Loading...
PC MINS 20150908 Approved October 27, 2015 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES )11I/ REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nelson at 7:05 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Senior Planner Alvarez led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Gerstner, James, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Nelson. Absent: Commissioners Emenhiser and Leon were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Alvarez, Associate Planner Seeraty, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their September 1, 2015 meeting the City Council heard the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on the Green Hills Cemetery annual review, and adopted four separate motions which will be memorialized in a Resolution to be presented at the September 15th City Council meeting. Director Rojas also reported that the City Council approved a contract with Aleshire and Wynder for City Attorney services and that, as a result, City Attorney representation will be present at every Planning Commission meeting. He then introduced Christina Burrows from Aleshire and Wynder. Director Rojas distributed two items of late correspondence received for agenda item No. 4, one item received for agenda item No. 5, and a revised Resolution for agenda item No. 5. Chairman Nelson stated that he attended the September 1st City Council meeting and attempted to represent the Planning Commission as the questions regarding Green Hills came forward. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Site Plan Review and Height Variation (Case No. ZON2015-00060 : 30423 Via Victoria 3. Approval of August 25, 2015 Minutes Chairman Nelson moved to approve items 1 and 3 of the consent calendar as presented and recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. Approved, (5-0). 2. Approval of August 11, 2015 Minutes Commissioner Cruikshank moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. Approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner James abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Height Variation (Case No. ZON2015-00179): 3535 Heroic Drive Director Rojas explained that staff was recommending this item be continued to a date uncertain, since the project is being re-designed by the applicant to address neighborhood concerns. Staff's intention is to send out a new public notice if it does come back to the Commission. He noted that staff was not sure if this item will come back to the Commission or not, as the project may be redesigned in a manner that no longer requires Planning Commission review. Commissioner James noted he lives within 500 feet of this property, and therefore recused himself from the item and left the dais. Director Rojas noted that he has two speaker slips for this agenda item. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Michael Gilchrist stated he is a neighbor to the subject property, and stated he is opposed to the project in its current form. He wanted to be assured that there will be appropriate notification of the revised project so that he has appropriate time to have a staff member visit his property and do a view analysis. Director Rojas explained that Height Variation applications require a 30 day notice. Therefore, if the revised project still requires a Height Variation, the required notification Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2015 Page 2 will be sent out. He noted, however, that this project could be redesigned where it doesn't need a Height Variation in which case it will be a staff level decision. He explained that if this is the case, a notice will still be sent to the neighbors, however it will most likely be the more standard 15 day notice. Gary Randall stated he did not wish to speak and would wait to see the redesigned project. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the item to a date uncertain, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Approved, (4-0). Commissioner James returned to the dais. 5. View Restoration Permit (Case No. ZON2015-00026): 7284, 7270, 7264, 7333, 7292, 7315, 7303, 7321 and 7306 Berry Hill Drive and 30303 Via Cambron Director Rojas began by explaining that in order to participate in this hearing, Planning Commissioners must have visited all ten of the applicants' properties to ascertain the view from the viewing area. He polled the Commissioners, and all Commissioners had made the required site visits. Vice Chairman Tomblin disclosed that Ms. Johnson is a friend of his family, however he did not think that would have any effect on how he votes in this matter. Commissioner Cruikshank also disclosed that he was an acquaintance of one of the applicant's, however he too did not feel it would affect his vote. Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, giving a brief history of this application. He also noted that, as a result of a code enforcement case on Mr. Alley's property, a hedge was trimmed that exposed a loquat tree on the property and this tree was added to the conditions of approval. He noted that in a letter that was distributed in late correspondence, Mr. Agronick expressed his preference to have their tree removed rather than trimmed. Mr. Alvarez displayed a site map with the location of the applicants and the various trees and properties involved. He explained the Commission was being asked to approve a view restoration request, and in order to do so, there are five findings that must be made. He reviewed and explained these findings, the various trees on each property, and how staff felt each finding could be made. He focused on three properties and explained in detail how the trees on these properties significantly impair the views. He then displayed a table showing staffs tree trimming and tree removal recommendations. With that, he explained staff was recommending the Planning Commission adopt a resolution conditionally approving the View Restoration permit request. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2015 Page 3 Vice Chairman Tomblin asked staff to explain who pays for the tree trimming or the removal and replacement of trees. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that when the Planning Commission approves a View Restoration Permit and trees are either ordered to be trimmed or removed and replaced, the applicants pay for all of the work. In addition, once the City receives a qualified bid as well as the cost associated with the bid, the funds are put into a trust account with the City, and the City gives the tree owner 90 days to complete the work. