Loading...
PC MINS 20090224 Approved April 28, 9,9 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tetreault led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, and Chairman Lewis. Absent: Commissioners Gerstner and Tomblin were excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Senior Planner Schonborn, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Lewis suggested hearing agenda item No. 3 before agenda item No. 2, and the Commission unanimously agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the February 17th City Council meeting the City Council adopted the Resolution approving the proposed St. John Fisher project. Also at that meeting they appointed Commissioner Lewis as the Planning Commission Chairman. He also reported that the proposed affordable housing project on Crestridge Road is .scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 3, 2009. Director Rojas distributed three items of correspondence regarding agenda item Nos. 2 and 3 and six items of correspondence regarding agenda item No. 4. Chairman Lewis and Commissioner Ruttenberg disclosed that they met with the applicant regarding agenda items 2 and 3. Commissioners Perestam, Ruttenberg, and Tetreault reported that they had met with interested parties concerning agenda item No. 4. z COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None 1. Selection of Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission Because two Commissioners were absent, Commissioner Tetreault moved to select the Vice Chairman at the next Planning Commission meeting on March 10th, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Variance & Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00046): 24 Seacove Drive Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and the need for the Variance and Coastal Permit. He illustrated the approximate location of the coastal setback zone on an aerial photograph of the neighborhood. He stated that at the last meeting the neighbor had indicated there has been a large amount of unpermitted construction activity on the property. As indicated in the staff report, staff investigated the claim and found items on the property that do need permitting. As such, the applicant has submitted the appropriate planning applications to begin the process to legalize and permit these structures. He stated that staff continues to believe the findings can be made in order to approve the Variance. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission continue discussing the merits of the project, formulate a decision, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions to bring back at the next meeting. Chairman Lewis stated that he was excused from the December 11, 2008 meeting when this case was originally heard, however he has read the minutes and reports, and feels he can participate in the hearing. Commissioner Perestarn asked if there are aerial photographs or any other evidence to show how the bluff looked before the improvements were put in place. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that staff has a series of aerial photographs and topography that show the bluff before the improvements were installed. Commissioner Ruttenberg referred to the staff report and the discussion on 16 Seacove Drive, noting that the coastal setback line was relocated on that property in 1994. He asked why that case would be treated differently than the case currently before the Commission. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that one of the reasons to move the coastal setback line at 16 Seacove Drive was due to the fact that the house was built prior to the city's incorporation, and the coastal setback line traversed the actual residence. Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 2 Chairman Lewis asked, since this work has already been started, if the applicant paid the appropriate penalty fees when submitting the application for the after-the-fact work. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that penalty fees were paid by the applicant. Chairman Lewis asked if staff had any concern about how restoring the bluff to its previous condition might affect stability of the general area. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the applicant would have to restore the bluff in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations that have been submitted to the City and reviewed and approved by the City Geologist. Chairman Lewis asked if the Planning Commission were to decide to approve all of the improvements, does the Commission have the authority to restrict any future construction and improvements in the area between the swimming pool and the bluff. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the Code does allow for small improvements within that area between the pool and the bluff, such as the pool equipment or air conditioning equipment. However, the owner could request a Variance to be allowed to build something in that area that is not permitted by the Code. Brant Dverin (representing the applicants) submitted additional documents for the Commission's review. He asked the Commission to accept the applicant's apologies for beginning this project without permits, noting that being before the Commission and working as hard as they can to make this situation right is the best they can do in terms of contrition, repentance, and redemption. He clarified that the idea of requesting a Variance was the result of the negotiations between the City Attorney and his office in arriving at an agreement so that the applicant may not necessarily have to challenge the location of the coastal setback line. Approval of the Variance will allow the pool to be built without having to challenge this coastal setback line location. He stated that the swimming pool is as close to the house as the applicant could put it, and as far as possible from the end of the bluff, and therefore he felt there must be a practical way to get this pool approved. He noted that there are two properties on the street where variances have been granted, 8 and 16 Seacove Drive. He also noted that several existing pools in the neighborhood are located closer to the bluff than the pool on the Conroy property. He felt that to not grant the variance would deprive the Conroys of the very use of their property that their neighbors and others in this zone already enjoy. He requested the Commission grant the variance as recommended in the staff report. