Loading...
PC MINS 20120410 Approved Ma " CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES y-T PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 10, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7.-09 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, City Attorney Lynch, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their last meeting the City Council acted on two separate code amendment recommendations from the Planning Commission, The City Council did not follow the Commission's recommendation to not regulate the frequency of garage sales, but instead agreed with staffs recommendation and introduced an Ordinance establishing a limit of four garage sales per calendar year. He also reported that the Council did not follow staffs recommendation to allow residential uses in Commercial Neighborhood Districts, but instead agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation to not pursue the proposed code amendment. Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 2 and a hard copy of the email and attachments from the City Attorney in regards to agenda item No. 2. Commissioners Lewis and Nelson reported on their discussion with numerous members of the public regarding agenda item No. 2. Chairman Tetreault also reported numerous conversations with the public as well as members of the City Council in regards to agenda item No. 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Conditional Use Permit Revision and Variance Revision (Case No. ZON2012-00038): 5504 Crestridge Road Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the project and explaining the requested revisions. She explained that the proposed storage area encroaches six feet into the required 20 feet side setback and sixteen feet into the required 20 foot rear yard setback, and the roof eaves encroach 16 feet into the required 20 foot rear yard setback, all requiring the approval of a Variance. She stated the project exceeds 16 feet in height, as it is proposed at 17 feet, and therefore requires a Conditional Use Permit finding. Further, the new mechanical units require the approval of a Site Plan Review as well as an amendment to a condition in the Conditional Use Permit. She stated that staff was able to make all of the required Variance and Conditional Use Permit findings in order to recommend approval, Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. There being no speaker slips, Commissioner Leon asked why the applicant felt the height of the proposed building had to be 17 feet rather than 16 feet. Director Rojas explained that, unlike residential areas where there is a 16 foot height limit, there is no maximum height limit in non-residential zoning districts. He added that the code states that anything over 16 feet in height in these non-residential zoning districts would require a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Gerstner discussed the conditions in reference to the lighting on the site. He referred to condition No. 26 describing the lighting plan, and noted the use of a lighting contractor. He stated there really is no such thing as a lighting contractor, and suggested the plan be prepared by a lighting consultant. Director Rojas noted that language had been taken directly from the Code, and suggested adding lighting consultant in parenthesis. Commissioner Gerstner noted language discussing wattage, explaining that wattage is the use of electricity and will not tell anyone how much light will be on the site. Director Rojas agreed but stated that language is also from the Code and until the Code language is changed to better address realistic lighting conditions, this is what the Code Planning Commission Minutes April 10,2012 Page 2 tells staff to do. He stated any clarifying language the Planning Commission agrees upon can be added to the existing language. Mr. Gaston (CEO) stated the Art Center has engaged a lighting engineer who is currently in the process of producing a lighting plan. Associate Planner Mikhail added that the California Building Code contains requirements for more energy efficient lighting which is more restrictive than the current Development Code. The Art Center will be required to meet the standards set in the Building Code, She also clarified that there is no proposed parking lot lighting on this application, as the Art Center has already had a Variance approved by the City for their parking lot lighting. Chairman Tetreault moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve staff's recommendations, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Approved, (7-0). Because the City Attorney had not yet arrived for agenda item No. 2, the Commission unanimously revised the agenda to hear agenda item No. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES I Minutes of February 28, 2012 Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (6-0-1) with Vice Chairman Emenhiser recused as he was absent from that meeting. NEW BUSINESS 2. Discussion of forthcoming outreach by the City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee regarding,City Council Rules of Procedure and Commission Committee protocol Director Rojas explained this item is before the Planning Commission as a result of a City Council action on April 3rd where the Council agreed to obtain feedback on the Rules of Procedure and Protocols from the different Commissions and Committees. He was contacted by Chairman Tetreault and asked to agendize this item for the Planning Commission discussion. Chairman Tetreault explained that at the last City Council meeting an ad-hoc subcommittee was formed to review proposed changes to rules of procedure as well as the proposed protocol for the City's commissions and committees. The City Council was looking for outreach and feedback from the commissions and committees and voted to do so and to have a member of the sub-committee visit each of the City's Planning Commission Minutes April I0,2012 Page 3 commissions and committees to obtain feedback as to the proposals. Being that there is quite a bit of material involved and that there are a number of people who have taken a great interest in the contents of the rules and procedures and the protocols, he felt it would do the City and the ad-hoc committee a service for the Planning Commission to take some time to discuss the issues before a member of the ad-hoc committee attends a Planning Commission