Loading...
PC MINS 20101214 Approved January 25, 0 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:10 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Emenhiser led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Leon, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: Commissioners Knight and Lewis were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Associate Planner Trester. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their December 7th meeting the City Council initiated a code amendment to eliminate the Development Code provision that allows community organizations to place temporary banners in the public right-of-way. The code amendment language will be brought to the Planning Commission in February 2011. Director Rojas also reported that at the upcoming December 21St City Council meeting staff will be seeking processing direction on the Annenberg project. Director Rojas distributed seven items of correspondence for agenda item No. 2, six photographs for agenda item No. 3, and ten items of correspondence for agenda item No. 5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Conditional Use Permit--Time Extension (Case No. ZON2009-00107): 3960 Crest Road Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he would recuse himself from this item. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. The Consent Calendar was approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser recused. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 200, Revision "B", Grading Permit & Coastal Development Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00442): Lower Point Vicente/Annenberg Director Rojas explained that at the November 16th City Council meeting staff put forward a recommendation that was not supported by the City Council. In addition, there was no subsequent direction or action on the item and there are still applications for the project that are before the City. With that, staff needs additional direction from the City Council on how to proceed. Lenee Bilski displayed a short power point presentation, stating that the public has heard from the beginning that this project will be an educational public use facility, and questioned what really is in it. She felt the proposal has morphed since presented in 2008. She showed a slide of the area which she explained showed the site after the Annenberg project is built, with the hardscape and buildings. She showed slides of the floor plan of the proposed building, noting that 58 percent of the building is not accessible to the public as it will be staff and animal related. She also showed the areas for the purposes of education, both inside the building and outside. She stated that the Annenberg proposal has limited public access, is mostly non-educational, and is a massive structure with a large amount of paving and hardscape. Katie Traeger asked that the Planning Commission deny the Annenberg Project. Dena Friedson asked that the minutes reflect the major points of her email sent to the Planning Commission yesterday. She stated that the proposed Annenberg Project is not consistent with the Passive Recreational requirements of the City's General Plan. Principal elements of the proposed facility do not comply with the Federal Government's deed restrictions regarding permitted uses. As stated in the Quit Claim Deed, Lower Point Vicente can be conveyed, if necessary, only to another eligible governmental agency. She noted that in 2008 Wallace Annenberg asked the City Council to allow the Foundation to initiate the planning process, noting that she understood approval in concept was not approval to build. She stated that the City Attorney advised the Commission that the project could be stopped immediately if the Commission decides Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 2 an alternate environmentally superior site is available, as described in the draft EIR. She noted that the draft EIR identifies the area near City Hall as such a location. She felt that continuing the planning process is a waste of time and money that should be devoted to other important matters. She stated that Lower Point Vicente was a gift to and for the general public, and the public park land should not be donated to a private organization. Sharon Yarber stated this meeting is just like any other Planning Commission meeting, as there is a matter before the Commission that was continued to tonight and they are being asked to determine if the project, as presented, is or is not contrary to the General Plan. She noted that the project consists of educational and institutional uses, as well as recreational uses. However the zoning and the General Plan designation is for open space passive recreational use. She asked that if the Planning Commission can find that the project as it is currently proposed complies with the General Plan, then approve the project. If the Commission feels the project does not comply, she asked that the Commission deny the project. She felt the Commission has the authority, the power, and the right to make a decision regarding the project at this meeting. Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to continue the public hearing to January 25, 2011, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. There was a discussion on procedure between the Commission and staff, and Commissioner Tetreault noted that this is a complex matter. He stated that staff has requested a continuance to allow staff to get direction from the City Council. He noted that the City owns the property and a request is being made by one of the parties to the project to continue the discussion until further direction is received from the City Council. He also noted that the Annenberg Foundation is not represented at this meeting. Therefore, he felt it would be inappropriate for the Commission to make a substantive decision on the project at this meeting. The motion to continue the public hearing to January 25, 2011 was approved, (5-0). 