Loading...
PC MINS 20120508 Approved June 26, 2012 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES JOINT CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Council members Brooks, Campbell, Duhovic, Knight, Mayor Misetich. Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: None Also present were City Manager Lehr, City Attorney Lynch, City Clerk Morreale, Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Kim, and Associate Planner Seeraty. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their May 1't meeting the City Council directed that the Planning Commission develop a permit process to allow hedges over 42 inches in height in the front yard setback. Director Rojas distributed several items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 1 and four letters of late correspondence for agenda item No. 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1 Discussion of the City Council Rules of Procedure and proposed Commission protocol Director Rojas presented the staff report, giving a brief background of how this joint meeting came about and the materials provided in the staff report. Mayor Misetich stated the items being discussed will be the Rules of Procedure and the proposed Commission and Committee protocols, and that the subcommittee is looking for feedback and input from the Commission and the public. He noted that it has been questioned as to why the City Council is looking at the Rules of Procedure and Protocol and he explained that, unlike other cities, this City has never had any type of code of conduct for its Council, commission, and committee members. He felt it was good practice to have guidelines for conduct of person holding a position in the City. In regards to the Rules of Procedure, he explained how the current rules do not address the volume of any given agenda and how agendas will be prepared. He noted that the subcommittee has already received feedback from the public and the Commission and much of what they have heard is worthwhile to consider. He also mentioned that Councilman Duhovic has suggested taking the time normally allotted for a closed session and utilize that time to discuss future agenda items. This meeting would be open to the public and would allow the Council to decide the priority of agenda items that should be on the agendas, Mayor Misetich explained that he would like to now ask the Commission for their feedback, starting with the protocols and specifically item No. 17 which seems to be the Commission's biggest concern. Commissioner Nelson began by reading No. 17. He felt that the way No. 17 is currently worded is basically a gag order and did not know where it fits into the freedom of speech. He felt City Attorney advice is needed. He also noted that there are some Commission or Committee members who have a profession of speaking before other bodies, and at times noting what they do for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is part of that speech. He did not think it would be a good use of City Council time to have to authorize perhaps seven or eight of these allowances to speak every time the Council meets. Commissioner Leon agreed with Commissioner Nelson, adding that item No. 17 overstates what we need as a City. He felt that perhaps having others not represent themselves in a comment as representing the majority of the City would be a better statement, but to actually withhold the information that one is on a Commission or Committee is overzealous. Commissioner Gerstner explained that it is part of his profession to regularly speak to senior people in other cities. He felt that the protocol, while well intentioned, over accomplishes what the Council is trying to accomplish. He felt the Council may be trying to make sure there is no perception by the other people that one is representing the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. He did not think the solution is to specifically require a certain statement or the lack of a statement in order to accomplish that. He felt it was important to have a rule with common sense enforcement such that it doesn't gag those Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 2 who are trying to not misrepresent themselves as members of the City and representing City ideas, but by the same token allow one to speak to these people in a manner that doesn't make one seem like a fool. He stated it would be very inappropriate and unprofessional if every time he spoke to a client he had to make the disclaimer. He would support a rule that could be enforced and more based in a common sense solution. Vice Chairman Emenhiser stated his service to the City is done out of a love for the City and an opportunity to serve its citizens. He acknowledged that he serves at the will of the City Council, and that general guidelines are a good thing. However, he had concerns with item Nos. 14, 16, and 17 and their interpretation. In item No. 14 he questioned if staff is needed to follow the Commissioners around at various community meetings. In item No. 16 he questioned if there is really a chance an individual member can make commitments that will bind the City to some action. As an example, he questioned if members of the Commissions or Committees actually give up their right to write a letter to the editor about issues of concern to them. In regards to item No. 17, he questioned if members of the Commissions or Committees forgo the right to make presentations to other bodies and to mention their service with the City, and also questioned what impact that would have on the professionals who serve on the Commissions and Committees. Chairman Tetreault began by stating his understanding of No. 17 was in response to a complaint from a member of the Rolling Hills Estates City Council after a member of this City's Traffic Commission offered a comment at the Rolling Hills Estates Traffic and Safety Committee meeting. He asked what the perceived problem was with that and how does the proposed protocol correct that situation. Mayor Misetich felt it was an explanation of clarity. However, he felt the way the rule is written it could restrict people from having the ability to speak to outside agencies as an individual. He also felt that many of the comments from the Commission in regards to this have merit and he agrees with them. He noted the Chairman has made suggestions on how it may be better written, and that is why the Council is here for that feedback. The City Council certainly does not want to restrict your free speech rights, and that was not the intent. The recommendations on how that may be better written are certainly welcome Commissioner Knight stated that to help answer the question, the City Council did receive a letter from the City in question on the particular incident being talked about that specifically asked us, did this individual represent the position of the City or not. So it's not a perceived, it wasn't a, could this happen or could it not, we got a letter from them asking us that, so it's was a real situation. Councilwoman Brooks thanked the Commission for their input. As a fellow subcommittee member along with the Mayor she pointed out the following: The feedback that we have gotten, both from you, other members of the Commission, members of the public, members from other committees has really been a very positive Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 3 force for us to produce a document, that I believe in the end, we did not intend for it to become something of the magnitude that it is turning out to be. But I do believe that in the end we'll probably have a stellar document that can be a prototype for other cities to follow. So, this is a learning experience for all of us and we are looking for your feedback, your critique, your input and, Chairman Tetreault, you have submitted a number of suggestions that the subcommittee has been looking at and the wording is and the way you address these is very well put and we will be taking all this testimony and be able to present something to the Council and work together with the Council and we really appreciate your input. But I did just want to point out that the letter concerning, it was as Councilman Knight pointed out, this was a letter from somebody in Palos Verdes Estates not Rolling Hills Estates. The Rolling Hills Estates issue was something else. But the Palos Verdes Estates issue had to do with a member of the Traffic and Safety Commission from the Mayor, it is letter from the Mayor so it is a matter of public record, bringing it to our attention, and actually the goal here really was to be discrete about this in a professional manner so that we could really move forth because all these individuals are, we believe they're good at the job they do, and the problem is that now it has been brought to this level so it makes us have to point out specific examples. But, this individual had appeared three times before the Palos Verdes Estates Traffic and Safety Committee within the last year and at two of those appearances identified himself as a member of the RPV Traffic and Safety Commission. So, reading from the letter, they say while PV Estates certainly respects the right of every citizen to address the Council or our Committees and Commissions in any matter of concern I believe it is inappropriate for an individual to refer to his position within another jurisdiction. Such reference