Loading...
PC MINS 20120327 Approved April 24, 2012 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:04 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Emenhiser 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 Deputy Director Pfost, Senior Planner Alvarez, Associate Planner Kim, and Associate Planner Mikhail. Community Development Director Rojas arrived after agenda item No. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director Pfost reported that at their March 20, 2012 meeting the City Council adopted a change to Section 5 of the Rules and Procedures and Council and Commission Protocol, and continued the rest of the item to a future meeting in May. He also reported that at the upcoming April 3rd City Council meeting the Council will hear two items previously reviewed by the Planning Commission regarding the ancillary residential uses in commercial zones as well as the regulation of garage sales in residential districts. Deputy Director Pfost distributed one letter and several photographs related to agenda item No. 1. Commissioner Lewis reported that he met with Trump staff in regards to the dog park. Chairman Tetreault reported that he and Commissioners Leon and Gerstner attended the League of California Cities annual conference for Planning Commission members, Chairman Tetreault also reported that he has been invited by the Hollywood Riviera section in Torrance to discuss the City's view restoration process. He noted that he will be going not as a representative of the Planning Commission, but as person who has some knowledge of how the system works in Rancho Palos Verdes. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (re-garding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. View Restoration Permit No. 2010-00010 Chairman Tetreault began by asking staff why this item was put on the Continued Business section of the agenda rather than the Consent Calendar, which is the typical procedure. Deputy Director Pfost explained that staff knew the foliage owner would be at the meeting and would want to speak on the item, therefore, staff elected to put the item under Continued Business. He noted the public hearing has been closed and any speakers must address only the Resolution and whether or not that Resolution is consistent with the decision rendered by the Planning Commission at the last public hearing. Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, explaining that at the last meeting the Planning Commission voted to approve, with amended conditions, the view restoration permit application. The Commission requested staff come back with a resolution reflecting the amendments for approval by the Commission. He noted in the late correspondence distributed earlier, Mrs. Enna had stated she has since trimmed the Elm tree on her property. Staff subsequently visited Mrs. Goodwin's property to make a determination as to whether or not the tree was trimmed to the height level that staff had proposed to the Planning Commission. He stated that the tree trimming recently done by Mrs. Enna is consistent with the line drawn in the photograph. He noted that there are photographs of the recently trimmed tree in the late correspondence. He also noted that in her late correspondence Ms. Enna had requested the Commission place a condition in the conditions of approval that allow for trimming only during the cooler months. He explained that since the tree was trimmed over the last weekend maintenance trimming will automatically be done as a result of the annual review, any trimming of the tree would be done by the end of March. He also explained that even though the tree has been trimmed, staff felt there should not be any changes to the Resolution before the Commission, as the tree would still be subject to annual trimming from this point forward. He noted that unless the Planning Commission feels further Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2012 Page 2 trimming or crown reduction is appropriate in regard to the Elm tree, there would be no need to change the Resolution before the Commission. Commissioner Leon questioned if staff could imbed the actual photograph with the drawn in height line into the actual Resolution so that all of the requirements of this Resolution can be found in one place. Senior Planner Alvarez stated that staff could do that. Mrs. Enna asked the Planning Commission to clarify how they could make the finding that Ms. Goodwin met the requirement of early neighborhood consultation. She pointed out that she did not know who the applicant, Mrs. Goodwin, was, nor did she have any way to correspond with the applicant because she has no contact information prior to any city notification. She felt she has been at a disadvantage throughout this process, as she did all of the reaching out to Ms. Goodwin. Finally, she explained that while she was in negotiations with Mr. Papadakis she learned he was not affected by her trees because his residence is too far away and her foliage had no impact on Mr. Zar's view. Therefore, when a letter was written in April 2010 that stipulated that Ms. Goodwin was added to the application, yet her address was not shown on the original letter, she felt as if she were being punished. Commissioner Leon asked Mrs. Enna if she felt the Resolution accurately reflects the decision made by the Planning Commission at the prior meeting. Mrs. Enna felt that the Resolution was a reflection of the Commission's decision. Ms. Goodwin stated she has taken pictures from her property and is satisfied with the way the tree was recently tree. She asked that there be an annual review. Lilia Gober stated that at the previous meeting the Commission was discussing trimming tree No. 6 on her property to the point that it no longer blocks the Catalina Island view from Mr. Zar's property and that the trimming doesn't kill the tree. She felt this discussion was up in the air and no decision had been made by the end of the last meeting. She asked if she could trim tree No, 6 so that it does not block the Catalina Island view and would also allow a bit of ocean view. She also pointed out there are owls and nests in the tree. Chairman Tetreault asked staff if, with the mention of an owl's nest in the tree, there is any type of requirement as to when trimming can be accomplished so as not to disturb the nests. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that Federal and State laws prevent any homeowner from trimming a tree containing active bird nests, and the City has guidelines that can be imposed on the conditions of approval so that trimming occurs outside of the nesting season. Ranning Commission Minutes March 27,2012 Page 3 Commissioner Gerstner asked if adding this condition will change anything in regards to the Commission's decision, Senior Planner Alvarez pointed out that in regards to birds and their nests, the guidelines require a qualified biologist to do a nest survey and provide a recommendation to the city, Chairman Tetreault felt that reference to the State statute or regulation in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Gerstner questioned if this is a cost the City would want to put on the applicant because of a statement made. He would want some level of an affirmative statement by someone in writing that nesting exists in the tree. Commissioner Lewis reminded the Commission that they are to vote on whether or not this Resolution conforms to the vote taken two weeks ago at the public hearing, He did not recall birds or nests or state law being discussed at that meeting. He did not think it was appropriate to add new conditions of approval to the Resolution that were not discussed at the previous meeting, Chairman Tetreault agreed, however noted the Commission can do certain things to clarify the decision, but cannot substantively change the wording. He felt that the Commission can ask for an advisory opinion as to whether or not this is a substantive change. He thought that since this is state law, adding this language is a service to the people involved by referring them to a statute that they need to abide by, Deputy Director Pfost agreed that the residents involved do need to abide by this law. He did not think adding such a condition of approval would be a substantive change. Commissioner Lewis felt that the speakers were trying to seek reconsideration of the Commission's vote taken at the last meeting. He also noted that he was not in favor of reconsideration, Chairman Tetreault asked if any Commissioners were in favor of reconsideration, and none responded. In response to Mrs. Enna's question on how the Commission was able to make finding No. 1 in regards to the Goodwin application, Chairman Tetreault explained that at the previous meeting the Commission felt enough evidence was presented to be sufficient to make the finding. Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the Resolution as presented by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. The Resolution was approved, (6-1) with Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2012 Page 4 Chairman Tetreault noted that the foliage owner and applicant are now aware of the state laws that the trimming cannot be performed if there are active nests within the trees. He suggested the foliage owner meet with staff in regards to this statute and the requirements. 2. Conditional Use Permit Revision and Variance Revision (Case No. ZON2012-00038): 5504 Crestridge Road Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the applicant has requested the public hearing be continued to the April 10th meeting to allow them the time to update their plans. The Commission unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing to the April 10, 2012 meeting. NEW BUSINESS 3. Salvation Army trail status report Vice Chairman Emenhiser recused himself from this item, as he lives within 500 feet of the property. Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, reporting that there has been some progress with the Salvation Army as the City Attorney's office and the Salvation Army's legal department have agreed on language for an easement agreement. The draft agreement is currently being reviewed by the City Engineer. Commissioner Lewis moved to receive and file the update, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved without objection. 4. Annual report on the implementation of the General Plan Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining that the annual report not only delineates how the City's General Plan elements are consistent with the seven state mandated elements, it also relays the recent development, progress, and actions taken by the City to implement the goals and policies within the City's General Plan between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011. She also explained that the State requests the annual report be reviewed by both the Planning Commission and the City Council before being forwarded to the State. She concluded by noting that staff believes the goals and policies of the City's General Plan continue to be implemented through the recent developments and actions taken during the 2011 calendar year. As such, staff recommends the Planning Commission direct staff to forward the report to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes March 27,2012 Page 5 Commissioner Leon moved to forward the City's General Plan annual report to the City Council as presented by staff, seconded by Commission Tomblin. The motion was approved without objection. 5. Annual report on the implementation of the Housing Element Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, noting this annual report is an update on the status of the Housing Element and the progress on its implementation during the 2011 calendar year. She briefly reviewed the content of the report and stated that staff again believes that the goals and policies of the Housing Element continue to be implemented by the actions taken by the City and staff was recommends the Planning Commission direct staff to forward the annual report to the City Council. The Commission discussed with staff some potential future projects, including the proposed housing at Golden Cove that will be before the City Council at an upcoming meeting. Commissioner Leon moved to forward the annual report on the implementation of the Housing Element to the City Council, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-agenda for the meeting on April 10, 2012 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2012 Page 6