3. Coastal Permit, Variance, Height Variation, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2009-00403): 86 Yacht Harbor Drive Chairman Gerstner stated that he had not had the opportunity to review the tape of the previous hearing on this application, and therefore recused himself from this item. He left the dais. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and reviewed the direction given to staff and the applicant at the last public hearing. She reviewed the current proposal before the Commission. She showed pictures of neighboring properties with balconies, and summarized the required applications that are currently before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 3 Commissioner Leon asked staff to summarize why the neighbor at 85 Yacht Harbor is concerned with the front door treatment. Associate Planner Mikhail showed where the current overhang of the roof is located, which is about one foot from the property line. She explained the neighbor's concern with, the increase in height, given the distance from the property. The neighbor also did not think the feature was compatible with the neighborhood. Michael Gonzales (architect) felt that he has met every request and every redesign that has been requested. He felt this new design now satisfies everyone in almost every way, with the exception of the chimney treatment that is non-habitable and provides a focal point to the entry of the house. He reviewed the conditions of approval, and pointed out that number No. 16 is no longer applicable, as there is no longer a roof deck. He requested that condition No. 18 be removed, as the addition is no longer over the garage. He noted that the concern was views onto neighboring properties and the fixed and opaque windows would no longer apply. Commissioner Leon asked staff if they agreed with Mr. Gonzales in regards to condition Nos. 16 and 18. Associate Planner Mikhail agreed with Mr. Gonzales, and noted that those two conditions have been removed from the actual Resolution that staff prepared. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the project as conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. PC Resolution 2010-37 was approved, (4-0-1) with Chairman Gerstner recused. 4. Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Extreme Slope Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00170): 54 Rockinghorse Road Chairman Gerstner returned to the dais. Director Rojas noted that, at the applicant's request, staff is requesting continuance of the public hearing to January 11, 2011. The Commission unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing to January 11, 2011. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Appeal of View Restoration Permit (Case No. VRP2008-00031): Via Cambron, Via Collado, Berry Hill Drive Associate Planner Trester presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the appeal and the subsequent public hearings. She displayed a revised site map showing the location of the trees in question, as well as the location of the four applicants' Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 4 properties. She noted that after the staff report was distributed to the Commission staff was contacted by the resident who abuts trees 6 and 9 that he does consent to these two trees being adopted rather than removed. She noted the email is included in the Commission's late correspondence. She then showed a picture taken from the viewing area at 7333 Berry Hill Drive, and explained staff's determination in regards to view and tree. removal and trimming, as discussed in the staff report. She also showed the view taken from 7284 Berry Hill Drive, and explained staffs recommendation for the trees in question as outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Leon asked staff to clarify the recommendation for tree No. 4. Associate Planner Trester explained that the residents who directly abut tree No. 4 have indicated in correspondence that they do not wish the tree to be adopted. Nancy Parsons raised several procedural issues regarding this appeal. She noted that according the minutes of the April 27th Planning Commission that were included in the staff report, the formal motion was to trim all seven trees that were the subject of the appeal, and review their compliance with the view ordinance within 60 days. No trees were to be removed. There was discussion about bringing in other view seekers after the trees were trimmed, but it was not specifically directed by the Chairman. Further, tree Nos. 1 through 3 were specifically excluded as not significant in the decision of February 12, 2010, which is the decision that is being appealed. The appeal addresses trees 4 through 10. She felt that if the applicants or the other notified parties objected to this exclusion, they could have appealed the decision just as she did, but they chose not to. She felt that staff was attempting to make this into a completely different case from the one that was appealed, as two extra applicants and three additional trees have been added to the application. She did not think extra trees could be added that were not the subject of the appeal, as only subjects raised in the appeal letter can be addressed. Therefore, since these new applicants were brought in specifically as a result of the appeal, tree Nos. 1 through 3 must remain excluded from any action. She felt this was a breach of civil procedure. In another example of what she felt was a procedural breach, one applicant was added after the City's own imposed deadline. She noted that she did not mind the additional applicant, as long as any ruling having to do with that property doesn't prevail over the original decision. She explained that during the public hearing