could be interpreted as representing an official position of that City, or could imply by virtue of his position, that his comments should be given greater weight than other members of the public. He goes on to say that he assumes this member was acting on his own without the knowledge and approval of our Council and if he's mistaken then a communication to their government pursuant to our direction, please let him know. This is where we as Council members, gentlemen, it's a little different than it might be for you in the Planning Commission role, but as City officials representing an elected body we have to represent all the cities on the hill. Together we work, we comingle funds through transportation agencies, we work with the PV Transit with Palos Verdes Estates, we work with the regional sheriff on three of our cities, so we do have a variety of issues that sort of put us sometimes in a compromising situation that we might not otherwise be in. And because we share the same school district, we share the same library, we share the same land mass, there is a venue in which we need to, the request is to have an underlying respect for each others rules of government. And so, that is the basis for this, Mayor Pro-Tem Campbell asked Councilwoman Brooks if there was any detailed information as he was a little bit at a loss as to exactly what was said by this person in front of the Palos Verdes Estates Committee. He stated the following: I mean do we know exactly what was said. And number two, was there any other comment or response back from an official of that City besides that one letter. And was he acting on behalf of their entire City Council or just as an individual. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 4 Councilwoman Brooks answered that to her knowledge he was. She stated the following: His name is signed here and I know that the City Manager and the City Manager's city government they work well together, they have to work well together because very often we as Council members, some of us here, you know work in other jobs outside and do not have the time to attend all these activities and meetings. But this is actually an example but the point here is to have an underlying respect and that's what we're seeking to do, but I do think that the wording that Commissioner that Chairman Tetreault has provided gives us a good basis by which to follow. Plus, there are several other people who have stepped forward with cumulative verbiage as well as Commissioner Lewis. So I do think that this is a learning experience for all of us and I would like for us to look at it that way. Mayor Misetich really appreciated Chairman Tetreault's recommendation. Not only was he able to critique the item but he was able to provide his recommendation, which is most helpful. Chairman Tetreault stated that the Mayor made kind of an example of something he might do, such as go himself to the Harbor Commission and provide some public comment before the Harbor Commission. He stated the following: The issue was whether or not he should identify himself as being mayor of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes when he did so. I dare say, you are probably recognizable at the Harbor Commission as being the Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes as so, but that illustrates a point. They may know, on the Commission, that you are the Mayor for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the other people in the audience perhaps may not know that. And so, if you don't disclose who you are, and they don't acknowledge who you are, and then there is something going on there. There is a lack of communication and a lack of transparency in the room. And so, I believe that, especially in an era where we're looking for the greatest level of transparency that the idea that we are not going to be transparent about something, that we are going to be restricted from being able to disclose a fact about ourselves and perhaps about our background and about our experience. You know, our Traffic Safety Commissioner that we're speaking of, the former Chair, knows his stuff. He's been on our Traffic Safety Commission for a number of years. He probably had some very good input to give to the people who were addressing an issue regarding traffic safety in the city of Palos Verdes Estates, For him not to say that, for him not to say he has that experience, for them not to know that about him really waters down the weight of his comments. I think everyone is well served in the room when we have these public forums like this to have as much information as possible as long as its germane, it isn't violating any issues regarding confidentiality, it isn't a violation of the public trust, it does not harm anyone, and it's made very, very clear the person, is speaking as a private citizen, I think the burden is very high upon any governmental entity to try to restrict speech in this matter. That is why I made the recommendation that I did which has been given to you, has been passed out to you as part of late correspondence. Actually, not late correspondence but it is addition to the revisions and amendments to the agenda. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 5 Mayor Misetich felt the Chairman's comments were well taken. He stated the following: I think that if Rancho Palos Verdes adopts a protocol that allows an individual to go ahead and identify themselves and also state whether they are there in an official capacity or not, or as an individual, I think we have a document then to point to for our fellow government bodies that somebody may appear in front of. That way we can say, look the person is acting within our guidelines that we have, and that's the way it is. Of course we want to be as fair as possible on this. The comments are well taken, and thank you for those. Councilman Knight asked Chairman Tetreault for clarification. He stated the following: You make an argument that maybe that the Committee and Commission members should always mention who they are so the audience could understand their position or authority or whatever. I want to make sure I understand, is that your intention or if they were to mention they were part of the committee then they need to say they are speaking as an individual. Chairman Tetreault felt there was a time and place for that. He stated the following. If I were to appear before the Palos Verdes Estates Traffic and Safety Committee and to talk to them about a traffic safety issue, my position on the Planning Commission is of no relevance to that at all. But if I were to go to one of the other, like Rolling Hills Estates or PV Estates and they wanted to revive the issue of having a European Village concept up at Peninsula Center and I wanted to speak to them from a planning standpoint, well then my position as being a Planning Commissioner would be relevant. Councilman Knight asked the Chairman if he was comfortable with disclosure being at the discretion of the individual. He stated the following: You don't want to put it into the rules that they always have to mention it, you just are saying if they were mention it then they need to declare they are speaking as an individual unless otherwise authorized. Chairman Tetreault stated a certain amount of discretion is required here. He stated the following, If I were to go to some governmental agency and testify regarding something that has nothing to do with my experience as being on a Planning Commission, for me to gratuitously state that I'm on the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would be inappropriate. Councilman Knight wanted to be clear that Chairman Tetreault's recommendation is not to always require that in terms of the rules, but just leave it at the discretion, but if they do mention that, then to be clear as to whether they are authorized or not to speak. Chairman Tetreault stated that was correct. Councilwoman Brooks asked the Chairman to read his suggested wording for item No. 17. Chairman Tetreault stated his recommendation was to replace protocol No. 17 with the following: If a member of a City Commission or Committee who testifies before an Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 6 administrative body of a governmental agency outside the City identifies himself or herself as a member of a City Commission or Committee, that member must also state the he or she is not appearing or testifying in any official capacity or is representing the views or opinions of the City unless that member is providing such testimony as an official representative of the City as authorized by the City Council. He questioned if this should then be expanded to apply to the City Council. Mayor Misetich stated it would apply to the City Council as well. Commissioner Lewis agreed with the proposed revisions by Chairman Tetreault. He wanted to throw a couple of items out there on this point. He stated the following- Item 1, there has been a discussion about another issue involving a sister city. There's been a lot of discussion about what, why these rules came into being and why we're here at this point. One of the reasons is my understanding is that my law firm filed a lawsuit representing a party who wanted to sue a sister city on the hill, and I was informed by a member of City Council that was inconsistent and incompatible with my services on Planning Commission and I was pressured to, pressure was put on me concerning my filing of that law suit. I believe that is one of the reasons we are here today adopting these rules. That said, I'm happy with what Commissioner Tetreault has proposed for rule No. 17. 