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff if there was a mechanism in place that would prevent tree owners from planting new trees somewhere else on their property that will eventually again exceed the ridgeline of their residence. Senior Planner Alvarez responded that there are provisions in the conditions of approval that direct a photograph be taken of the restored view, and that photo will be used for preserving the view. This restricts the foliage owner from planting new trees that grow into the documented view. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Robert Slusser(7270 Berry Hill Drive) stated that there are 22 foliage owners and 10 view owners who have agreed to trimming in the neighborhood, and felt that was a significant accomplishment to reach those compromises. He stated that he has read the staff report, and felt the report forms an excellent basis for a decision. He also stated that he accepts the revised staff recommendations. He referred to tree No. 25 and a Eucalyptus tree, and asked the Commission consider staffs alternative recommendation to remove the trees. Tim Galvin (7333 Berry Hill Drive) stated it took several years to get the City trees that impaired the views in the neighborhood removed. Now the foliage owners have spent the last three or four years working on the private property trees. He stated 22 tree owners have come to an agreement, and there are only three remaining that have not come to any agreement, and it's now time for the Planning Commission to try to resolve those outstanding issues. Marlene Galvin (7333 Berry Hills Drive) stated when she bought her home she had an obstructed view of the length of Catalina Island and the Catalina channel. Through the view restoration process she felt she was regaining much of that lost view. She stated she was in agreement with the letter submitted to the Commission by Mr. Slusser. She also noted that there are two properties that continue to affect her Catalina Island view. She stated the junipers at 7336 Berry Hill Drive are in the middle of their view of Catalina Island and obstruct one-fourth to one-third of the view. She also noted that she is in agreement with the City Arborist's evaluation that the junipers will be able to tolerate the trimming down to the roof line level. She did not support the removal of the junipers, as they are mature trees that can be reduced in height. She stated she is also in agreement with the staff's recommendation in regards to tree No. 29. She stated the other trees that Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2015 Page 4 affect her view are at 30309 Palos Verdes Drive West, and supported the arborist's opinion that tree Nos. 5, 7, 9, and 10 be removed and replaced. She supported staffs recommendation for tree No. 12 that it be trimmed to a height of 26 feet. Jim Morrison (7284 Berry Hill Drive) stated that trimming the Agronick tree to the ridgeline will satisfy his requirements. In regards to the Johnson tree, he stated he would support the trimming of the tree, and did not want to pay for the removal. Larry Marinovich (7315 Berry Hill Drive)stated the Commissioners have been to his home and know the issues, and hoped they would help him regain his view. Chairman Nelson questioned if there was anything behind the trees, and if the trees are trimmed will there be something behind them that will impair the view. Mr. Marinovich stated there are some trees on the Ehtessabian property that they can't currently see, but knows they are there. Joe Yousefpour (7306 Berry Hill Drive) stated he supports staff recommendation. Jerene Tussey (30303 Via Cambron) stated the tree in her backyard will be removed, as it is interfering with her patio. She stated that because of the foliage across the street, she felt her property value has gone down. She stated her hope was she could regain the view she had when she first moved into her home, or at least some of it. Nancy Alley (7336 Berry Hill Drive) expressed her disappointment with this process. She explained part of the charm when she bought her home was the tippy-toe view of the ocean through the trees on the back porch, the tree lined streets filled with mature trees, and the shade that the junipers provided the driveway. She stated that over the past several years she has watched the neighborhood stripped of several privately owned and city owned trees. She has also watched neighbors be bullied over their trees. She stated she was exhausted and disheartened with this process, and was willing to end the process if the applicants will cover the cost of the removal of the juniper trees, as well as the replacement cost of trees that are greater than the noted 24-inch box trees. She would not agree to trimming, and despite numerous requests made to the City, she has never received photographs of properly and aesthetically pleasing trimmed juniper trees. She stated that if there is no agreement to removal and replacement with appropriate size trees, that will sometime soon restore the shade and privacy she has become accustomed to, and the aesthetic value to the house, she will have to pursue an alternative resolution. She did not think 24-inch box trees will mature in her lifetime, and questioned how that was fair. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Alley to clarify her position on the junipers. Mrs. Alley explained that she and her husband did not think the junipers could be trimmed and their health and livelihood maintained. She stated she has seen many juniper trees that have been badly trimmed, and has asked the City's arborist and mediator to provide Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2015 Page 5 photographs of properly and aesthetically pleasing trimmed juniper trees, and no one has been able to provide that. Commissioner James was sympathetic, but noted this is the Ordinance the Commission must enforce. He asked Ms. Alley, if she were forced to choose one of the choices presented by staff, which she would prefer. Mrs. Alley answered that if she had to, she would choose the removal and replacement with the 24-inch box, as trimming would result in dead juniper trees. Mr. Ehtessabian stated he was the owner of the property on Palos Verdes Drive West. He stated that property is the oldest property in that section of the City, and was built as a beach house in the 1950s, and most of the trees were planted on the property at that time. He stated he has no problem in cooperating with his neighbors and will do everything he can to restore their view. However, there are a few things that deeply disturb him. He felt that Commissioner Leon has