an additional requirement was being imposed on adopters, which was that permission of the neighbor abutting the tree be obtained. She felt that this requirement is on shaky legal ground, as the trees are not owned by the abutting neighbor and are planted in the public right-of-way. She stated that the trees were planted for the benefit of the community and are an asset to the entire neighborhood, and the adjacent neighbor should not be given power over another resident to enter into a covenant with the City. She did not think the City has demonstrated a compelling need or case for adding this requirement. She felt that the City has created a long process with an eye only on cost reduction. In doing so, the City has created a one-sided draconian code which renders it almost impossible to come to an equitable solution. She felt that the trees should be and should have been trimmed. Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 5 Commissioner Tetreault noted that as of today, tree No. 4 is eligible for adoption. He asked Ms. Parsons how she felt about that. Ms. Parsons answered that she felt much better about that, noting that tree No. 4 is one of the most beautiful trees on the street. She stated that the tree is wide and would have a good chance of being topped and surviving. She added that she has seen a pair of hawks in and out of that tree many times in the recent weeks, and the tree also supports wildlife in the area. Mike O'Sullivan asked the Planning Commission to honor the Resolution regarding the street trees that was unanimously approved at the April hearing. He felt that topping and lacing of the trees to restore the view for the original applicants will also restore the view for the newly added applicants. He noted that all of the views were to be reevaluated after the initial trimming, noting the criterion was whether or not there was still significant view impairment. He felt this is a very subjective judgment, as many people with ocean views value the intermittent trees, as they add interest and soften the starkness of structures. He asked that the Planning Commission weigh the rights of both the applicants and appellants carefully, decide what is truly significant, and find an equitable solution. He did not understand why tree Nos. 1 through 3 were added to the staff report, as an earlier decision by the Director had removed them from the April staff report on the grounds that they were on the periphery of the applicants' views. He felt these trees are equally in the peripheral view of the new applicants. He added that the inclusion of these trees, as well as the new applicants, has created a case that is no longer the case that is being appealed. He was sympathetic to the Perez family in having to pay to fix the sidewalk in front of their residence. However, he did not think that a fee of$400 was an excessive fee. Further, the homes are built on very unstable adobe soils which is very expansive when wet, and many homes in the neighborhood have severe cracks in the garage floors and severe damage to their home foundations. He felt it was questionable whether the damage to the Perez garage floor is attributable to the tree. The sewer problem should be considered a maintenance repair issue, noting that even if the tree is removed roots from other trees will invade the sewer and continue to cause problems. He stated that the neighbors would like to be granted until January 15th to work with the Perez family to offer constructive solutions to this problem. Marjorie Carter explained that after the April public hearing she felt that the Planning Commission had rendered a favorable decision in this case, and referred to the meeting minutes. Therefore, she was dismayed to find out that wasn't true, as two more applicants have been added and three more trees. She questioned if this is the same appeal, as the players and rules have changed. She too asked for additional time to work with Perez family and try to adopt tree No. 4. She was also concerned that any one resident could have jurisdiction over public property and the trees. She presented a petition signed by 25 residents who felt it was an unfair situation. She asked the Planning Commission to step up and order that tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 be trimmed and maintained to restore the applicants' views. She explained that these trees are at the entrance to the neighborhood and add to the ambiance of the entire area. Planning commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 6 Larry Marinovich stated the original report calls for the removal of all ten trees, and it was only after staff assured him that none of the trees would be taken off of the list if he would compromise and try to work with the neighbors that he agreed. He noted that the trees were then taken off the list, as staff said they did not cause significant view impairment. He didn't understand how staff went from saying they need to be removed to saying they did not cause significant view impairment. He showed several photographs taken showing how he felt the trees significantly impair the view. He asked that the City follow the guidelines, and if they do he will have his view restored and hopefully there will be enough tree left for the neighbors to keep the trees. Ann Marinovich also did not understand how staffs decision went from removing the trees that cause a significant view impact to trimming all of the trees. She stated that the trees are in close proximity to one another and felt that if the trees are topped to the horizon and significantly trimmed they will still create a screen that will block her view. She stated that when she moved into her home she had a 180 degree unobstructed view. She was also concerned that the current recommendation does not follow the Guidelines. Tim Galvin felt that this is a resurrection