Loading...
PC MINS 20101109 Approved December 4, 1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Tomblin at 7:06 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Lewis, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Chairman Gerstner was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Associate Planner Trester. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their upcoming November 16th meeting the City Council will hear an item regarding to the Annenberg Foundation's proposed project and its consistency with the Federal Program of Utilization and the General Plan. He noted that the merits of the project will not be discussed. Director Rojas distributed four items of correspondence related to agenda item No. 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): Michael O'Sullivan discussed a past Street Tree Review decision made by the Planning Commission and what he felt was staff's serious misinterpretation of the Planning Commission's direction at that meeting. Marjorie Carter agreed with Mr. O'Sullivan's comments and also questioned if it is proper to add other applicants to an application after a decision has been made by the Commission. Nancy Parsons agreed with the above comments and noted that none of the appellants of this case were notified of the upcoming hearing before the Planning Commission. She was disappointed that staff is not adhering to the Planning Commission's decision. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 200, Revision "B", Grading Permit, and Coastal Development Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00442): Lower Point Vicente Commissioner Lewis stated that he is recused on this matter and left the dais. Director Rojas presented the staff report, noting that the City Council will be addressing the POU and General Plan consistency issues regarding this project at their upcoming meeting. Given that the Commission had stated they wanted to wait until the City Council had held their meeting and the Commission had heard their comments, staff is recommending tonight's public hearing be continued to December 14, 2010. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to December 14, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (6-0). 2. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 68: Lunada Pointe Tract 40640 Associate Planner Trester presented the staff report, stating that staff is requesting the Planning Commission review the revisions staff made to the proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit based on the feedback received from the Planning Commission at the September 28th meeting. She reviewed these revisions to the proposed amendment and explained that staff was recommending approval of the Resolution for the addendum to EIR No. 21 as well as the Resolution for the amendment to CUP No. 68. Commissioner Knight referenced late correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Shen and asked staff to comment on some of the issues raised in the letter. Associate Planner Trester explained that this correspondence was just received and staff has not had the opportunity to review it. Commissioner Lewis suggested hearing the public speakers, which would allow staff time to review the correspondence. Staff could then comment on the correspondence after the speakers. Commissioner Leon asked staff if there are any other tracts within the City that have a Conditional Use Permit attached to them. Planning Commission Minutes November 9,2010 Page 2 Director Rojas answered that he believes every tract approved by the City since 1975 has a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Leon asked if the City could get rid of the Conditional Use Permit for this tract and have the residents in the tract follow the City ordinances and their own CC&Rs to cover anything they wanted to do particular to their tract. Director Rojas explained that the Conditional Use Permit not only addresses foliage, but other development standards that are specific to the tract that were raised during hearings when the tract was approved. He added that the City cannot just get rid of a Conditional Use Permit, but can amend specific conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. Chris Ballinger stated that early in the discussion at the last meeting there was some sympathy for his position, which was that he had an existing right which is more restrictive than the City's ordinance, and that Prop M didn't intend to weaken the protections that were there already. He felt there was a good consensus among the Commission until a question was asked of the Director. He read an excerpt from the minutes of that meeting and felt that the conversation turned around based on the Director's position that once the language from the CUP is recorded in the CC&Rs, the CUP has been complied with. He explained that a CUP is a very common and usual way for cities to enforce through the CC&Rs of a community. He was concerned that, if the City removes condition T", the City will lose the ability to enforce all of the other provisions above T". He felt there are some very important provisions above "F" relating to setbacks, height restrictions, appearance, and coastal zones. He stated that the recommendation pays lip service to the more restrictive HOA, and felt the more restrictive provisions will be gone within a few days of this approval. Finally, this recommendation shifts the burden of proof to the complaining residents, as currently it is the responsible for the violating resident. He encouraged the Commission to not accept staff's recommendation and to not change the CC&Rs. Mina Dahya stated she is a resident whose view is impacted by trees on Marguerite Drive. She noted that she, as a property owner, has done nothing wrong however she no longer has a view. She questioned why she should have to fight an uphill battle to regain her view. She noted that when she purchased her home there was a guarantee that the rules and regulations in her tract through the CC&Rs would be followed. She stated that her concerns are expressed in a recent letter sent to the Planning Commission. Jerome Unatin stated he is speaking as the president of the Lunada Pointe HOA and as a homeowner on Marguerite Drive. He stated that he is in favor of the proposed amendment and has spoken to a majority of the tract home owners, and they also support the proposed amendment. He also noted that at least half of the residents on Laurel Drive not only favor and support the proposed amendment, but they specifically disagree with the Ballinger's and Dahya's comments and positions. He also noted that Planning Commission Minutes November 9,2010 Page 3 the HOA has had to spend quite a bit of money on legal fees because of the various claims by the Ballingers and Dahyas. He reiterated his support, and the majority of the homeowner's support, for the proposed amendment to help clear up the inconsistencies that are occurring in this tract. Commissioner Knight asked Dr. Unatin if he was in agreement with the letter submitted by the Shengs concerning the inconsistencies in the Conditional Use Permit. Dr. Unatin answered that he was in agreement with the letter. Vice Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon asked staff if it was inaccurate to say that the City does not enforce Conditional Use Permits. Director Rojas answered that the City does enforce Conditional Use Permits. Commissioner Leon noted in this CUP there are conditions related to foliage, and he would think the City would be required to enforce whatever is in the CUP. Director Rojas agreed, unless there are internal inconsistencies, which staff identified in this case. Director Rojas referred back to the late correspondence submitted by the Shens and Commissioner Knight's request for staff to comment on the points raised in the letter. He felt that the letter was reiterating some of the same points that staff was making in the last staff report that there seem to be inconsistencies and that enforcing the conditions is problematic. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the addendum as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Lewis felt that this recommendation goes a long way towards avoiding City enforcement of CC&Rs. He noted that the City cannot control what the HOA might do in terms of internally changing their CC&Rs, but they have the right to change their CC&Rs. He felt that staff has done a good job in terms of removing Planning Commission involvement in enforcement of CC&Rs, and that the additional protections that go above and beyond the view ordinance are maintained for as long as the HOA will those extra protections to be in place. Commissioner Knight understood why this view protection was put in place, noting that the tract was created before the view ordinance was passed by the City. However, he noted that there are standards under the CC&Rs that are different than the Prop M standards. He felt that taking out the Planning Commission involvement in enforcing the CC&Rs is the right decision, noting that residents in the tract still have the view Planning Commission Minutes November 9,2010 Page 4 restoration and view preservation applications available to them. He therefore supported this proposed amendment to the CUP. Commissioner Tetreault also felt that the proposed amendment helps to eliminate the confusion and ambiguity that existed before, and therefore also supports the motion. The motion to approve the addendum as recommended by staff, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2010-33 and PC Resolution 2010-34 was approved, (6-0). 3. General Plan Update— Draft Circulation Element and Draft Noise Element Director Rojas stated that there are two elements before the Planning Commission that have the subcommittee comments included with them for review and discussion by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Leon stated that he had requested a number of maps to be part of the Circulation Element, noting that he felt a trails map would be an appropriate inclusion. He felt that maps say much more than page after page of text. Director Rojas noted explained that the current General Plan has the maps that Commission Leon is referring to, and there is a plan to have those maps updated for the revised General Plan. Commissioner Lewis suggested that the Commission be given the existing maps from the current General Plan so that they have a reference point before approving the draft circulation element currently before the Commission. Director Rojas stated that staff will get the current maps from the General Plan to the Commission. Commissioner Leon asked staff if they have a plan as to which of the current graphics are being updated and which of the current graphics are being deleted. Director Rojas answered that staff does have a master plan in regards to the graphics. Commissioner Leon asked that this master plan be shared with the Commission at a future meeting. Commissioner Lewis requested that the draft circulation element come back before the Planning Commission with a list of the maps so that the Commission can have a more intelligent conversation regarding this element. The Commission agreed that the maps were needed to be able to better review the draft circulation element. Planning Commission Minutes November 9,2010 Page 5 Commissioner Emenhiser noted that the Traffic Safety Commission has made several recommendations in regards to the draft Circulation Element, and that the Chair of that Commission is currently present. He suggested she speak to the Commission and give the Commission the benefit of their thinking on this element. Lynn Swank (Chair of the Traffic Safety Commission) explained the Commission's biggest concern in the area is Palos Verdes Drive South, and briefly expanded on those concerns. She noted there is a separate subcommittee working on that issue. Commissioner Knight stated that it would be helpful for him if the Traffic Commission would identify anything in the current draft of the Circulation Element that the Commission feels was not adequately addressed. Commissioner Leon referred to page 13 and felt that, while Palos Verdes Drive South is not yet at a level of service D or F, it should be added to the discussion on that page. Commissioner Lewis stated that he was ill-prepared to discuss the circulation element because of the lack of maps included, and therefore would like to hold his discussion until this draft element comes back to the Commission with the inclusion of the maps. Commissioner Knight stated that he too has comments on the circulation element, but he will also wait until the draft element comes back to the Commission with the maps included. He stated he would also email his comments to the Deputy Director. In discussing the schedule of hearings for the draft elements of the General Plan update, Director Rojas acknowledged that staff would most likely not be able to meet the original deadline established by the City Council. Staff has scheduled a workshop with the City Council tentatively set for January 4, 2011 to present to the Council what has been done to that point. Commissioner Lewis and Vice Chairman Tomblin felt that it would be helpful to have a joint workshop with the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss the issues in the General Plan update. Director Rojas stated he would summarize the Commission's comments for Deputy Director Pfost. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of September 28, 2010 Commissioner Knight noted that on page 15 of the minutes at the end of the CUP 68 discussion that there is not a motion to continue the public hearing, and asked staff to clarify whether or not a motion was made. Planning Commission Minutes November 9,2010 Page 6 Director Rojas stated that would be researched and the minutes will come back to the Commission for approval at the next meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Knight asked that a discussion on how the new fire codes will impact neighborhood compatibility be brought to the Commission on a future agenda. 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on November 23, 2010 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 9,2010 Page 7