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the applicant is willing to do the re-grading with regards to the extension of the bluff area on the property. Mr. Dverin answered that the Conroys are willing to restore this area. Commissioner Tetreault asked when the Conroy's house was constructed. Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 3 Mr. Dverin answered that the house was constructed in 1987. Brian Conroy (applicant) stated he regrets this situation and apologized for what he has done. He stated that he has worked with the City to comply with the Code to remedy this situation. He stated that all he wants is what everyone else has, and nothing more. Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Conroy, if this application is approved, does he have any intention to do any further improvements between the pool and the bluff. Mr. Conroy answered his only intention is to landscape the area. Ross Bolton (Bolton Engineering) displayed a drawing he prepared showing the coastal setback line and the top of the slope. He noted that the pool is quite a distance from the top of the bluff. Patricia Clark (30 Seacove Drive) stated she has been in most of the homes along the bluff on Seacove Drive and there are many structures on the street that extend to the bluff. She said that she was not supporting the idea of doing construction without permits and then going before the City and asking for forgiveness, however she noted that the City process is sometimes overwhelming. Jim Huston stated he is speaking on behalf of the neighbor, Pamela Simes. He explained that Ms. Simes is the one most adamantly opposed to the projects, as she will be the most affected should the bluff fail or the pool overflow. He referred to a report written in 1976 that established the coastal setback zone, which indicated the bluff is a very fragile area and should not be built upon. He stated that there has been discussion that the pool is very close to the Conroy's home. He pointed out that the Conroy's designed and built this house, and they could have put it further up on the property to give more room in the backyard for the pool. He also bought the property fully aware of the location of the coastal setback line. He asked the Planning Commission abide by the law of the City based on geological and engineering studies. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Huston if he saw any difference between the issues relating to the pool and issues relating to the retaining wall on the bluff. Mr. Huston answered that the retaining wall is built in a 1-A region which is unsuitable for any structures and the pool is built in a 2 area which is unsuitable for any major excavation. Therefore, they are the same issue, one being of lesser importance. Pamela Simes presented an aerial photograph prepared in 1968 which she felt does not agree with the photographs presented by staff. She felt her photograph shows a dramatic difference in where Mr. Conroy's lot ends in comparison to what is shown in staff's photographs. She also stated that she is not in agreement with the staff report in terms of the amount of unpermitted construction on the property. She asked that the Planning Commission deny the request for the Variance, as she felt if granted could Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 4 result in costly ramifications to her property, neighboring properties, and the liability of this Commission and City. She then read excerpts from the December 11th minutes and comments from various Commissioners regarding the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg referred to the photograph presented by Ms. Simes and asked her if there has been any change in her property since the photograph was taken. Ms. Simes answered that there has been no change to her property. Commissioner Perestam asked Ms. Simes how long she has lived in her home. Ms. Simes stated that she has lived in her home for over 50 years. Commissioner Perestam asked Ms. Simes if she has ever had a geological problem with her home since it is within the coastal setback line. Ms. Simes stated that since Mr. Conroy's pool has been installed she is noticing a separation of the front walkway from the house. Bill Swank (8 Seacove Drive) stated he supports the application for the Variance. He explained that at his home he has built a swimming pool and had extensive geological work done on the property before building the pool. He stated Mr. Conroy has also had extensive geologic investigations done in the area of his pool, and therefore he does not think there is any safety reason to deny the pool. He added that he is also interested in where the actual coastal setback line is located and what that line is based on. He noted that his entire property is behind the coastal setback line. Pamela Simes stated that it was her understanding that the Conroy property is 150 feet from the street to the bluff front, and the pool is in the coastal setback area. She then read a statement from Don Fleming which said that granting this Variance would be a landmark decision that establishes a dangerous precedent to allow others to build at their own discretion without regard to City rules and regulations. It would make a travesty of the law by allowing a licensed contractor to manipulate the system for his own personal gain. Denying the Variance will cost the City nothing, but allowing it will have enormous financial legal repercussions when the bluff and property begin to slide. Mr. Dverin (in rebuttal), in responding to the statement that Mr. Conroy is not following the law, explained that it is the purpose of the Variance to allow Mr. Conroy to enjoy the same property rights that his neighbors enjoy. He stated that there have been extensive geologic studies done on Mr. Conroy's property, precisely because the pool has been built so close to the home and because of the bluff. He added that the pool is built as close to the home as possible and as far from the bluff as possible. He stated that Ms. Simes' home is much further into where the City places the coastal setback line than the pool is. He also reminded the Commission that correlation does not equate causation, that things happen close in times does not necessarily mean that's the cause, and without a geological study he did not know how Ms. Simes could make such Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 5 a claim. He stated that Mr. Conroy will not shirk on his geological responsibilities and it is his intent, by going through this process, to make the amends necessary to ask forgiveness and ask permission to complete the pool. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestam asked if there was any record of geologic damage to Ms. Simes residence in recent years, or if it has ever been part of a discussion. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that the City had no record of geologic damage to the property, and it has not been part of any discussions. Commissioner Perestam asked if there had been any record of geologic damage to the property on the other side of the Conroy property. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that there has not been any record of such damage, noting that house was built after City incorporation and had the required geologic studies done on the property before the house was built. Commissioner Perestam asked if the applicant will have to meet any additional geologic requirements if the Commission were to approve the Variance to complete the pool. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the applicant will have to submit plans to Building and Safety for review and approval. He stated that part of that process will include inspections by the City to verify that the recommendations made in the geology report have been implemented. Commissioner Knight asked what other properties on the street were granted a Variance. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that 8 Seacove Drive was granted a Variance for their spa. Commissioner Knight noted that the Conroy's had pointed out several new homes on Seacove that have pools and structures close to the bluff edge. He asked staff to explain how these structures were allowed to be built in these locations. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that in the case of the Swank residence, there was an existing home that was renovated. The pool and spa were built in 1960, and with the renovation the pool was made smaller but within the existing pool footprint. Director Rojas added that he worked on a pool remodel on Seacove where the owner was told he could not expand the pool and had to work within the footprint of the old pool. Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 6 Commissioner Tetreault stated that 16 Seacove Drive had a zone change granted in 1994 which relocated the coastal setback line. He asked staff to explain the purpose of this zone change and what it resulted in. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the zone change resulted in the coastal setback line being relocated to the top of the bluff. He felt this was done to acknowledge the fact that there was an existing residence at the site and there were appropriate geologic studies prepared to support the relocation of that line to the top of the bluff. He noted that the residence was built several years before City incorporation, and when the coastal setback line was established it was located on the landward side of the house, thereby placing the entire house in the coastal setback area. Commissioner Tetreault asked if any new structures or additions have been approved with a Variance in this neighborhood within the coastal setback line. Director Rojas answered a Variance for new construction in the coastal setback zone was approved at 8 Seacove Drive for a new spa, at 38 Seacove Drive for an addition, and at 34 Seacove for a new covered patio. Commissioner Knight stated that he was having trouble making finding No. 1 for the Variance. He stated that whatever has been approved by the City in the past was done with structures built before the Coastal Specific Plan was put in place, and dealing with situations where residents have existing non-conforming improvements on the property. He felt that staff's justification of the other properties in the area with similar amenities are in a different category, as they were existing non-conforming to begin with. He also had trouble with finding No. 1 for the Coastal Permit. He noted that the Coastal Specific Plan has a geotechnical factors section of the natural environment elements which also involves the coastal setback line, and this was not mentioned in the staff report. He did not find this to be consistent with the Coastal Permit finding No. 1. Commissioner Perestam stated that at the last public hearing the Planning Commission directed staff to determine if there was any other construction on the property that was done without permits and if there were any other accessory uses that have been overlooked and had a legal right to be there. Staff determined that there was a staircase in the rear yard that had been modified, a trellis, and fountain in the front yard that need permits, which the applicant has applied for. Given the fact that there are at .least five pools that are closer to the bluff, and the fact that the bluff will be restored, and that the Conroy's have paid their penalty fees, he agreed with staff's recommendation to grant the Variance request. He added that this is not an ideal situation by any means. Commissioner Tetreault felt that a couple of assumptions have been made in order to justify granting this Variance application. The first assumption is that a backyard pool is a substantial property right and the second assumption is that there could not have been a swimming pool and a house on this property. He disagreed with both of these assumptions, as he did not think a backyard pool is a substantial property right. Further, since the house was constructed by the current owner, the house could have Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 7 been built in a fashion that would have accommodated the swimming pool. In regards to the other homes that have swimming pools in the backyard that go closer to the bluff, those are legal non-conforming. Because there is a property on the street that has a structure that is legal non-conforming does not mean that others on the street can enjoy that same property right by avoiding compliance to the current setback laws in the City. He felt that much of the argument being presented by the applicant is that there are several properties on the street with pools in the backyard that were constructed before the City was incorporated and before the coastal setback line was established, and he should also be allowed to have a swimming pool in the same area. He did not accept that argument. He felt that the fact that the pool has already been built needs to be set aside and the application needs to be treated like one coming before the Commission where nothing has yet to be done, and would the Planning Commission approve the pool in the present location. He did not think the fact that the pool has already been started should factor into the consideration. He was not sure if he would approve such a request or not. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commission Tetreault in that this application should be looked at as if this were a new application with no work started, and he gives no consideration to the fact that the pool has already been built. He also noted that quite a bit of work has been done without permits, however he did not feel he could consider that either, as the penalty fees have been paid to the City. He also felt that the Commission should look at the application as if no construction had started, and consider whether or not a pool can be approved in this location. He also noted that while conducting the site visit he found that the neighbor's home, as well as many others on the street, are much closer to the coastal setback line than the pool is going to be. He therefore felt he could support staff's recommendation. Chairman Lewis stated he supported staff's recommendation in support of the Variance, as he could find the exceptional circumstances based on the development pattern in the neighborhood. He disagreed with Commissioner Tetreault regarding the issue of substantial property right with respect to the swimming pools based on the development pattern in the neighborhood. He added that he would not have ordered the removal of the retaining wall on the bluff, but that is not part of the application. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to approve the Variance and Coastal Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Commissioner Perestam felt that these sixteen properties are unique, as Variances have been granted, pools are behind the setback line, and the setback line has been moved on some of the properties. Commissioner Knight stated that he still cannot make the finding that this is an extraordinary or unusual circumstance, as the improvements on the other properties were existing before the formation of the coastal setback line. Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 8 P.C. Resolution 2009-09 approving the Variance and Coastal Permit was approved, (3-2) with Commissioners Knight and Tetreault dissenting. 2. Appeal of Interpretation Procedure (Case No. ZON2007-00253): Chairman Lewis asked the applicant if he would like to withdraw the appeal of the interpretation procedure. Mr. Dverin stated that Mr. Conroy would like to table this appeal until the final outcome of the Variance has been determined, as there is a chance the approval will be appealed. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the appeal of the interpretation procedure to an unspecified date pending the final decision on the Variance related to agenda item No. 3, seconded by Knight. Approved without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Zone text amendment for Conditional Use Permits in the CL Zone: Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a history of this item and noting that that in October 2008 the Planning Commission denied General Plan Amendment and Zone Change request for 28103 Hawthorne Boulevard. At the City Council appeal hearing on January 21, 2009, the Council took no specific action on the item and directed staff to initiate and bring forth a code amendment to the CL zoning section of the Code which would require a Conditional Use Permit for all uses located in the CL Zone section of the code. He explained this proposed text amendment to the CL zone to the Commission and the properties it would affect. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the existing businesses currently in the CL zone have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to continue their existing use. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that if the use is currently in operation at the time the Ordinance goes into affect they will be grandfathered in and allowed to continue operating without the need for the CUP. If the business was to leave and a new business takes it place, that new business would need a CUP. Commissioner Tetreault asked if an existing business were to stay and a new owner comes in, but the use does not change, would a CUP be needed under this new Ordinance. Senior Planner Schonborn no, answered that the CUP would only be required if the particular business use were to cease operations for a period of 180 days, at which point it would lose its non-conforming status. However, if a tenant were to leave a business and a new tenant comes in and uses the space for a different type of business, a Conditional Use Permit would then be required. Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 9 Commissioner Tetreault asked about properties that need substantial remediation before a tenant can begin operation. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that a tenant improvement would not require a Conditional Use Permit unless the tenant is adding 500 square feet or more to the building or converting to a use that requires a CUP. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the building had to be rebuilt because of substantial damage sustained because of a fire or other cause, would a CUP be required to rebuild the building. Director Rojas explained that if this Ordinance is approved, all of the current uses in the CL zone that are existing will not require a Conditional Use Permit to continue and will be considered non-conforming uses. The Code has a section that dictates what can and cannot be done with non-conforming uses. According to this section of the Code, nonconforming uses affected by fire can be re-established without a CUP. He then referred to another section of the Code under general development in Commercial zones that states that interior remodeling shall not require a CUP provided that no change or intensification of the existing use to a use that requires a CUP results from the remodeling. Commissioner Knight asked, if one of the businesses that is currently considered non- conforming were to change uses and have to file a CUP, how long would the process take to allow the new business use to occupy the building. Director Rojas answered that the CUP process typically takes six to eight months. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he listened to the City Council meeting regarding this issue, and he did not think the Council was focused on these types of issues. He felt that the Planning Commission, in their recommendation to the Council, might include statements that this text amendment may go far beyond what the Council had intended. However, he did not feel any of that is before the Commission. He felt that what is currently before the Commission is to consider if the proposed amendment does what the City Council directed, which is to require a CUP for all uses in the CL zone and to review the uses that fall within the CL district and determine if any should be removed or added, consistent given the intent of the zoning district. Director Rojas responded that it is correct that this item is before the Commission as a result of specific direction from the City Council. However, the Planning Commission has full authority to review the code section and look at whether or not any of the listed uses are appropriate and make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Ruttenberg did not think it was within the Commission's authority in this situation to recommend against the City Council's proposed amendment entirely. Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 10 Director Rojas disagreed, explaining this item is before the Commission because State law requires the Commission to review the proposal and give its independent review to the City Council, and the Commission has the authority to say that they do not think these types of uses should require a Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Bill Semos stated he was speaking on behalf of Friends of Rancho Palos Verdes, and highlighted a letter written by Sandra Guiness that was submitted to staff and the Commission. Joan Davidson stated that the background information in the staff report clearly indicates that the sole purpose for this CL zone change is for the Valero site on Hawthorne Boulevard. She did not think this zone change request was generated by a request from the community, but rather from the City Council. She felt that the fee required for a Conditional Use Permit would be difficult for small businesses to absorb and questioned if this punitive action to accommodate the Valero station fair to the City's small businesses. She questioned why the Valero owners done an alternative study for this property, one related to the residential with auto overlay. She did not feel the Planning Commission has enough information on the issues before them until staff has done its due diligence. She did not think a CL with a CUP will do nothing to touch the increased traffic and commercialization of the City. Helen Fung stated that she is speaking for herself and her family who care about the proposed change to the General Plan and the zoning. She questioned why this change is being requested at this time and explained that when her family bought their home they carefully checked the zoning in the surrounding neighborhood and they were confident that no large commercial buildings would be built nearby. She did not think that this change was a good idea, and urged the Commission to vote no on the request. Kathy Tyndall felt that the proposed CL zone change will do nothing to focus on the real issue at hand and questioned how this zone change and CUP requirement will resolve the traffic problems that now exist. She discussed the large amount of traffic that flows at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Granvia Altimira. She stated that a CL zone with a CUP requirement does nothing to protect the community from traffic, congestion, and more commercialization of the City. She did not think small business owners should be punished when there is, what she felt, was an ulterior motive behind the requested change. Lindley Ruddick stated that he did not understand the intended objectives or ramifications of this proposal and pointed out that the City Council, and not the public, has asked for this amendment to the Code to attempt to limit the uses allowed in CL zoning as a result of the Planning Commission denial of a requested General Plan amendment and zone change to the Valero property. He stated he is opposed to any General Plan amendment and zone change to the Valero property regardless of the outcome of the current proposal. He was concerned about the potential structure size Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 11 of a building on that property, including lot coverage, height, setbacks, parking requirements, and the potential need for Variances. He noted that his written comments submitted to the Planning Commission includes suggestions for allowed uses that he believes should,be removed from all future uses of CL zoned properties. He also suggested the City consider revisions to Section 17.12.090 of the Municipal Code to reduce the lot coverage of CL zoned properties of less than 1 acre, as well as strengthening the requirements that must be met for any Variances requested for future CL zoned properties. Jim Herrera stated that he is the owner of one of the commercial buildings at Miraleste Plaza, and felt that the proposed amendment was a recipe for disaster. He felt that the restrictions placed on businesses on the CL zone will drive small businesses out of the City. He was concerned that as he has vacancies in the center, it will be a long and expensive process to fill these vacancies and many small business owners will not want to go through such