of the old argument of trees versus views, and that argument was decided by the voters with Prop M that views take precedence over trees. He stated that when he moved into his house in 1965 there were no trees in the neighborhood. He showed staff's slide of the view from 7333 Berry Hill Drive and pointed out where the ocean and Catalina Island are located, and how this view is blocked by trees. He cautioned those who wanted to adopt the trees that they will have to pay the cost for trimming the trees once a year, removal of the tree and replacement of the sidewalk if the tree dies, and noted that the trees currently fill up the entire parkway area and the sidewalks are currently damaged and need repair. Marlene Galvin stated that one of the reasons she bought her home 45 years ago was the unobstructed view of the ocean and Catalina Island from the living room. The three pines on Berry Hill Drive are currently growing in a straight line and form a dense line of foliage that blocks any ocean view. Her other concern was with tree Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8, which have blocked any ocean views for many years. She stated that this blocked ocean view affects her property values. She asked that the Planning Commission follow the Guidelines and restore her ocean view. Joe Yousefour discussed a court case in which the City won a judgment in regards to an issue of view protection, and read from the judgment which says the City has an Ordinance that prevents residents of the City from significantly impairing a view by permitting foliage to grow taller than certain height limitations. He did not feel that any of the trees in question are in conformance with the Ordinance. He stated that if the City merely trims the trees he will hire a professional appraiser to appraise all properties values with views and impaired views and ask the City pay to the property owner a fair monetary damage for the difference between a view property and an impaired view property, including related punitive damages. Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 7 Barbara O'Sullivan questioned how an equitable decision can be made in this case. She discussed the process and her disappointment with the decision of the Director to revise the Resolution. She felt that there is a great resentment in the neighborhood over the way staff has spent time and money to justify rehearing this entire case. She asked if there is a point, as the Commission has previously heard from all of the parties and the Commission reached a decision in regards to the trees. She felt that the City seems very willing to destroy trees, and there should be a willingness for neighbors for neighbors to join forces to maintain the neighborhood trees. She stated that the Commission made a good, equitable decision and they should stick to it. Robert Hoskins also felt that staff has made many errors throughout this process. He noted that the original application only had two applicants, 7215 and 7306 Berry Hill Drive, and the first error was staff persuading the additional applicants to voluntarily withdraw their application prior to the original filing. He stated that the appeal was in regards to these two applicants only, and that if the Planning Commission permits inclusion of these additional two applicants, then the City has received the funds for their appeal under false pretenses, and the money should be refunded. He noted that there is a provision for this in the Municipal Code. He noted that it is not a question of the money, but rather a question of principle. Further, he explained that the Commission only instructed staff to include the new applicants with regards to the seven trees, so the inclusion of tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 was not mandated by the Commission and should be excluded. He stated that no copy of the Adoption Covenant was attached to the staff report for the residents review. He felt that within a period of 241 days this could, and should, have been completed and made available for review. In regards to the covenant, the residents ask that the City Arborist be physically present when the pruning is done. He asked if the two year waiting period is a staff condition for this permit only, or if it is a standard condition on all CTRP decisions. He noted on page 12 there are eleven attachments outlined, while the appellants only received four of these attachments. He asked that all attachments be given to the appellants and the appellants be allowed 90 days to review these documents. He asked that the Commission uphold their original decision. Cindy Hall stated she was sorry that her neighbors above have lost a portion of their view, but pointed out that because these homes are located decidedly far away from the ocean and the view and stand a good chance over time for environments and uses to change. She stated that she is excited to have these trees trimmed down to help restore the view, but at the same time would like to hold on to the original decision made by the Planning Commission. Nancy Parsons (in rebuttal) stated that tree Nos. 1 through 3 were excluded from the original decision and the applicants and interested parties had the opportunity to appeal that decision, which they did not. The appellants chose to appeal the removal of trees in the grouping of 4 through 10. Therefore, she did not feel tree Nos. 1 through 3 should be brought back into the decision. She also noted that if tree Nos. 1 through 3 are removed there will still be an obstructed view, as there are more trees across the street. She felt that the trees should be trimmed by the City, but she did not think the Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 8 neighbors should have to adopt the trees. She read the motion from the minutes of the previous meeting. Vice Chairman Tomblin noted that the