1 don't think, as he's put it, that would impinge on my right to represent clients. I think it's important that our City Council adhere to many of the campaign promises that were made in terms of encouraging citizen involvement. And if you want to encourage citizens to come up here and volunteer their time, volunteers need to know that the City Council and the City has the volunteers' back and that they're not going to be surrendering their First Amendment right, they're not going to be surrendering their right to make a living, and they're not going to be pressured inappropriately if activities that do not affect their services on a Commission are conducted. One other issue, I do not know, but I suspect that there's more than just a letter about our Chair from the Traffic Commission coming to speak. I imagine there were phone calls, there were discussions, there was pressure put to bear on each of the five of you. For my part, if my law suit increased that pressure, I'm sorry and I apologize for that. But, one possible solution to that pressure that you all felt, that discomfort, is instead of putting in a new rule, is to turn around and look at that mayor or that council member from another jurisdiction and say, look I'm proud of the residents of my City. I'm proud of the volunteers and the diversity of thought of the people who come up and volunteer and serve in our City. And perhaps there needs to be a little less sensitivity from the sister cities, a little less, my gosh is Jeff Lewis representing the city of RPV when he's filing a law suit or is it just Jeff Lewis making a living and representing a client who had a case. So, I would encourage each of you, when it comes time to vote on item No. 17, when you're thinking about possible solutions instead of just looking at the rules maybe consider in the way you interact with sister cities, acting in a way that will build the public trust and encourage those sister cities to maybe back off a little bit and have a little more respect for individuals who come up and volunteer their time. Mayor Pro-Tem Campbell was troubled hearing that Commissioner Lewis was pressured by a Council person in Rancho Palos Verdes regarding what he does for a Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 7 living. He stated the following: That shouldn't happen. My own opinion is that when you volunteer to serve on one of our Commissions or Committees that you should be encouraged to be active out in the community, you should be encouraged to speak in front of Homeowners Associations and other professional groups, we should be proud and we should support and encourage free speech and a diversity of opinions when they're out there. I'm also troubled about what I heard regarding the former Traffic Safety Chairman and what was supposedly said according to one letter which we still haven't heard from a former sister city mayor as to whether or not he was writing that letter. I think it is on their City letterhead. Is he writing that letter I presume then on behalf of their entire City Council or is he writing it as an individual? If so much has been made out of this testimony in front of a sister city Traffic Safety Committee we should know more details about that before we just throw one of our citizens under the bus and just assume that the hearsay and gossip that we hear is necessarily true. That's the only example I have heard that's the driver behind this entire protocol process that has eaten so much of our time and effort and has caused so much consternation amongst our valuable volunteers in the community and as each day goes by more and more regular citizens are becoming aware of this. So I think as a Council we have to be very respectful, very careful as to just how many rules that we try to burden our residents, particularly those most valuable ones when it comes to the ones that want to volunteer to help the City be a better place, as all of you have and as all of the Council members have. Mayor Misetich stated to Commissioner Lewis that it certainly is not the committee's intent to ostracize somebody for how they make their living. He stated the following: I mean, you can make your living however you want to as long as, I guess it's legal. I mean, that is not the intent of the protocols. The protocols are, as I mentioned to Chairman Tetreault, some guidelines that we can point to to our fellow cities and in fact, do as you say. We're proud of our citizens for doing what they do, we're proud of our citizens for speaking out, we have a set of guidelines, they're within the guidelines, and it is not infringing on their free speech rights or doing anything that is illegal in your jurisdiction. They have a right to come and speak at any public body and there should be no problem with that. At least it sends a communication that we do have our Commissioners acting within the guidelines. And so, certainly again, there is no reference to how someone would make their living. Commissioner Duhovic stated he would like to ask something. He stated the following: Something is troubling me and debating whether or not to bring it up, but I've heard it from more than one individual, and I'm not one to usually jump into the fray with respect to rumor mills, gossip, etc. etc. But there was a pretty significant accusation made with respect to the Mayor's letter from Palos Verdes Estates, and I heard it from more than one person, and I want the record to be clear for the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes. The insinuation is that a Rancho Palos Verdes City Council person asked for that letter. Very troubling to me. This is a very serious accusation and I for one am going to go on record that I did not ask for that and I think it would be appropriate for every person that didn't ask for it to go on record with that so we can move forward and dispel with that rumor. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 8 Mayor Pro-Tem Campbell stated he did not ask for it. Mayor Misetich stated that he also did not ask for the letter. He stated the following: The letter was sent forth, it was a communication between their Mayor to our City Council. I mean, every one of you got a copy of it, did you not. Councilman Duhovic stated he got a copy of it. The question to him is what is the genesis of the letter and the timing of the letter. Councilwoman Brooks interjected. She stated the following: We broached this issue as a result of challenges that this new Council was facing, and as I mentioned earlier we have neighboring cities that we have to work with. There may be some dissention on this Council with this issue, and there is a subcommittee addressing this issue, I'm not sure that this is the proper venue for us to be addressing this, but these members knowing that we were on this subcommittee together came forward to our City through the City Managers and through each other, and contacted me and contacted the City Manager and they let us know that this was taking place. This placed them, they felt, in a precarious position of trying to exert influence. Now the question is this, you Mr. Lewis do not abridge, your First Amendment rights are not abridged in your right to step forward and sue the city of Rolling Hills Estates on their EIR. That is your right to do so. And your website prominently displays that you are a member, have been on the Traffic Commission and are now on the Planning Commission. The issue that came before the members of the Rolling Hills Estates City Council concerning input, since you're bringing this up, had to do primarily with the fact that you have every First Amendment right to speak as you wish, but asking this City Council when there are so many people who are so qualified to do these jobs that come before and step forward in the public, do we look at that, do we want to look at that as an asset or a liability. And so that's an issue that we're addressing. Many cities address this issue in a code of conduct. The City of Rolling Hills Estates ten years ago was faced with, I would say what they would identify now as a rogue council member and it created the need for a lot of research to go into creating what they now have as their code of conduct. We the subcommittee looked at various cities, starting with Santa Ana with protocols, and we came back looking at Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills Estates. And Rolling Hills Estates did a lot of work, but the work that you gentlemen are doing to help to make this better, helps to make this a better document. But the politicizing of this event, I believe, is completely out of line because this Council needs to make this decision about how we're going to address this issue. This is a Council issue. Council Duhovic stated that he felt this was a pretty important question and it's being dismissed. He stated the following: With all due respect to Councilwoman Brooks, she doesn't think this is an important forum, I think it is an important question and is the appropriate forum. When a letter is presented, I'd like to know for the record if somebody asked for the letter. I think the question is germane and if people don't want to answer that's fine, let the record reflect that people didn't answer, that's fine. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 9 Councilwoman Brooks stated the following: If Councilman Duhovic is asking this question I will point out that yes, I did speak with the Mayor and I did hear from other people and they came to me first. Councilman Duhovic stated the following: The question was did you ask for a letter. Councilwoman Brooks stated the following: When this individual told me about this I said are you interested in putting this in writing. He said yes I will put this in writing gladly. That is your answer. Commissioner Tomblin echoed the rest of the Commissioners and thought what the Chair put forward in terms of his writings he fully agreed with. He also agreed with Councilman Duihovic's comments. Chairman Tetreault asked the members of the subcommittee if it was their intent, through any of the proposed protocols, to prevent a member of any Commission or Committee from representing the interest of a client that has a claim against a neighboring city. He stated he couldn't see anything that specifically addressed that and nothing spoke to it specifically, but he could make, as a lawyer and he was paid to do so, he could play with protocol Nos, 4 and 15. He stated No. 4 represents work for the common good of the City and not for any private interest or personal gain and No. 15, _, support and when necessary work to improve intergovernmental relationships between this City and other neighboring cities, the City of Los Angeles, the State of California, and the Federal Government. He stated the following: One could argue that representing the interests of a client while suing one of our neighboring cities may violate one of those two protocols. My question is, is it the intent of the ad hoc subcommittee to prevent or to somehow sanction any member of a Committee or Commission of the City if they do engage in that type of professional work. Mayor Misetich felt he already answered that question when he was speaking to Commissioner Lewis. He stated that: It's not the intent of the subcommittee to chastise somebody on how they make their living, as long as they make it legally. Councilwoman Brooks stated that with a lot of the submissions made by Chairman Tetreault, that those very may well end up as part of the document, including the removal of the termination word, because the Municipal Code addresses how people serve. She stated the following: The Mayor serves at the pleasure of the Council and every Committee and Commission serves at the pleasure of the Council. There are a lot of redundancies and I have to say that when Councilman Duhovic submitted a compilation including his own, they gave a good bare bones document to work with. Mayor Pro-Tem Campbell asked Chairman Tetreault the following. If something happens such as what we're talking about tonight where a former chair of the Traffic Safety Commission irritated a member of City Council in the neighboring city, do you think it's appropriate, just going forward, do you think it's appropriate that the City Council get involved in this or would it be more appropriate for that Commission or Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 10 Committees own leadership to take a look at this first. My own viewpoint is, these Commissions and Committees have got Chairmen and Vice Chairmen, and unless you ask for our input on an individual situation that allegedly happened, that we should respect that leadership and for whatever reason you want our input afterwards or the Council always has that ability to step in. But I'm of the opinion that we should respect that leadership and let them settle this internally amongst themselves rather than reach out to other city officials and ask for letters and make such a public issue out of something when we still don't know what happened or what was said, or whether or not this former mayor of a neighboring city was acting on his own or if he was acting on behalf of the whole City Council. Chairman Tetreault answered the following: The Mayor Pro-Tern being a veteran of the military, it has to basically with your pay grade. If a member of City Council makes a complaint to our City Council, I do not think a member of the City Council would make a complaint to me directly regarding the conduct of another Commissioner if a Commissioner went before that City Council. But if that were to happen, I would probably give a call to our City Manager as well as to our Mayor and ask for some advice as to what to do with that, only because I'm jumping levels. But if a Planning Commissioner went before another Planning Commission and that Chair had issue with what it was one of the Commissioners did and called me up, well then yes, we would probably take care of it within ourselves I would think. But with full disclosure, I would always disclose this information and the communication I had with another city official with staff. Mayor Pro Tern Campbell replied as follows: Being he is a former military officer, but as an example and to use the military, not that we are but as a comparable example, it this came to me about one of my subordinate units where something happened, I would turn it over to that subordinate's leader and ask him to look into it. I wouldn't reach down into every single situation when something like that came up. It's a different style. Much of what is being proposed here in these protocols I think is unnecessary. Much of what is proposed, in my opinion, is not respectful of the position of not just Planning Commissioners, but as leaders in this community. By definition, you're more than Planning Commissioners, you are leaders. There are many more qualified people that apply for these positions to volunteer as you have than we will ever be able to appoint to the Planning Commission, My own personal viewpoint diverges a bit from the ad hoc Committee of Mayor Misetich and Councilwoman Brooks in that I am fully supportive of your example language that you put forth out there. Councilman Duhovic referred to Commissioner Gerstner's comments about making disclosures during phone conversations with clients in other cities. He did not think this was the intent of the subcommittee, but asked Commissioner Gerstner if he was disinclined to give a disclaimer when speaking at a public venue. Commissioner Gerstner answered that he agreed with Chairman Tetreauit's comment that to the extent that you represent yourself as a Commission member of Rancho Palos Verdes, it is important to state under what pretense you are giving your testimony. Pianning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 11 He stated the following: However, if you don't stand there and represent that you're that I don't think it's necessary to have a disclaimer. If the City is Beverly Hills or Mill Valley or Newport Beach or something like that and I'm representing a client in a Planning Commission situation, I normally wouldn't represent myself as a member of this Planning Commission and therefore wouldn't look to have a disclaimer. With regards to phone calls and other things like that, I see how things sometimes start as small pieces and they grow. You all are still working on these rules and what I was trying to encourage was that it not grow into something like that. I was speculating that was a possibility. But with regard to representing myself or other clients in front of other cities, I don't have a problem with the disclaimer but I would prefer to restrict it to when I represent myself as a member of this Commission not just because I was standing there. Councilman Duhovic asked if is the purpose of the disclaimer to state that you're not representing yourself as a member of the Commission. Commissioner Gerstner responded with the following: The disclaimer is that if you say I'm a member of the Planning Commission it's then to be clear under what capacity you're speaking. But if you just don't bring that up and the people listening don't know, then I don't know if it's all that necessary to have the disclaimer. In certain cities you're so distant from it, it would be like testifying in front of congress in Washington and making a point that you're a member of the Planning Commission of Rancho Palos Verdes and at the same time saying you're not speaking for that government body, like they would care. And so, I think there is a time and place for it and a certain amount of discretion is necessary, and I think that just by being here we've earned a certain amount of that discretion and trust and respect, and if I misstep I expect to be reprimanded. But I expect to be given that latitude to fail as part of the trust that I get just by having the position. Mayor Misetich then moved on to the proposed Rules of Procedure. He noted that No. 5 has received much attention, and asked the Planning Commissioners for their input on the item. He also asked for input on the question of whether or not to allow a public speaker to donate their time to another speaker. Commissioner Nelson spoke on item No. 5, and strongly suggested the City Council guarantee the rights of the minority. He noted that for years the City Council has had 3- 2 votes on items, and he did not think the two dissenting votes never seem to be truly represented. He urged the Council to make sure the minority has the opportunity to put something on the agenda without the approval of a majority of the City Council. Mayor Misetich asked Commissioner Nelson if having the ability for two members agreeing to put an item a future agenda during the Future Agenda Items section of the agenda be sufficient. Commissioner Nelson felt that was sensible. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 12 With respect to the agenda, Commissioner Leon felt there are two premises that one needs to make; the first being there is full transparency associated with putting items on the agenda, and the other that the rights of the minority be maintained. Having two members propose an agenda item would tend to bring up issues that are relevant and possible of full Council support, He cautioned that could bring up Brown Act issues, in that one Councilmember may want to put an item on the agenda, speak to another Councilmember about the item that may not support it, and then not be allowed to speaker to another Councilmember about that possible item. He supported the idea of having a standing agenda item of discussing future agenda items in an open forum, as it would allow an avenue to discuss a minority item openly with all of the Council members. With respect to public speakers, having a general guideline of three minutes is good. However, he felt at times it is very appropriate for public speakers to band together and have a single presentation which may take more than three minutes in order to be effective. In such instances, the Mayor or Chairman may listen to the arguments and rationales and make a decision, as opposed to having a fixed guideline which binds the speaker to three minutes. Commissioner Gerstner agreed that having a general three minute rule works well, with the Mayor or Chairman having the discretion to make determination on how extra time will be given. In regards to setting the agendas, he agreed that discussing future agenda items in a public forum definitely makes a big difference, and needs to public. He also felt the minority needs to be supported and any two people should be able to put something on the agenda. If the concern is that two people tend to put something on the agenda meeting after meeting, that will be a self correcting problem. Either the people trying to put something on the agenda will begin to look foolish for trying to put something foolish on the agenda over and over, or the three who take it off the agenda week and week for having done that. He did not think the City Manager, or any person that was not elected, should have the power to veto anything that goes on the agenda. He added that he was questioning what problem the City Council was trying to solve by adding this guideline. Councilman Campbell felt that was a good point, as much has been made about a particular Council meeting where he placed three items on the agenda by one Council member. However, all three of those items had support from one other Council member. He noted that nothing that he is aware of has ever put on an agenda by a single Council member. He applauded the Commission for raising the question of what problem is trying to be solved. Councilman Knight felt that there has been some misunderstanding of the difference between having the ability to place something on the agenda and actually the practical matter of where it will go on the agenda. He supported the idea of having at least two Council members supporting an item to be put on the agenda. In terms of where that item is placed on the agenda, that is where the City Manager and Mayor come into play. Commissioner Gerstner agreed that the City Manager needs to manage that part of the process. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 13 City Manager Lehr appreciated the comments and noted that she does not consider herself a gate keeper, but rather an administrator. She noted that several times in the past one Council member has provided her with a staff report to include in the agenda for the next available Council meeting, which she has always done. Vice Chairman Emenhiser had comments regarding No. 5. He felt that, as written, it seems to give the City Manager, the Mayor, and a majority of the Council members control over which items can be added to the City's agenda. While he agreed the rights of the minority are important, he felt the quality of the City's government is driven by the quality of the debate, and what emerges from the debate should be tempered and strengthened by both the minority and majority opinion. If only the City Manager, the Mayor, and the majority opinion rules it gives a watered down version of governance for the City, and we end up with tepid options. Councilwoman Brooks pointed out that the old rule states only that the agenda shall be prepared in accordance with the preparation procedure as directed by the City Manager. In consultation with the Mayor and/or Mayor Pro Tern each agenda item shall include an estimate of time that should be required for the City Council to review, consider, and take actions regarding the agenda item. She stated the subcommittee is looking to bring this rule up to date and is getting good feedback on the issue. Chairman Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments in regards to public speakers time, noting that it has worked very well for the Planning Commission over the eight years he has served and it has been very fair to the public. In regards to No, 5 he felt that, whether it was its intention or not, it does create the position of gatekeeper in the City Manager. If a Council member wishes to place an item on the agenda there is a procedure to do so, which is to go through the Mayor or City Manager. However, both have the ability to decline. In that case, it will go to a vote with the full City Council and needs a majority vote to be placed on a future agenda. He felt this procedure does shut out the minority. He stated that he was in favor of language stating any City Council member can put an item on a future agenda without the need of a second. He felt that the ability to put an item on an agenda could possibility be the most powerful and important role a City Council member could have. He felt that the solution to the problem is not preventing individual members of the City Council placing items on an agenda, but rather to stage these items on agendas as appropriate with the proper staff reports and priority. Commissioner Lewis stated he distributed in advance of the meeting a list of questions that he felt have been mooted, in a large part, by comments made by the Mayor. He had concerns about the minority not being able to have issues agendized, however it sounds as if the subcommittee have taken to heart some of the comments from the public and the Planning Commission. Mayor Misetich asked Commissioner Lewis if he was in favor of two Council members having the ability to put an item on a future agenda. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 14 Commissioner Lewis stated that staff has a finite amount of time and resources, and as long as there is a permanent place on the agenda where any council member can ask for a second he is satisfied. He did not think staff should be using their time to prepare staff reports for items on agenda that could not get a second, He also felt that if a Council member is bearing staff with ten silly, nonsense items, or ten meritorious items that he is insisting be put on a single agenda with minimum notice, the public should know about this. He encouraged the City Council to review the last three or four meetings under this new section No. 5 and compare what has been agendized to the City Council's goals and see how it has been working. Commissioner Tomblin discussed the speakers three minute rule, noting that when he was Chairman of the Planning Commission it was helpful to have the discretion to expand that public speakers time when appropriate. In regards to setting agenda items, he read from the Palos Verdes School Board protocol an the subject, which says the agenda shall be set only with the approval of the Board President and the Superintendent. Because of the problems he felt this caused, he was very passionate in his opinion that the City Council would want to embrace the idea of allowing at least a minority of two have the ability to place an item on the agenda. Mark Wells stated the current City Council adopted a set of rules of procedure on December 20, 2012. In March 2012 the City Council adopted another set of rules of procedure. Now in May the City Council is looking to adopt another set of rules of procedure. He felt that City Council members and Commission and Committee members are very intelligent volunteers and know what they should and should not say and how they represents the residents of the City. He asked what is so wrong with the wheels of government in the City that Council members feel they need to reinvent the wheel so often. He felt that the Council got it right in March and it is time to move along to other more important items, David Kramer stated he has served six years on the Traffic Safety Commission, three of those years as Chairman of that Commission. He stated that he mentioned his title and background because he thought it had relevance and he hoped it provides a sense to the City Council about his background, and that perhaps he has a bit more knowledge about some of the issues being discussed. He