meeting. He noted that there has been some confusion as to what the Commission is reviewing and discussing at this meeting. He pointed out that on the City's website the agenda says the Commission will only be discussing the protocol and that the notice that went out to the public was a discussion on protocol only. However the Commission has received information from the City Attorney's office regarding the rules and procedures. He asked staff if the Commission should be discussing it all, or should they limit their discussions to only that portion which was noticed to the public. Director Rojas noted that the subject of the staff report is protocol and procedure and both items are on the agenda. After discussing this issue with the City Attorney, he felt that the Commission can discuss both. He also noted that the information from the City Attorney's office on rules and procedures is considered late correspondence and is available for the public to review. Commissioner Lewis disagreed. He stated that the content of the staff report that was available to the public does not contain the same information as what was given to the Commission by the City Attorney's office. He was always concerned whenever the Commission is asked to deliberate about materials or documents that the public doesn't have. He suggested using this meeting as an opportunity to discuss scheduling issues and issue spotting but that no votes be taken on this issue at this meeting until they have heard from members of the public. He noted only one member of the public is in the audience and suspected that if the entire package of late correspondence from the City Attorney had been included in the staff report, that there would be more people in the audience. Chairman Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Lewis, stating he was reluctant to discuss the rules and procedures without first allowing the public to have the opportunity to review the information that was presented to the Planning Commission late this afternoon by the City Attorney. Commissioner Nelson suggested having a joint meeting with the City Council when both of these items are discussed so that the entire City Council can hear the Planning Commission's comments. That way the City Council is not listening to various opinions as they come back to them through the ad-hoc committee and they can fully take into account what is said by the Commission and any members of the public who choose to speak. Commissioner Lewis agreed, noting it has been several years since there has been a joint workshop with the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes April 10,2012 Page 4 City Attorney Lynch apologized for the lateness of the documents from her office. She explained that the documents provided are the red-lined copy of the rules that were provided to City Council on March 20th. The red-lined document has not changed and is the same as that provided to the Council on March 20th'. The second document provided as late correspondence was a copy of the current rules with a change made to rule No. 5, which was adopted by the City Council on March 20". Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Sharon Yarber discussed her issues with the staff report and how she felt it indicated that the added paragraph five of the current rules has been passed and the remainder of the proposed revisions were going to be discussed later. She stated that looking at the March 20th video of the City Council meeting it is very clear that everything is on the table. She stated there seemed to be a sense of urgency about getting paragraph 5 adopted because there were concerns about the agenda being hijacked by a rogue council person or two. She also stated that these proposed rules have been before the public since the staff report was distributed for the March 20th City Council meeting, She agreed that the Planning Commission should not take any action at this meeting, as she felt this item was to be a discussion. She also supported the idea of a joint meeting so that nothing gets filtered when the ad hoc committee reports back to the full City Council. As background information, City Attorney Lynch explained that many of the rules and protocol ideas were largely taken from the protocol of the City of Rolling Hills Estates. She welcomed any input and suggested revisions. Chairman Tetreault led the discussion by revealing each protocol item one at a time. He also noted that he had distributed his written proposed revisions to the protocol that he would be referring to throughout the discussion, and that there were copies available to members of the public. Beginning with A-1, he felt the wording was rather vague and didn't really set any standards upon which the Commission could be measured. He suggested replacing the language in A-1 with the following language: Members of City Commissions and Committees shall at all times during the performance of their duties, adhere to their oath of office and comply with all state ethics laws for public officials. The Commissioners agreed with the Chairman's suggested language. Commissioner Lewis noted that when he read the rules and protocol as proposed he was under the impression that City Council would also be bound by these rules. Therefore, he suggested adding language to the Chairman's draft to make it inclusive of the City Council. City Attorney Lynch confirmed that the protocol was intended to cover the City Council as well as the Commissions and Committees. Planning Commission Minutes April 10,2012 Page 5 Commissioner Leon felt that there is a significant amount of overlap between the protocols and the rules. He did not think it was generally a good idea to state the requirement in two different places using different words, as it would most likely cause conflicts. He therefore felt that protocols and rules should be different documents that address different topics. Chairman Tetreault read item No. 2. He commented that from time to time a resident, contractor, or architect who is familiar to the Commission may speak. He noted that there may be a certain level of familiarity with these people, as they are seen quite often at the meetings. He cautioned this familiarity may give the wrong impression, and suggested that in the spirit of item No. 2 he felt it would be could practice to address these people by their last name. Commissioner Nelson