neighbors have now had a chance to speak to the Perez family about adopting the tree, and that seems to not have happened. He asked Ms. Parsons if she agreed that if the Perez family said they do not want to adopt the tree, that would be in line with the Planning Commission's 6-0 vote. Ms. Parsons stated that she felt the Perez family was avoiding the discussion with the neighbors about the adoption of the tree. Further, she felt this is an end run around the obligation the Perez family would have to go to Public Works and determine that tree really had caused damage. She noted that there was a sidewalk repair done, and the sidewalk is not a trip hazard. She also noted that the other allegations that tree has caused damage have not been proven, and the view ordinance is being used as an end run around this requirement. She stated that her understanding of the decision was that if the Perez family chose not to adopt the tree, it would first be trimmed with the other trees before removal. Mike O'Sullivan (in rebuttal) reiterated that the $400 cost to repair the pavement pales in comparison to the value these trees add to the property values and the aesthetic values of the neighborhood. Secondly, he explained that the appellants were not trying to deny the applicants their views, but rather that the trees be topped and laced and then reevaluated to see if the view has been restored. He also felt that it was unfair that Commissioners that heard this application originally were not present at this hearing, and many advocates of the trees were not able to attend this meeting. In regards to the additional applicants, he felt that they should not have been added at this time but rather he felt the original Commission decision should be upheld. He felt that the trees should be trimmed as directed by the Commission and if the views have not been restored these additional applicants should be added at that time. Mariorie Carter (in rebuttal) stated this has become a very emotional situation for the residents and hoped the Commission will give a satisfactory answer at this meeting. She noted at the April meeting she presented a win, win, win solution as the appellants would win since the trees would be saved, the applicants would win since they would have their views, and the City would win because they would have satisfied the View Ordinance. She stated that she still believes that. She responded to the comment that the view seekers are losing property values, noting that if the trees are removed the neighborhood will lose its property values. Jim Moore (7284 Berry Hill) arrived late and was allowed to speak. He explained that he wasn't on the original application, but after the April meeting felt that he wanted to be on the application. He noted that he was not coerced by anyone to join the application Vice Chairman Tomblin requested that, while the Commission takes a break, that Mr. O'Sullivan or the staff check the minutes of the April meeting to confirm what the motion was in regards to tree No. 4. Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 9 Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to clarify why the two additional applicants were added to the application after the April public hearing. Director Rojas explained that staff was proceeding with the original applicants but noted there were two other potential applicants that could materialize depending on the decision. Some of the Commissioners were concerned that a decision would be made and then the two potential applicants would surface and the Commission would have to go through the hearing process again, resulting in two separate decisions and two separate trimming actions. As a result, staff held the Commission's decision in abeyance, as it may change, and contacted the additional potential applicants. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to clarify staff's recommendation as to removal and trimming. Associate Planner Trester explained that staff was recommending removal of one tree and the trimming and lacing of nine trees. Commissioner Tetreault noted that the two new applicants have issues that were not addressed in April, and in effect this is the first time the Commission is considering the impact of these trees to the new applicants. Therefore, he questioned if this is an appeal relative to the new applicants, as it is the Commission's first impression in regards to the new applicants. Associate Planner Trester answered that was correct. Commissioner Tetreault questioned how this works when you have two applicants that the Commission is reviewing for the first time as well as a Planning Commission decision that is being appealed. Director Rojas explained that, per the Code, the appellants will get some portion of their appeal fee refunded. He also noted that the two new applicants paid their own application fees as if they would have had a separate application package. He added that, given the fact that the appellants submitted their appeal based on a certain decision which has since changed, he could see justification to refund the entire appeal fee. He stated that the decision made tonight by the Commission can be appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Tetreault noted the View Ordinance for privately owned trees states that the trees should be trimmed to the ridgeline or 16 feet, whichever is lower. He asked how the height of City owned trees is determined. Associate Planner Trester answered that there is no "by right" City tree height limit. She referred to Section 17.76.100 of the Municipal Code discusses City trees. She explained that the criteria is that the trimming eliminate the significant view impairment, the trimming will not result in an unsightly tree and/or likely kill or weaken the tree, and Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 10 the Director of Public Works has determined that the tree has not and will not cause damage to improvements in the public right-of-way. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the Director of Public Works has made a determination that any of these trees has not and will not cause damage to improvements in the public right-of-way. Associate Planner Trester answered that, per her consultation with Public Works, there was no indication of damage to the public right-of-way that would require the removal of the tree. Commissioner Tetreault asked, since tree No. 4 has not caused any damage to the public right-of-way, the only reason tree No. 4 would be removed is because the immediate adjacent property owner has not consented to adopting the tree. Associate Planner Trester answered that was correct. Commissioner Tetreault asked when the last communication that City staff had with the Perez family in regards to their inclination or disinclination to adopt the tree. Associate Planner Trester answered that the Perezes submitted several letters to staff in December stating that did not want to tree No. 4 to be adopted. Commissioner Leon asked staff when it would be anticipated that the trees would be trimmed, if that is the Commission's decision. Associate Planner Trester answered that if a Resolution is adopted at the January 11th meeting and no appeals are filed the trees could be trimmed within the month of January. Commissioner Leon asked if it was possible for residents who adopt a tree to pay the same price for having a tree trimmed that the City would pay. Associate Planner Trester explained that the City has a contract with Western Arborists, and they only do tree trimming for the City and not for individual residents. Commissioner Tetreault noted that since these are City trees there should be a way that the trimming can be requested through the City and the tree adopter pay the City for that tree trimming. Director Rojas added that he does not know how the contracts with Western Arborist are set up, but staff would look into it. Chairman Gerstner stated that there have been public comments about the Perezes not agreeing to adoption of tree No. 4, and that the City had told the residents to wait until after the hearing to try to seek approval from the Perezes. He asked staff to comment. Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 11 Associate Planner Trester clarified that this is in regards to an email with Mr. O'Sullivan, and that she did not mean in any way to dissuade them from talking to their neighbors. She explained that the email was in regards to the writing of covenants, and because she did not know what direction the Planning Commission would give, she suggested in the email that the writing of the covenants wait until after the Planning Commission decision. Chairman Gerstner asked if staff solicited the letters from the Perezes that they did not wish to have the tree adopted. Associate Planner Trester answered that the last letter she solicited from the Perezes was after the May hearing when she contacted all of the tree adjacent residents and received correspondence back. She stated the recent letters submitted were not solicited by staff and were in response to the notice, the recent staff report, and the agenda. Chairman Gerstner clarified that in the original Planning Commission decision, tree No. 4 was to be removed unless it was adopted and that the Code states that the immediate adjacent neighbor to the tree must agree to have the tree adopted. Associate Planner Trester answered that was correct. Chairman Gerstner asked if anything had changed with regards to tree No. 4 with the addition of the two new applicants. Associate Planner Trester answered that the only thing that might change in regards to tree No. 4 is if the Perezes agreed to allow it to be adopted it would have to be trimmed to a lower level. Chairman Gerstner asked staff if it was City Council direction that for City owned trees they should be removed if there is an issue with significant view impairment from a private residence. Associate Planner Trester stated that was correct, and the Municipal Code section requiring this has been in place since 2005. Chairman Gerstner asked staff if they had an estimate of how many City trees have been removed because of that directive. Associate Planner Trester estimated that possibly a total of twenty City trees have been removed because of that directive. Chairman Gerstner stated that he does not see any new compelling evidence to change his decision on tree No. 4. He asked staff if tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were part of the initial application. Planning commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 12 Associate Planner Trester explained that on the very first application tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were considered to be significant in Mr. Yosefour's view at 7306 Berry Hill Drive. However, upon receiving and review all of the correspondence and comments the Director determined that those trees were not significantly impairing the view, and the revised report stated tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were not significantly impairing a view. However, with the new application staff determined that tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 did significantly impair the view from 7284 Berry Hill Drive and the trees were brought back into the decision. Commissioner Tetreault noted a comment made by a speaker that she had observed a pair of hawks flying in and out of one of trees. He asked staff what effect that might have upon this case. Associate Planner Trester explained that recent amendments made to the View Restoration Guidelines included a provision about the Migratory Bird Act, and a condition regarding the Migratory Bird Act would be included in the Resolution. Director Rojas