explained that early this year he went to the city of Palos Verdes Estates and spoke to their Traffic Safety Committee. On two occasions he identified himself by name and position in the City, and made it very clear that he was speaking as an individual. He stated there was no way anyone present in that room could have construed that he was in any way representing the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. With all due respect, he felt the former mayor of Palos Verdes Estates was very much out of line when he wrote the letter to the City. He stated the former Mayor was not at the meeting, and he felt the letter was an attempt to bully him, to quiet him, and to prevent him from speaking to the city on a topic he feels he knows something about. He stated that he used all due respect when he spoke to the Traffic Safety Committee, and he makes no apologies for what he said. He respectfully Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 15 requested that item No, 17 of the protocol be stricken and be replaced with the language that was proposed by Chairman Tetreault. Mayor Pro Tem Campbell thanked Mr. Kramer for his years of service to the City, adding that he thought what happened to him was deplorable and unfair. He applauded him for going before a public hearing and speaking what he knew to be the truth. He felt that the City Council should defend their citizens in such situations. Mayor Misetich was encouraged that Mr. Kramer wants to embrace the changes suggested by Chairman Tetreault. He felt the language would make a big difference to many people and would be important for other jurisdictions to know the City has a set of protocols and the Commissioners and Committee members are operating within those protocols, Councilwoman Brooks also thanked Mr. Kramer for stepping forward, noting that she did everything she could not to say his name. She stated Mr. Kramer has done an outstanding job on the Traffic and Safety Committee. However, the City was faced with this issue and challenge and she felt they're reaching a consensus on how to address it in the future. Ken DeLong commented on No. 5 of the rules of procedure. He felt that whatever may have been done in the past, it is the elected officials that need to be in charge. He therefore supported the changes suggested by Councilman Duhovic. However, he felt the protocol however needed quite a bit of work. He pointed to Section C of the protocol, and stated that the responsibility outlined in that section belongs to the voters. Joe Locascio stated he is the current Chairman of the Traffic Safety Commission, and would like to address some comments as the Chairman and some comments as an individual resident of the City. He stated that the Traffic Safety Commission has a meeting scheduled for May 21st at which time they plan to discuss the protocol and rules of procedure and return their comments to the City Council. He commended the Planning Commission for their review of the documents. He was extremely concerned about any elected official that would abrogate their responsibilities to the City Manager or other non-elected employee. He stated that giving the City Manager responsibility and authority that should be maintained within the elected City Council is a travesty and misuse of the trust placed in the Council by the City. Finally, as a Commission member, he found it a violation of his First Amendment right with regard to any attempt to curtail or restrict his speaking, identifying his credentials, or earned experience in addressing an issue that pertains to area of expertise. Lowell edem yer was happy to see the suggestion for additional ways a single Council member can place an item on an upcoming agenda and applauded having a future agenda item category on the agenda. He asked if it would be feasible to allow each City Council member to submit to the City Manager a list of requested future agenda items, which could then be transmitted as part of the meeting protocol in advance. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 16 City Attorney Lynch commented that there would be no Brown Act violation with such a procedure, as the full City Council would be receiving the information as part of the Future Agenda Item portion of the agenda or as part of the study session idea. She noted that any study session would be a fully noticed public meeting open to all, just like any other Council meeting. George Zuqsmith stated he is the Vice President of the Mediterranea HOA, but is speaking as an individual. He did not understand what the City Council was trying to accomplish. He felt that the City has something in place that has worked for 40 years, and he has never heard of a rogue elected or appointed official in this city that has ever claimed to be speaking on behalf of the City when in fact he wasn't. He felt it was more important to spend time on issues affecting the City rather than on these issues. Lastly, he agreed with the individuals who have suggested that no one but an elected official be vested with the authority, jurisdiction, or power to control an agenda. The Mayor thanked the Planning Commission and members of the public for their comments. Councilman Duhovic moved that the City Council adjourn, seconded by Councilman Knight. Councilman Campbell asked if he could first asked a question of the Chairman, however the Mayor noted that there had already been a motion and second to adjourn, The City Council adjourned at 9:34 p.m. by a vote of(3-2) with Council members Duhovic and Campbell dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Appeal of Site Plan Review & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2011-00242): 7 Seacove Drive Director Rojas reported that late this afternoon staff received a continuance request from both appellants, citing that one of appellants could not attend the meeting due to a family emergency. He stated it is up to the Commission as whether or not to grant a continuance request, and noted staff has received ten speaker slips for the item. If the Planning Commission does grant the continuance, staff is recommending it be continued to the next meeting on May 22nd. He also noted that if the Commission grants the continuance, they do have to allow any of the speakers present the opportunity to speak. The Commission briefly discussed the request, and were inclined to support the continuance request. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 17 Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing to hear any comments on the request for a continuance. John Phillips (applicant) stating he was very surprised to hear of this request for a continuance at such a late hour. He noted that he has asked several neighbors to take time out of their busy schedules to attend this meeting, and he has worked very hard to prepare for this meeting. He stated that the appellants were given ample opportunity to speak and air their concerns during the neighborhood compatibility process, noting at the last meeting the appellants had no comments. He felt this was a way to drag out the project. He noted that one of the appellants is in attendance, and he asked that the Planning Commission not grant the continuance and move forward with the process. Commissioner Tomblin stated he was very sensitive to the situation and the reasons for one of the appellants requesting a continuance. However, he also noted that the other appellants were in attendance, as well as a number of public speakers. Commissioner Nelson agreed with Commissioner Tomblin, however if there is a way to allow everyone testify who would like to do so at this meeting and then listen to the single appellant at the next meeting, he would agree to that. Chairman Tetreault observed that there is an appellant who is not present and he is going to take her at her word that the family emergency which she described is genuine, and if so, it is serious. However, there is another appellant present, and if the case can be made sufficiently by that appellant and any public speakers to the satisfaction of the Commission so that the appellant prevails, then the necessity of having the other appellant present is mute. He felt it only became a problem if the Commission was inclined to go the other way and deny the appeal, as she may make the case that she was not able to present her side of the appeal, Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to hear any public testimony and then continue the public hearing to the May 22, 2012 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Gerstner suggested the Planning Commission hear the testimony this evening, and at the point in time where it is customary to make a motion after hearing all of the testimony, the Commission can chose to make a motion to continue, or chose to make a motion to make a decision. He felt the Commission would be better capable to make a motion to continue after hearing the public comments rather than before. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments. The motion to continue the public hearing and hear the public testimony failed, (3-4) with Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Nelson, and Tomblin dissenting. Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report. She explained the scope of the project, and the history of the application. She noted a 2008 approved project on the Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 18 vacant lot and compared it to the current proposed project. She stated that staff was able to make all of the required findings and the project achieved neighborhood compatibility, and recommended approval. However several neighbors raised various issued mainly related to neighborhood compatibility. She reviewed the appellants' points of concern and staff's reasons for recommending approval, as outlined in the staff report. She stated that staff believes no new information has been submitted by the appellants that weren't already raised and addressed at the previous five coastal hearing officers meetings, and therefore recommends the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the coastal hearings officer's decision of approval for the project. Commissioner Leon asked if there is an ocean view from the neighboring house that will be blocked by this proposed residence. Associate Planner Kim answered that there is not, as the applicant has moved the house back significantly on the property so that no ocean views are blocked. She also noted that since this is a sloping lot and a height envelope of 16130 is allowed by right, no view analysis was required. Director Rojas pointed out that this proposed residence has quite a large front yard setback because the neighboring resident had concerns about view and privacy. The property owner modified the project several times to mitigate the concerns expressed by the neighbor. Tom Hartman (appellant) explained that his issue with the proposed residence is that when viewed from the street it looks monstrous. He noted that this residence is approximately 4,700 square feet, however the next house is 1,800 square feet, the next is 2,500 square feet. All are significantly smaller until Barkentine Drive. He felt this proposed residence looks much different than any other house on the street, is significantly larger, and if it is precedent setting will allow all the other homes to start getting bigger and bigger. Shannon Hartman (appellant) stated the proposed house is 4,500 square feet on a 10,000 square foot lot, which is 45 percent lot coverage. The house next to it two story, but is 4,900 square feet on a 16,988 square foot lot covering 29 percent of the lot. She pointed out that this is an older neighborhood, and while they do appreciate the look of the home, they prefer to be minimalist when it comes to the neighborhood. She was sorry the other appellant could not attend this meeting, as she has put a lot of time and work into the appeal. She felt that allowing this to happen will only set precedence in the neighborhood for larger and larger homes. Commissioner Tomblin asked, if there were a reduction of square footage, where would she suggest it take place, Mrs. Hartman answered that there are many places, including bedrooms, living spaces, outdoor balconies, and along the front edge. She also felt the house could have been designed in a different manner. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 19 Pat Clark stated that the view of Portuguese Point is a very important view, and felt it was interesting that no photograph of that view impact was included in staffs report. She questioned the applicant's submittal of letters in support of the project, as she did not think many of them actually live in the community. Commissioner Tomblin asked Ms. Clark if she lived next door to the proposed residence. Ms. Clark answered she lives across the street, next door to the Hartmans. Chairman Tetreault asked Ms. Clark if she knew what part of the proposed residence blocks the view of Portuguese Point, and from where this view would be blocked. Ms. Clark did not know. Chairman Tetreault asked staff about the view of Portuguese Point. Associate Planner Kim explained the view analysis was done from the neighboring property on Seacove Drive and there is no view impairment to that property with the current proposal. Michael Lee (project architect) referred to a photo showing the applicant's aerial depiction of the proposed residence. He pointed out the very large front yard setback, and the fact that this is a triangular lot so he is very restricted in how to design the house. He explained that the building does extend down the length of the westerly property line because he wanted to use up the little narrow area at the end of the lot. He stated that the house appears bigger than the neighbors' houses because the house is wider in the front by approximately 30 feet. He stated the house is not higher than the neighbors' residence, it is not closer to the property lines than the neighbors' houses, nor is bigger than the neighbors' houses. He stated the applicant has been extraordinarily generous in his compromises, noting there have been four redesigns based on neighbors' input. He noted that the house will use natural woods, natural stones, earth tones, and will be very nondescript. John Phillips (applicant) stated that the proposed home does not impinge on any person's view, whether it be ocean or otherwise. He explained that he went through five meetings with the Planning Department and his next door neighbor and other concerned parties to try to alleviate everyone's concerns. He stated that his next door neighbor, Mr. Walsh, is now satisfied with the proposed residence. He noted that the previously approved residence was larger, taller, and bulkier than the home he is proposing and he did not understand why there were objections by others living on the street. John Jensen stated that when he moved into his home 25 years ago he had a view. His view is now blocked by Mrs. Clark's and Mrs. Hartman's trees. He felt that Mr. Phillips Planning Cornmiission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 20 has gone out of his way to bend in every direction to what everyone has said. He felt people in his neighborhood would argue if they are happy or if they are glad for weeks. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project. Jackie Gant stated the neighborhood is very eclectic and no two houses look the same. She felt the house was nothing but an asset to the neighborhood and hoped the Commission would approve the residence as proposed. Suzanne Bruguera felt the house will be a wonderful asset to the community. Shannon Hartman (in rebuttal) agreed that the house will be a nice home, but reiterated her concern that the house is proposed at 4,500 square feet and is next door to an 1,800 square foot home, and most of the homes in the neighborhood are within that realm. She felt that the next door neighbor (Mr. Walsh), while not part of the appeal, still has concerns with the house. She also felt there are still issues in regards to neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mrs. Hartman if there was a reason Mr. Walsh was not present at this meeting to discuss his concerns, Mrs. Hartman answered that this process has been very disheartening for Mr. and Mrs. Walsh and they could not come to this meeting. She thought Mr. Walsh felt he had let his neighbors down and would have done things differently if given the opportunity. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked staff to explain how they made the neighborhood compatibility finding in terms of the size of the structure. Associate Planner Kim explained that staff does not strictly use the size of the structure in terms of numbers when doing their comparisons. If a structure is larger than the average home, but it is designed so that it does not appear large and is compatible with other features such as height, bulk, or structural style staff can make a neighborhood compatibility finding. She also explained that staff looks at the appearance of bulk and mass from the front of the home, and showed pictures of several homes in the neighborhood where the second story is up at the front of the house or even cantilevered over the front of the home. She noted the proposed residence has set the second story back on the lot. She explained that staff takes all of these factors in consideration when looking at neighborhood compatibility, and not just structure size. Commissioner Nelson noted the home next door is 1,800 square feet, and questioned when the City last approved a new 1,800 square foot home. Director Rojas could not recall, but thought there may have been one in the Eastview area. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt staff's recommendation to deny the appeal and approve the project, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 21 Commissioner Lewis stated there is an appellant that is not present and he is therefore not prepared to support the motion. Chairman Tetreault strongly agreed, stating the second appellant has the right to speak to the Planning Commission. He did not think it would appropriate to exclude her from the process. The motion to deny the appeal did not pass on a vote of(3-4) with Commissioners Lewis, Leon, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Commissioner Leon moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting on May 22, 2012, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (4-3) with Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin, and Nelson dissenting. 