stated he would like to see the word "encourage" added to No. 2. He felt it was important to encourage residents or concerned parties to speak before a Commission, Committee, or the City Council if they feel strongly on a subject. Chairman Tetreault read item No. 3. Commissioner Lewis noted that when he has a question of staff on a particular item which may require some research by staff, he will email or call staff ahead of the meeting with the questions. However, he felt that there are times when it is for the public's benefit to have staff answer a question live at a meeting with the other Commissioners watching. He felt it would be appropriate to make allowances for this in the protocol. He felt it was important to strike a balance and he would consider proposed language between now and the next meeting. City Attorney Lynch appreciated the comments, noting that the language does say when at all possible. She did not think No. 3 was meant to be a limitation to prevent someone from asking a question at a meeting. Chairman Tetreault read item No. 4. Commissioner Lewis thought No. 4 was a bit vague, explaining there are conflict of interest laws that are very clear. He felt reasonable minds could differ on what is considered the common good of the City. He felt the language was subjective and should be rewritten. As an example, he proposed the language could be rewritten to say that Commissioners and Council members should avoid conflict of interest as defined by the Government Code. Commissioner Gerstner agreed the language is vague and the language should be tied to something that is founded in law and has been tested by many cities to achieve what is desired. Commissioner Leon agreed that the protocols should not be vague. But by the same token, the protocols are one step above the rules and should be more general, Planning Commission Minutes April 10,2012 Page 6 Chairman Tetreault noted his suggestion to replace the language in Section 4 with the following: Represent and work to protect the rights of all residents of the City without favoritism, conflict of interest, or for personal gain. Commissioner Nelson agreed. He questioned what happens to the minority with the term "common good", as common good is what the majority says it is, Chairman Tetreault read No. 5, with no comments from the Commission. Chairman Tetreault read No. 6, Commissioner Lewis stated that he liked the Chairman's proposed wording for No. 6; however he most likely would propose language to the sub-committee stating that should Committee and Commission members from time to time receive confidential information outside of a closed session, that information should not be disclosed. He felt there is a gap in the rules and protocol that doesn't address information obtained outside of the context of a closed session yet is still confidential. Chairman Tetreault asked the City Attorney if she knew of any situations where Commission or Committee members would come across confidential information which should not be disclosed to the public. City Attorney Lynch answered that there have been situations where the City Attorney's office has provided confidential attorney client privileged memos to the Planning Commission or other committee members, and such memos are subject to the attorney client privilege. She stated that she felt the Chairman's edits were interesting and also agreed with Commissioner Lewis' comments that the language in No. 6 should cover other confidential communications. She added that she could not think of any situation where confidential memos or information would come from any place but the City Attorney's office. Chairman Tetreault read protocol Nos, 7 through 13 with no comments from the Commission. Chairman Tetreault read protocol No. 14, Vice Chairman Emenhiser questioned the wording of No. 14 and if it says that he has to have a member of staff with him when he attends his HOA meeting, a Chamber of Commerce meeting, or a CHOA meeting. Chairman Tetreault noted that No. 14 says when a quorum attends the meeting. Therefore he did not need a member of staff to attend. City Attorney Lynch understood the Vice Chairman's concerns, and suggested adding: language to define it a bit more narrowly by saying when the discussion is involving City business or business of the particular Committee or Commission. Pianning Commission Minutes ApM 10,201'2 Page 7 Chairman Tetreault read protocol No. 15. Commissioner Lewis stated that he found that language to be unnecessary and vague and he would inform the sub-committee of his opinion. He posed the scenario that he may choose to protest the war in Afghanistan. That is not being particularly supportive of the federal government, and questioned if a Commission or Committee member surrenders that First Amendment right when they volunteered to be on the Commission or Committee. He questioned what problem is trying to be fixed with this language, and was not sure this language accomplishes solving that problem. Chairman Tetreault asked the City Attorney, given Commissioner Lewis' scenario, if there are any First Amendment implications to No, 15. City Attorney Lynch answered there may be First Amendment implications to No. 15. Commissioner Leon noted that No. 15 actually states to improve the intergovernmental relationships. He did not think that meant you couldn't disagree on issues, but you want to do it in a constructive way with good relationships. He felt No. 15 was trying to say work together, and if it doesn't resonate that way then perhaps the language should be changed so that it focuses on the relationship. City Attorney Lynch agreed that was most likely the intent of No. 15, and suggested language that says work to improve intergovernmental relationships, Chairman Tetreault read No. 16. Vice Chairman Emenhiser addressed Nos. 16 and 17. He gave the scenario that the City of Los Angeles wanted to do an improvement on Western Avenue that the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes were very much opposed to. He questioned if he could write a letter to the editor of the Daily Breeze, or could he go to the Los Angeles Planning Commission meeting and indicate that he has some background and expertise as he currently serves on the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission. He asked if Nos. 16 and 17 could be stretched in such a way that by doing so he could then