy answered that he believed the lighting would be the bluer type lighting. Chairman Knight asked which signs would be illuminated after operating hours. Mr. Amastoy answered that the monument sign at the corner would remain lit, but would also like to see the canopy signs illuminated and the 7- Eleven sign, depending on what staff and the Planning Commission decides. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Amastoy if 7- Eleven was seeking to have Citibank signage placed on the outside of the building. Mr. Amastoy answered that 7- Eleven would like to have some type of recognition that Citibank does have an ATM inside the store. Mr. Taylor added that there will be an advertising campaign in the next several months for Citibank and 7- Eleven, and 7- Eleven would like the opportunity to show that there is a Citibank ATM inside the building. Commissioner Perestam asked how large the sign would be. Mr. Taylor answered that the proposed sign would only be 2' x 2'. Mr. Taylor addressed the delivery hours in the Conditions of Approval. He noted that the conditions of approval state no deliveries between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. and requested the hours be changed to 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., as they have fresh food delivered daily. Regarding the maximum gasoline hours, he asked the Planning Commission to consider selling gasoline until 2 a.m., noting that the business is predicated on being open 24 hours. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if 7- Eleven has done any type of study to show what volume of business is done between midnight and 6 a.m. Mr. Taylor answered that Seven Eleven has not been able to quantify it in terms of percentages of sales, however he noted that from 2 a.m. on there is a drop off in sales. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 11 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Taylor which would be more important, staying open later or opening up earlier, Mr. Taylor felt that being allowed to open earlier would be more beneficial to this store at this location. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if the Planning Commission had the discretion to change the suggested hours of operation stated in the staff report. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that in this particular application the Planning Commission does have the discretion to change the hours of operation, as the hours listed in the staff report are merely a recommendation and this Conditional Use Permit is separate from the Conditional Use Permit that governs the Golden Cove Center. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the Planning Commission could allow longer hours, but require a review in 6 months to see if there are any complaints or comments from the neighbors. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the Planning Commission could do that. He pointed out that Condition No. 6 provides for a 6 month review after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, and at that time the Planning Commission can modify the conditions. Chairman Knight questioned the finding for the hours of operation for the convenience store. He noted that the only convenience store at Golden Cove is the liquor store, whose hours of operation are 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. He questioned why the Planning Commission should not follow the Code in terms of operating hours for the convenience store. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that PV Liquor is within the Golden Cove Center and is subject to the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit for the center, noting that they can choose to be open from 6 a.m. to midnight. Chairman Knight asked staff to review the monument sign's encroachment into the visibility triangle. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the Development Code defines the visibility triangle, however it does allow for some structures to encroach into the triangle area provided that the Public Works Department finds that it will not pose a hazard to traffic. He stated that approximately half of the monument sign encroaches into the visibility triangle, therefore staff forwarded the plan to the Public Works Department for their review. He stated that the Public Works Department found that the location of the sign would not create an impact to the intersection and vehicular traffic. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 12 Chairman Knight asked if there is a process where residents can voice their concerns about the 7- Eleven after the six month review process. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that any complaints received regarding the 7 - Eleven will be given to the Code Enforcement staff. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that in making recommendations regarding the extended hours of the convenience store there is a list of considerations in the staff report which leads staff to recommend the hours be extended to midnight. He asked if these considerations can also be used and applied to allowing the store to open at 5 a.m. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that the recommended hours were to have consistency between the two developments. Commissioner Karp felt that this gas station would be an asset to the community, given the closure of other gas stations on the peninsula. He saw no problem with extending the hours of operation, noting there are no residents adjacent to this gas station. He noted that the extended hours can be modified at the six month review if there have been complaints from the neighbors. Commissioner Perestam discussed the hours of operation, and felt that opening earlier would be more beneficial to the community than staying open later at night. He therefore supported the idea of opening the convenience store at 5 a.m. He suggested the closing time of the convenience store at 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. He also favored allowing the 2' x 2' Citibank sign. Commissioner Tetreault was in favor of accommodating the requested hours of operation, at least until the six month review when the hours of operation can be modified. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comments regarding the hours of operation, which can be reviewed six months after the certificate of occupancy. He discussed the lights and felt that the color temperature of the lights should be made generally consistent with the adjacent development. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed that the requested hours of operation of 5 a.m. to 2 a.m. should be allowed, as they can be reviewed and amended after six months of operation. Chairman Knight was agreeable to flexibility in the hours of operation, but was more inclined to recommend hours of 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. Ranning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 13 Commissioner Perestam stated that he was agreeable to a closing time of midnight on week days and weekends. Commissioner Tetreault was concerned with the lighting, noting it is right at the entrance of Oceanfront Estates where there will be houses in the future. He felt the lighting may shine down somewhat on the homes near the entrance of the tract. Therefore, he felt that midnight was a more appropriate closing time. Commissioner Karp agreed to an opening time of 5 a.m. and closing at midnight. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2006-16 thereby certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration as presented by staff and adopt P.C. Resolution 2006-17 as amended to allow operating hours of 5 a.m. to midnight 7 days a week, to amend condition No. 25 to approximate the color temperature of the Golden Cove Center lights, to allow the 2' x 2' Citicorp sign on the outside of the convenience store, to amend condition No. 35 to read the mechanical equipment shall operate as necessary with the HVAC turned off after hours, to modify condition No. 27 so that lights shall be turned off within 1/2 hour of closing, to modify condition No. 27 to read that all outdoor lighting, including illuminated signage shall be turned off after operating hours, and to modify condition No. 17 to allow deliveries to begin at 5 a.m, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Approved, ( 7-0). NEW BUSINESS 5. Grading Permit (Case No. 2006-00055: 31986 Emerald View Drive Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Grading Permit. He stated that staff has reviewed the project and feels the criteria for the approval of the grading permit can be made, and recommends the Planning Commission approve the Grading Permit. Chairman Knight asked staff if there was anything substantially different between this application an lot 24 and lot 25 which is Agenda Item No. 6. Deputy Director Pfost did not feel there was any substantial difference between the applications for the two lots, and staff supports both projects. Based on that information, Chairman Knight felt that both items could be discussed together. With that, Deputy Director Pfost gave a brief staff report for 31990 Emerald View Drive (lot 25) stating the reasons for the Grading Permit application. He stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and therefore recommends approval of the Grading Permit. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 14 Chairman Knight noted that appears that all of the homes at Trump will have basements, and asked staff if the City Council has considered the cumulative impact of the basements on this project. Deputy Director Pfost explained that when this project was originally approved in 1990 the approval references that basements are permitted with this project. He explained that what the City Council had to do most recently was to amend the Conditional Use Permit to change the building height for these specific lots. Chairman Knight opened the public, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2006- thereby approving the Grading Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (7-0). 6. Grading Permit (Case No. 2006-00056: 31990 Emerald View Drive The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to waive the reading of the staff report. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2006- thereby approving the Grading Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 3 Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guideline amendments Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, explaining the issues that were raised at the previous meetings and staff's comments to those issues. Chairman Knight felt that there seems to be a conflicting statement between the staff report content for issue number three and the proposed language in the draft Guideline amendment. He requested that staff clarify issue No. 3 of the staff report. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that staff had an initial concern on this subject, however tried to craft language to implement the Planning Commission's direction at the previous meeting. He stated that the City Attorney reviewed the language and had a strong concern with getting the City involved in private agreements. He stated that the language in the staff report under issue 3 comes from discussions with the City Attorney about the matter. However, the proposed language in the draft Guidelines is an attempt to craft language the Planning Commission felt was needed, not withstanding staff and the City Attorney's concerns. Alternatively, Director/Secretary Rojas stated that in light Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 15 of the concerns of staff and the City Attorney, if the Planning Commission feels strongly that they want to have staff deal with holding monies, he did not propose to adopt the proposed language in the draft Guidelines, but recommended the Commission craft new language. Chairman Knight asked whether it is necessary to include the property owner as additionally named insured, since the property owner is already named on the contractor's insurance when the contractor is hired. Commissioner Karp answered that when a contractor is hired, the property owner requests that he and the City be named as additionally insured. Chairman Knight asked, in regards to the proposed multiple ridgeline diagram, which roofline the trees will be trimmed to. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that if there was a scenario with a tree in the middle of two rooflines, "A" and "B", part of the tree would be trimmed to both rooflines. However, in practice, the Commission would need to decide which roofline is appropriate. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Ken Dyda 5715 Capeswood Drive stated that since money that is collected as part of a private agreement, and staff makes the determination as to whether or not the conditions have been met, he suggested avoiding having the City go to the warrant since it is not City money to begin with. He felt that going to the warrant causes unnecessarily delays in returning the money. He stated that many have voiced concerns that the mediator is not fully familiar with the Guidelines and the Ordinance, and suggested the mediator become conversant with the Ordinance and Guidelines. He agreed with the City Attorney in that the City should not, in any way, get involved with private agreements between neighbors. He asked who would pay the cost to have a tree removed or trimmed that was not in the original finding, but was found to block a view after the foliage was removed. He disagreed with the language that an applicant should not be called a view owner, as a property owner pays more taxes when they have a view. He felt that if you pay for something, you own it. Michael O'Sullivan 30466 Via Cambron stated he would like to see more fairness and balance introduced in the Guidelines, He felt that lacking that, there is much more inclination to appeal things to the City Council and the potential for the City to incur additional legal costs. He felt that the root ball removal and size of replacement foliage should be determined by the Planning Commission, noting a 24 inch box tree would not be adequate for shade, privacy, or aesthetics in many cases. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. O'Sullivan if he has read the current proposed language regarding root ball removal and replacement foliage. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 16 Mr. O'Sullivan answered that he had read the current language, and objected to the language that states the root ball will not normally be removed. He felt that decision should be made by the Planning Commission, and the guideline language regarding the root ball issue prejudices the decision of the Planning Commission. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault referred to page 22 of the draft Guideline amendments and explained there is a legal distinction between someone being an additional insured and somebody being an additional named insured. He stated that being additionally named insured suggests all the rights and benefits of an insurance policy issued to the person that is paying for the work. He felt it was important to distinguish that the City and anyone else deemed appropriate to be added to the policy be identified as additional named insured. He also understood Mr. O'Sullivan's comments that there is no provision to allow for the removal of the root ball in certain circumstances where it may be necessary. He wondered if there should be language added that allows for a certain amount of discretion by the Planning Commission in certain circumstances. Chairman Knight referred to page 3 of the staff report, issue 4, noting the language states that tree removal is defined as having tree or shrub stump ground down to existing grade and does not include removal of the root system, unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission. He felt this language gives the Planning Commission discretion to remove the root ball. Chairman Knight discussed the issue of the City taking in trust deposits for private agreements. He felt it was much cleaner for the City to stay out of private agreements and felt the language should be changed so that the City does not hold any money in a trust account as part of a private agreement. Director/Secretary Rojas reiterated that it would be staffs preference to not get involved in holding money in a private agreement and would like to strike out any language regarding the City holding private money on page 11 of 30 Section D. The Planning Commission agreed to strike the added language regarding the trust deposits. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted some language changes. He noted two grammatical change on page 13 of 30, changing "comparable" to "similar" on page 20 of 30 (F), changing "refunded back" to "refunded" on page 22, and on page 17 of 30 number 4 he noted a grammatical change. Chairman Knight noted that the sheet handed out at the meeting that is labeled page 31 of 30 is also included in these discussions. Director/Secretary Rojas addressed a comment made by the public regarding the mediator. He explained that part of what makes the mediation process so successful is Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 17 that the mediator is not bound by the rules, Guidelines, and procedures the City has and can help craft any agreement that is agreed upon by the participants. In the instances where there is a question regarding procedure and process, staff is in attendance at pre -application meetings to answer these questions. Chairman Knight re -opened the public hearing. Ken Dvda questioned who would pay for the trimming of additional foliage that was not specifically designated in the Planning Commission decision but was found by staff to be significantly impairing a view after the specified foliage was trimmed. He noted that bids are for trees and foliage in the permit, and the cost is based on that. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that currently when this situation arises staff asks the tree trimmers to trim this additional foliage and to date there either has been no additional costs or the applicant willingly puts in additional money to have this new foliage cut. He acknowledged that a situation could arise where there is not the additional money available, and staff will add language to address that situation. Commissioner Tetreault moved to have staff incorporate the suggested changes and return the draft to the Planning Commission on the May 9th meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. Minutes of March 14, 2006 Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the minutes to the next meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). PRE -AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2006 The Commission reviewed and approved the pre -agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:38 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 18