an onerous process. He asked the Commission to take the small business owners into consideration when discussing this proposed amendment. John Freeman felt that the unstated reason for this proposed zone change and CUP requirement is the City Council looking for some way to control the Valero property. He suggested getting to the real problem, which he felt is controlling the size. He felt to control the size the City should consider changing Section 17.12.020 from a 45 percent maximum lot size coverage to 20 to 25 percent lot coverage. He also suggested not allowing any mixed use on a CL zoned property. Finally, he presented an L.A. County tract map from 1955 showing the property around the Valero Station zoned as RA, which is Residential Agricultural. Therefore, this property has not always been zoned commercial. David Hsu questioned how one application to the City has resulted in this type of amendment which involves so many businesses throughout the City. Michael Gibson (attorney on behalf of Jim Herrera) stated this proposed text amendment is clearly a down-zoning, as it is eliminating uses of right for business property owners. He felt this raises many issues, including the issue of taking. He felt that the question could be asked if whether or not these business owners are being deprived of property rights and if they are entitled to compensation from the City. He did not think this was a finely crafted enough ordinance. Because of the long process .involved in obtaining a CUP, tenants will be scared off which will result in reduced property values as well as sales and property taxes, and he did not think this was the intended consequence. He stated that if the Planning Commission is not inclined to reject this proposal outright, he urged instead that it be continued to allow time for the Ordinance to be fine tuned. Tanja Bucur stated she was amazed that so many residents and so many businesses are being asked to make a life style change because of one property owner. She wished the City Council had asked staff to look at other alternatives for the gas station and other gas stations in the City. She also suggested creating a Conditional Use Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 12 'Permit for residential properties, as she felt this will help limit the size of the Valero project. Connie Semos continued reading the letter that was submitted to the Planning Commission by Sandra Guiness. Jerry Rodin stated it is obvious there is a lot of opposition to this proposed stop-gap measure. He felt the City would be creating more government overlay than is needed, as the Code already covers the issues. He was concerned about how this Ordinance would specifically affect the office use in the Miraleste Plaza. He noted that the onerous uses already require a Conditional Use Permit, and did not think the additional burden should be placed on the small office uses in the area. Rob Katherman felt this proposal would be a real disservice to the Miraleste community that doesn't have the types of commercial facilities found along Hawthorne Boulevard. He felt Miraleste Plaza is unique, not only because of its historic situation, but also in terms of its number of small businesses. He also felt that the requirement for small office businesses to be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit was over-kill. Charles Ingraham stated this concern is that the City study and understand the impact of traffic on the local feeder streets with any change that is made in the City. Commissioner Knight asked staff if there have been any problems with businesses that have not required a Conditional Use Permit that have been allowed to operate in the City. Director Rojas explained that currently in the CL zone some uses are allowed by right and some require a Conditional Use Permit. With regards to the uses that are currently allowed by right, staff was not aware of any situation where such uses have created problems. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the issue is whether or not to require all of the CL zoned properties in the City to go through a Conditional Use Permit process. He agreed with the speakers who felt this would be an onerous and difficult process for small businesses in the Miraleste Plaza. He stated that he was not in favor of requiring a CUP for all businesses in the CL zone. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt the City Council's intentions for this amendment were good, as they were trying to find a solution for the Valero property. However by focusing the attention on the Valero property and trying to find a compromise for that property, they made a suggestion that would have unintended consequences for the other CL zoned properties in the City. He felt these unintended consequences were quite serious, especially to small businesses. Commissioner Perestam agreed that the City Council had good intentions and felt they got this proposal half right. He felt the part that isn't right is that the Planning Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 13 Commission is going to discuss uses they think are acceptable in the CL zone. He felt that this should not be done in a piece-meal type of way but rather the commercial zoning districts should be looked at and reviewed in a comprehensive manner, including development standards. Commissioner Knight agreed that requiring a CUP would be an onerous process for small businesses and would create a hardship for landlords. He also pointed out that the General Plan tries to create an environment that is conducive for people to have homes or commercial property and have a planning review that helps such proposals go forward in a reasonable manner. Staff has noted that there have really been no issues with the current system of"by right" approvals in the commercial areas. If this item were before the Commission because there are serious problems and some of the regulations are not working, that would be different. However, that is not the case, and as stated before, this code amendment is being suggested to try to put some control on one particular property, which has adverse affects on other properties. He stated that there are too many negative consequences with this proposal and he could not support the amendment. Chairman Lewis stated that he was in agreement with the comments made by the other Commissioners, and that the unintended consequences on the business owners in the Miraleste community would be onerous. He stated that one of the findings needed to be made is that this change in the law is necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare in the area, and he felt his change would be contrary to such. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to only recommend to the City Council that the statute be amended so that in Chapter 17.14.030 the following conditional uses be deleted from the section: Section ® (Bed and Breakfast Inns), Section I (concurrent sales of alcohol and motor fuel), and Section K (golf courses, driving ranges, and ancillary uses), seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Commissioner Perestam suggested that churches be added to the list of items to be deleted, as such uses are clearly established in the Institutional zone in the City. Commissioner Knight felt there may be a circumstance where a church would want to rent an area in a commercial district for a meeting or as an extension of their church. He also asked staff if Bed and Breakfast Inns are allowed in any other zoning district in .the City. Senior Planner Schonborn responded that they are also allowed in the CIV Zone. Before voting, Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. The motion to recommend that current Chapter 17.14 be amended to only delete three current conditional uses (Bed and Breakfast Inns; concurrent sales of alcohol and motor fuel; and golf courses, driving ranges, and ancillary uses)was approved (4-0-1) with Commissioner Tetreault abstaining. Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 14 Director Rojas stated a Resolution for adoption will be brought back on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS 5. Encroachment Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00051): 5 Packet Road Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the project and why the Encroachment Permit is necessary. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the project. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Lowell Wedemeyer (13 Clipper Road) stated there are issues in the neighborhood that won't be immediately noticeable to the Planning Commission that he would like to bring to their attention. He stated that the paved area on the street is quite narrow and there are severe parking problems in the neighborhood. There are also problems with aging utility lines and systems and the HOA in the area is looking into having these utilities put into the public right-of-way. He stated that this project directly impacts the entire neighborhood to the extent that it may make it more difficult for the HOA to achieve a very difficult problem. He felt that if the project is to be approved, a condition is needed which requires the owners to remove the improvements from the public right-of-way when the HOA begins undergrounding the utilities in front of the houses. Commissioner Perestam asked if the HOA was currently and actively trying to move the utilities to the front of the residence and moved underground. Mr. Wedemeyer answered that there is not a current, specific plan to do so at this time. He explained that the procedure is very complex. However, these types of structures in the public right-of-way make the process economically prohibitive. Commissioner Knight asked if there are any other structures in the public right-of-way in the neighborhood, or if this is a unique situation. Mr. Wedemeyer answered that because it is an older neighborhood there are many obstructions in the public right-of-way and the HOA would like to discourage adding to those existing. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they had any comments to issues raised by the speaker. Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 15 Associate Planner Mikhail stated that condition No. 2 in the Conditions of Approval states that the Public Works Department has the ability to require, within 10 days of notice, that these structures be removed from the public right-of-way. She stated that there is also a condition that if these structures are to be removed, it is to be at the owner's expense. Director Rojas suggested adding language to condition No. 2, which discusses the removal of the structures from the public right-of-way, to include removal for the purpose of relocating utilities. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2009-07 thereby conditionally approving the Encroachment Permit as amended to add the suggested language to Condition No. 2, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0). 5. Annual report on the implementation of the Housing Element Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining that there are amendments that staff must make to the report, and therefore is recommending the Planning Commission continue the item to the March 10, 2009 meeting so that staff can make the appropriate changes. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the item to the March 10, 2009 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved without objection. 7. Annual report on the implementation of the General Plan Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the report delineates how the General Plan elements are consistent with the seven State mandated elements and also includes recent developments, progress, and actions taken by the City. She stated that staff believes the goals and policies of the General Plan continue to be implemented through the recent developments and actions taken by the City while ensuring the needs and best interests of community members continue to be met. She stated that staff is recommending the Planning Commission review and forward the report to the City Council. Commissioner Knight moved to forward the annual report to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved without objection. APPROVAL F MINUTES 8. Minutes of January 13, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 16 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 9. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on March 10, 2009 The Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 24,2009 Page 17