be in violation of the protocol, Commissioner Lewis understood where the sub-committee was going with No. 16, and very much liked Chairman Tetreault's suggested revisions. He proposed revising the Chairman's language to strike "unless you are acting in your official capacity." He felt the phrase was too vague. Commissioner Nelson agreed with Commissioner Lewis' comment. City Attorney Lynch felt the Chairman's suggested revisions for No. 16, as well as Commissioner Lewis' revision captures the intent of the protocol. Chairman Tetreault read No. 17. Planning Commission Minutes April 10,2012 Page 8 Commissioner Gerstner stated he is constantly in front of groups of people in other cities in the capacity of his job and they are aware of his position as a Planning Commissioner. They know he is not acting in his official capacity as Planning Commissioner, but will ask how things are in the City. If he is asked by government bodies who he is and what he does, he will tell them that he is a Planning Commissioner. He felt that the wording of No. 17 is inappropriate. Commissioner Nelson agreed, and felt Nos. 16 and 17 were basically gag orders placed on Commission and Committee members that are neither appropriate nor professional. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioners Gerstner and Nelson's comments. He also stated that while working on a Board he had to speak before the Planning Commission of another city and was addressed as Mr. Chairman of the Planning Commission. This felt this could be interpreted as a violation of No. 17. Chairman Tetreault read his revision to No. 17. Commissioner Lewis liked the Chairman's revision. He added that he felt this rule was generated out of a concern in the past of a number of public officials, including City Council members, speaking out of turn. He suggested this revision to rule No. 17 also include City Council members if they want to completely fix the problem as perceived by the City Council. Chairman Tetreault understood what is trying to be accomplished with No. 17, however he was concerned about restricting speech rights and the ability of Commission members to go to a governmental body and express an opinion and perhaps identify themselves as having some practical experience in what they're speaking of by talking about the fact they may be a Committee or Commission member. He felt that, here again, there may be a restriction of First Amendment free speech rights. He asked the City Attorney if she might have the same concerns. City Attorney Lynch felt there may be an implication of First Amendment rights. She referred to the Chairman's suggested language, and felt the added qualification that the Committee or Commission member state they are speaking as an individual and not representing the City, was a helpful addition. She added that the City Council was sensitive to a Commission or Committee member using their position to somehow heighten or strengthen their remarks and how their remarks should be considered. Commissioner Gerstner added that Committee and Commission members are very proud of what they do, and sometimes they will identify themselves as a Committee or Commission member, not because they are trying to add influence, but simply because they are proud of who they are and try to explain who they are. He therefore felt this protocol would be very difficult to enforce in a reasonable common sense kind of way. Chairman Tetreault read No. 18. Planning Commission Minutes April 10,2012 Page 9 Commissioner Gerstner questioned if there is an issue before the Commission that he must disqualify himself from, is he then allowed to speak as a private citizen on the matter. City Attorney Lynch answered that he could speak as a private citizen, as it is within the provisions of the Political Reform Act. She added that if a topic affects a Commissioner's personal interest, the Commissioner still has the ability to speak and represent their personal interests. She added that what is not allowed is a Commissioner representing someone else's interest before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the way No. 18 was worded a Commissioner could not address the Planning Commission on an item even if that Commissioner was recused from the item and speaking as a resident. City Attorney Lynch felt language could be added for clarification. Chairman Tetreault read No. 19 without comment from the Commission, Chairman Tetreault read No. 20. He noted that Government Code Section 87407 addresses this topic, but with what he thought was better language. He suggested using the Government Code language, City Attorney Lynch agreed. Commissioner Leon felt Nos. 18 and 20 were redundant and should be combined, noting that anyone who is negotiating or seeking employment has a financial interest. Chairman Tetreault read part B of the protocol. He noted that part B is redundant with Municipal Code Section 2.20.020, which says that members of the Planning Commission serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Commissioner Lewis agreed. He added that if the City Council wants to retain this language he suggested the language mirror "C" so that it reads as follows: Commissioners or Committee members who do not abide by this protocol are subject to warning, reprimand, admonishment, censure, or removal by a majority vote of the Council. Commissioner Lewis repeated and emphasized Commissioner Nelson's earlier suggestion that a joint workshop with the full City Council would be the most productive way to proceed, rather than solely with the sub-committee. Chairman Tetreault noted that since the Commission did not receive the rules and procedures until late in the afternoon, that it would be prudent to continue discussion on that portion of the item to allow the Commission and the public to review the document. Planning Commission Minutes April 10,2012 Page 10 The Commission agreed without objection to continue the discussion on the rules and procedures to the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Nelson moved to invite the City Council to a joint workshop to discuss the issues in the protocol and the rules and procedures, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-agenda for the meeting on April 24, 2012 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved without objection. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 10,2012 Page 11