added that the City would have to have a biologist check the tree for nests before the tree can be removed. Vice Chairman Tomblin read from the minutes of the April 4t" Planning Commission meeting and Commissioner Knight's motion regarding trees 4, 6, 8, and 9. He also read further in the minutes the discussion about the possibility of adding more applicants to this application. After reading from the minutes he explained that he did not think the motion and the vote affected tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and that leaving this application open to allow other applicants only referred to tree Nos. 4, 6, 8, and 9, and not tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3. He therefore did not think tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 should be a part of this discussion. Director Rojas agreed, adding that staff then came to the Commission at the next meeting with a memo stating the Commission needs to hold that decision in abeyance so that staff can do the view analysis for the new applicants, since this analysis may result in a change of the Commission's decision. By adding the new applicants, tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are now subject to action due to significant view impairment to the new applicants. Vice Chairman Tomblin questioned if there was an opportunity for someone to adopt tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Director Rojas answered that the Commission can add a condition related to tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 that gives additional time to find someone to adopt those trees. Chairman Gerstner added that the Commission could also add a condition that tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 be trimmed and the view reevaluated and the same time tree Nos. 4, 6, 8, and 9 are trimmed and reevaluated. Planning commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 13 Vice Chairman Tomblin asked if, after the decision is made on these trees, if other residents can submit applications regarding the same trees. Director Rojas answered that there can be multiple applications for any tree. Vice Chairman Tomblin discussed tree No. 4, noting that the Perezes have made it clear they do not want the tree adopted. He asked staff, if the tree is adopted, is there any language in the agreement that the person who adopts the tree also indemnifies the Perez family or covers all of the cost of any damage caused by this tree. Director Rojas explained that this would be a private agreement between the residents and they are free to enter into any private agreement they want to. Commissioner Leon moved to reaffirm the Commission's decision of April 27, 2010 and include in that decision tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to be trimmed and laced as directed for tree Nos. 4, 6, 8, and 9. Further, the residents are to be given until February 1, 2011 to both receive permission to adopt the trees and to adopt the trees. Further, once the trees have been trimmed they are to be reevaluated as to whether they still cause a significant view impairment, and if they do the trees will be removed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Tetreault asked if a refund of the appellant's fee can be included in the motion. Commissioner Leon felt that was completely appropriate and asked staff if that needs to be part of the motion. Director Rojas stated that the language can be part of the motion, but staff is going to refund the fee either way. Commissioner Leon moved to amend the motion to add that the appellant's appeal fee be refunded, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Director Rojas asked for clarification on the motion. He asked to what level tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 should be trimmed. Chairman Gerstner asked staff to what level they were recommending tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 be trimmed. Associate Planner Trester answered that staff's recommendation for tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 was heavy lacing only. She also requested clarification for tree Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 9. She asked if the motion was to trim these trees to the original recommended trim level or to the modified trim level recommended by staff. Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 14 Commissioner Leon answered that it was his intent that the trees be trimmed to the trim level recommended by staff based on their analysis of the two new properties. Chairman Gerstner added that staff should include not only a date of February 1St, but a cutoff time as well. He then asked staff to read back the motion. Director Rojas stated the motion is to reaffirm the previous trimming and lacing direction from the April 7th decision, but trimmed to the new level identified by staff, and adding to that direction the lacing of tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as recommended by staff. Tree No. 4 is to be trimmed if consent is received from the Perez family by February 1. Consent must also be received from the other property owners by that time as well. He stated the Resolution will be brought to the Commission on January 11th Associate Planner Trester asked the Commission to clarify if they wanted to include the language regarding the two year review period where if a tree dies within the first two years the adopting party will be responsible for its removal and replacement. Chairman Gerstner asked staff if that language was included in the original vote taken in April. Associate Planner Trester answered that language was not included in the April decision, explaining this language was added as a result of the new lower and more extensive trimming. Commissioner Leon moved to amend his motion to include that language, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Chairman