3. View Restoration Permit No. 2011-00064: 25 Narcissa Drive Commissioner Leon recused himself from this item. He noted that he is only 16 feet out of the 500 foot radius of this residence. He also noted that he has many mature trees on his property and that there could be a conflict of interest. He left the meeting at this time. Director Rojas polled the Commissioners, and all Commissioners had made the required site visit. Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report. She gave a brief background of the application and displayed photos taken from the primary viewing area at 25 Narcissa Drive. She displayed the findings that must be made in order to approve a View Restoration Permit, and noted that staff was not able to make all of the required findings. She noted that Table 1 of the staff report lists the findings for each tree in the application. She stated that staff was not able to make finding D in regards to tree Nos. 1 through 4 and tree No. 18, and finding No. B in regards to tree Nos. 5 through 19, staff is recommending no trimming action occur, and recommended the Commission approve the Resolution denying the requested View Restoration Permit. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Greg Monfette stated he is a registered consulting arborist representing the applicant. He noted that trimming agreed on in a signed agreement that was begun before this application was submitted was never completed. If that trimming had been completed, this application would not have been submitted. He referred to the photo in Exhibit E of the staff report and the current photo of the trees at 24 Narcissa Drive as viewed from 28 Narcissa Drive. He did not think the trees in the current photo were the same trees as those in the 1951 photo. He also stated that the City's arborist felt the trees in question were most likely planted in the 1940s. He did not think a decision on this case Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 22 should be based on an educated guess, but rather on facts. He felt the trees should be bored and the rings counted to get a correct age before the City makes a decision. Corinne Gerrard (foliage owner) stated she has read the staff report and requested the Commission follow the recommendations made by staff. She explained that she has historic photos from the original owner of the property that very clearly show the trees existed on both 22 and 24 N'arcissa before they became legal lots. Mark Paulucci (foliage owner) said it is very obvious that the trees displayed by staff in the photo are very obviously his trees. He stated that if there has ever been an occasion in this City to protect historic trees from being removed, this would be such an occasion. He stated that these are 100 year old majestic pines and are these trees were here before the lots were created. He stated he was relying on the good judgment of the Commissioners in, this case. Commissioner Tomblin referred to information, given to the Commissioners which included an agreement with Finleys Trees as well as a small claims court action with Finleys Trees against the applicant. He asked Mr. Paulucci to clarify this information. Mr. Paulucci explained that as a result of the mediation there was an agreement that he would remove one pine tree and lace 30 percent of the remaining trees, with an arborist on site to determine how much of the trees could be laced without damaging the trees. He said he paid Finleys Tree Service the amount agreed to, however the applicant did not pay the tree service her share. Finleys Tree Service therefore took the applicant to small claims court to get their money. Chairman Tetreault stated that during his site visit to Mr. Paulucci property he noted a tree stump from a recently cut tree. He asked Mr. Paulucci if the tree that was removed was approximately the same age as the trees in question. Mr. Paulucci answered that he believed the tree was approximately the same age. Chairman Tetreault asked Mr. Paulucci if anyone has examined the stump to determine what the age of that tree was. Mr. Paulucci answered that an arborist had not done so, but has made a reference to diameter similarities. Da'ad Makhlouf (applicant) explained her mediation process with the foliage owners and the agreement reached through mediation. She continued by explaining on the day of the trimming she came home and found virtually no difference in her view, and was told that Finleys. Tree Service was told by Mr. Paulucci to stop trimming; however, Finleys still wanted to be paid in full. She referred to photographs and stated that based on these photos as well as a professional arborist's opinion, she did not think staff was accurate in saying the trees were in place before the lots were formed. She did not agree with staff's comment that other trees did not create a significant view impairment, Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 23 as she felt the word significant is a subjective term. She felt that the trees in question take away her water view, which is a protected view. She stated she has gone through the process, paid her application fee, and she should receive remedy now before the trees obliterate her view. She added that she is not asking for any trees to be removed, just trimmed to restore her water and Catalina Island view. Corinne Gerrard (in rebuttal) stated that tree No. 16 has been significantly trimmed and the receipt for that trimming is in the Commission's package. She also noted that a tree to the right of tree No. 1 has been significantly trimmed down and with both of these trimmed the applicant's view has been significantly increased. Because the trees on her property are so far off to the side of the applicant's view, and because she has trimmed trees, she felt that her property is in compliance. She asked that the Commission follow the recommendations of Staff and move forward. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner stated he had no reason not to believe staff in their determination that tree Nos. 1-4 and tree No. 18 existed before the lots were created. Chairman Tetreault asked staff if the City Arborist had an opinion on the age of the five trees, and if he had examined the stump of the recently cut tree to determine its age. Associate Planner Seeraty answered that the City Arborist did not examine the tree stump, however he did an individual inspection, of the trees. He measured the circumference of the trees and examined the historic photographs provided. He felt that based on his experience, the historic photos, the height of the trees, their thickness, and the visual inspection that the trees were in place before the lot was created. Chairman Tetreault asked staff if they heard anything at this meeting which would cause them to change staffs opinion or recommendation with respect to tree Nos. 1 through 4 and 18. Associate Planner Seeraty answered that there was not. Chairman Tetreault asked staff, if the Commission makes the finding that tree Nos. I through, 4 and 18 were established before the lot was created, can these trees then be trimmed or laced by an order of the Planning Commission. Director Rojas answered that they could not. Chairman Tetreault noted that Mr. Paulucci had at one time sought to do an addition on his property, and as part of the process had to go through a view analysis. At that time it was determined portions of these trees would have to be trimmed. He asked staff if Mr. Paulucci decides in the future to do an addition, will these trees be exempt from the view analysis. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 24 Associate Planner Seeraty explained that the age of a tree is not taken into account when doing a view analysis. The view analysis only requires trees over sixteen feet in height or higher than the ridgeline that significantly impairs a view from neighboring properties to be trimmed. Chairman Tetreault referred to tree Nos. 5-17 and tree No. 19, and asked the Commission if they had any discussion on these trees and staff's recommendation. The Commission had no comments. Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation to deny the View Restoration Permit, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Nelson commented that this appears to be one of the most beautiful views that can be had in this City. However he also noted that there is nothing quite as sacred to him as an old, majestic tree. He believed the applicant and he believed the neighbors, but pointed out that this permit has gone through the proper process and the Commission has very carefully listened to all of the evidence provided in making their decision. Chairman Tetreault commented that the trees in the middle of the picture are very low on the horizon, and given the expanse of the view, he could find that they do not cause a significant view obstruction, He noted tree No. 17 may be in the view, however he believed it to be in the periphery of the view. The motion to adopt staff's recommendations was approved and PC Resolution 2012-08 was adopted, (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of April 10, 2012 Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved without objection. 5. Minutes of April 24, 2012 Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded' by Commissioner Lewis. Approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-aAenda for the meeting on May 22, 2012 The Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 25 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:08 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 8,2012 Page 26