Gerstner asked if there was a schedule in place as to when the Commission would review the trees after they had been trimmed. He stated that he would like to review the trimming no later than May. Director Rojas commented that could be done. Nancy Parsons asked if it staff could find out if adopters can use the City tree trimmers and get the same fee the City pays when doing tree work, possibly paying the fee to the City for the work. Director Rojas stated he would research the question. Ms. Parsons asked if the two additional applicants were notified of the original decision, and did they have the chance to appeal that decision. Associate Planner Trester answered that the two additional applicants did not receive notice of the original decision, as staff sent a notice of decision to the ten closest neighbors to the trees as well as the applicants. Since they were not applicants at that Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 15 time, they would not have received a notice of decision and would not have been able to appeal the decision. Ann Marinovich asked, if the applicants are not satisfied with the view after the trees are trimmed, at what point do they file an appeal to the City Council. Director Rojas answered that the decision can be appealed based on the Resolution that the Planning Commission will adopt in January, or it can be appealed after the tree trimming review has taken place. Ms. Marinovich asked if the tree adopter will be responsible for replacing damaged sidewalks. Director Rojas answered that the tree adopter is going to only be responsible for maintaining the tree. The Public Works Department has their own rules for who is responsible in situations where trees cause damage to the sidewalks. Director Rojas asked the Commission if there is agreement to continue the public hearing to January 11th so the Commission can discuss this further if there are questions regarding the Resolution. Chairman Gerstner stated that he was not closing the public hearing and the Commission agreed that this be continued to January 11th The motion was approved, and the public hearing continued to January 11, 2011, (5-0). 6. General Plan Update Commissioner Emenhiser suggested that, given Commissioner Knight's involvement and comments on the Circulation Element that discussion of the element be continued to the next meeting. Deputy Director Pfost and the Commission agreed. Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report on the draft Social Services Element, explaining staff felt the best place to put this information would be in the Housing Element. With that, staff created an element called the Housing and Social Services Element, trying to use most of the existing text and the same goals as in the existing General Plan. Staff added a senior services component, as directed by City Council and the Planning Commission at their workshop. He stated that there are several policies included in this section, noting that these policies were not generated by staff but rather a grass roots goals report prepared by a volunteer group led by Ken Dyda. He explained that staff was looking for Commission input on the Social Services Element component and review of the policies. Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 16 Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the draft Social Services Element, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. Commissioner Emenhiser noted a discrepancy in the element in regards to the age of seniors, and felt the number should be uniform throughout. Deputy Director Pfost agreed that it would be better to have consistency. Chairman Gerstner briefly reviewed the policies recommended by the volunteer group, and felt some of the suggestions might have unintended or broader consequences. He noted that No. 21 suggested an increase in walk time at signals, and questioned if the walk time is based upon a standard. Increasing the walk time might slow down the rest of the traffic in the City. He felt that No. 20, fares should be published and updated annually in the City's Newsletter, seemed rather restrictive for a General Plan. He suggested a broader statement that the City should promote and provide adequate information regarding senior services to the City. He felt that No. 18, consideration should be given to a door to door van program, was a program that should be done however he did not think that should be included as part of the General Plan. He felt Nos. 17 and 16 were too specific and could fall under the statement he suggested earlier. He referred to No. 14, which he felt suggested the City take a leadership role in financing a Senior Center. Again, he felt this was too specific for a General Plan. Commissioner Tetreault agreed, suggesting it be better placed as a strategic goal voiced by the City Council. The Commission agreed. Because of the comments made by the Chairman, Commissioner Emenhiser withdrew his motion. Chairman Gerstner asked staff to look at these suggested policies and rewrite them to make them less specific and more appropriate for the General Plan. Deputy Director Pfost stated that staff would come back with revisions to make them more consistent with what is in the General Plan. He stated he would bring these changes back at the January 11th, or subsequent meeting, along with the Circulation Element for the Commission's review. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. Minutes of October 12, 2010 Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (5-0) 8. Minutes of November 9, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 17 Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. Approved, (4-0-1) with Chairman Gerstner recused since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:12 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2010 Page 18