a conflict of interest in this case, as he is a property owner in this neighborhood. He felt his influence is shown throughout this presentation and the City report is bias, as it doesn't protect all the residents' interests. He also noted that there are five properties along Palos Verdes Drive West, all approximately the same size, and all have trees taller than 26 feet in height. He noted none of the trees on the other properties have been objected to, only his. He explained that he agreed to the recommendations made by the City's mediator with two exceptions, the two tall pines where owls nest. Cutting the trees as recommended would destroy the owl's nesting area. He was also concerned with the privacy of the residents who live on this property. He felt that once the trimming and removal was complete anyone walking or driving on Palos Verdes Drive West could look directly onto the property. He stated he will agree with the City recommendation, but wanted it noted that the report was not as honest as it could be and some of the pictures were taken at an unfair angle. He stated there are 27 trees on his property, and requested that someone from the City walk the property with him and mark each tree that is to be removed or trimmed. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Ehtessabian to clarify what he is agreeing to in regards to the trees. Mr. Ehtessabian explained that he agreed with the previous staff recommendation, however the new recommendation has changed and he has not had a chance to review it. Therefore, he would prefer to walk the property with staff to identify and mark the trees that are to be removed and replaced and trimmed. He pointed out that with this many trees involved, it will take a lot of people. He stated he will pay for a landscape architect to determine where the new trees should be planted to maintain the integrity of the property, and noted the landscape architect will also have to design and install a drip system for these new trees. He stated he will be happy to show the design plan to the City before planting. Vice Chairman Tomblin questioned how long this process with a landscape architect might take. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2015 Page 6 Mr. Ehtessabian was not sure, noting that he will do his best but cannot guarantee the work schedule and that the work will be done in 90 days. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked staff their position or policy on allowing extra time for the work to be done. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that the view guidelines are very clear in that once the applicants have provided the City with all of the required proof of insurance and the money has been deposited into the trust account to fund the trimming, the foliage is given 90 days to complete the work. He stated that the only exception would be when the timeline begins during the dormant season. Commissioner Gerstner clarified that there is a time limit on the removal or trimming of the existing trees, however there is no time limit on the planting of the new replacement trees, and the irrigation to support them. Senior Planner Alvarez agreed that the goal is to remove the view impairing foliage within 90 days, and the replacement can be done at the convenience of the tree owner. Robert Slusser (in rebuttal) stated that in regards to Mr. Ehtessabian's property the original staff report asked for the removal of 10 trees, and the current staff report only recommends the removal of 9 trees. He also noted there were originally four trees that were going to be trimmed, and this was changed to no trimming. He stated most of the other changes were simply to the alternatives. In regards to the neighbor's trees as pointed out by Mr. Ehtessabian, he noted that there is an agreement with one of the neighbors to trim the trees once the Ehtessabian trees have been removed. In regards to privacy concerns, he felt privacy was provided by the lower portion of the trees rather than the upper portion that will be trimmed. With regards to the Alley junipers, he pointed out that the City's arborist has said the junipers can be trimmed to the roofline without a significant chance of killing the trees, and the trees can be shaped to look aesthetically pleasing after an approximately six month recovery period. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked if there was any consideration given to lacing rather than a flat top cut. Senior Planner Alvarez responded that certain trees are more conducive to lacing for view restoration purposes than others. He looked at whether these particular trees could be laced, and came to the conclusion that in order to achieve view restoration, lacing would not work with these trees. Marlene Galvin (in rebuttal) stated that in the process of working with private tree owners the applicants did not bully, but rather used the utmost patience and restraint and should be commended for their efforts. She did not think the Alley's trees created a privacy issue if they are trimmed. She pointed out that the arborist felt the junipers could survive a Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2015 Page 7 trimming to the roofline, however if they were to die the applicants would be responsible for replacing them if they die within two years of the trimming. Larry Marinovich (in rebuttal) stated that two of his neighbors have reduced their large junipers by 50 percent in size, and the junipers are doing fine. He stated junipers are hardy plants and should survive, however noted again that if they die it is the applicants' responsibility to replace them. Jerene Tussey (in rebuttal) stated these homes were built in a staggered type of way so that everyone could have a view. She understood not wanting to cut down older trees, however homeowners who paid a premium to have a view have are entitled to have some of that view restored. Nancy Alley (in rebuttal) stated she too paid a lot of money for her home, and bought her home partially because of the surrounding trees in the neighborhood. She understood the concept of view restoration, but did not understand how neighbors can determine the aesthetics of her home. She stated she has not seen junipers trimmed to a naturally formed stature, and has seen the junipers mentioned by Mr. Marinovich, and did not think they looked nice and would not want that in front of her house. She stood by her statement that neighbors have been bullied into trimming and removing their trees. Mr. Ehtessabian questioned the meaning of significant obstruction of a view. He felt that looking at the pictures, many do not show a significant obstruction. He also pointed out the trees and vegetation in the median along Palos Verdes Drive West that are scheduled to be removed, and questioned if they will be replaced. If they are replaced, he questioned if a proper watering or drip system will be installed. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cruikshank referred to Mrs. Alley's request that the replacement trees be larger than the standard 24-inch box tree. He asked if the larger tree were to be selected would it be placed on the property line where it appears the junipers are currently planted, and what type of replacement tree would be selected that wouldn't encroach onto the neighbor's property. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that placement of the trees on the property would be up to the foliage owner. As to the type of tree, the City does not dictate to the foliage owner what type of tree they can select, however the City does advise the trees be low growing so that maintenance is not a concern in regards to the view. Commissioner Cruikshank asked if the foliage owner would be required to replace the trees on an equal one-to-one basis. Senior Planner Alvarez stated the Guidelines do not specify a ratio for replacement, however his recommendation is for every tree that is being removed be replaced with a 24-inch box tree. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2015 Page 8 Director Rojas added that it is up to the Planning Commission to determine how many replacement trees the foliage owner can have. Commissioner Gerstner realized how difficult this process is for the foliage owner, however he believes the views are more important, and this is why the Ordinance exists the way it does. He stated that, while the Commission tries to find balance in their decisions, generally he has been in favor of the view as opposed to a particular tree. In regards to the Ehtessabian trees, he felt it was a question of height on some of the trees and would like to discuss this with the Commission. In regards to the Alley's trees, he could not support keeping those trees in the view frame as they are right now. Commissioner James stated that he does not necessarily have a preference for views over trees or trees over views, however his job is to enforce the Ordinance. With that, he agreed with Commissioner Gerstner that the Alley's junipers must be trimmed or removed, but was torn on which was the better solution. However, given Mrs. Alley's preference to have the junipers removed and to start over with smaller trees, he was leaning more in that direction. With respect to the Ehtessabian trees, he noted he was sympathetic with the applicant's statements that they have been working on this problem for many years. He was very hesitant to get involved in some sort of a decision that allows this issue to be back before the Commission in six months having the same conversation. He stated that it was the Commission's responsibility to make a decision on this matter and move on. Vice Chairman Tomblin briefly discussed the previous view restoration case in the neighborhood regarding the pine trees. He felt that once the trees were removed and the replacement trees were planted, that views for the residents were tremendously improved. He also felt the replacement trees did what they should have done, and the end result was successful. He stated he supports the staffs recommendation for this case, and also supported additional time be given to plant the replacement trees. Chairman Nelson felt there is a view restoration ordinance for a purpose, and staff has done a thorough job in this case to meet the request for view restoration. He stated he would favor the recommendations in the staff report, but would consider any modification to the junipers that may be suggested. Commissioner Cruikshank discussed the Ehtessabian trees, and did not feel the removal of the trees would cause a privacy issue. He felt that hedges and smaller trees could be planted to alleviate any privacy concerns. He stated he supported the recommendations in the staff report in regards to the trees on this property. In regards to the Alley juniper, he stated that if the owner felt the trimming would make the juniper look bad or kill the juniper, he would be in favor of removal and replacement. Commissioner James suggested separate motions for each of the three properties, and the Commission agreed. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2015 Page 9 Commissioner James moved to approve the alternative recommendation by staff in the staff report to remove and replace the tree on the Agronick property, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Approved, (5-0). Commissioner James moved to remove and replace the Juniper trees on the Alley property with an equal number of 24-inch box trees, and trim the two additional trees as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. Commissioner Gerstner asked Commissioner James if his motion to remove and replace the junipers was because that was the preference of the property owner in regards to the two options that were presented by staff. Commissioner James stated that was correct. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there was language in the Ordinance that allowed the foliage owner the discretion to have the foliage trimmed or removed. Senior Planner Alvarez replied that the option for removal has been allowed in the past. Commissioner Gerstner stated in that situation the Commission may recommend trimming with the option to remove and replace, and the end result will be the same, or the end result of either choice is adequate. He stated he would support the motion or he would support the choice of trimming with the option to remove and replace. Commissioner Cruikshank realized Mrs. Alley stated she would prefer removal and replacement, but she may go home and speak to her family and he didn't want there to be buyer's remorse. He would prefer to let the Alleys have the option of trimming or removal and replacement. Because of that he stated he would be voting against the motion. Commissioner Cruikshank made a friendly amendment to the motion to give the Alleys the choice of either the removal and replacement of the junipers or trimming them to the ridgeline. Commissioner James accepted the amendment to his motion, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. The motion was approved, (5-0) Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to support staffs recommendation in regards to the trees on the Ehtessabian property, seconded by Chairman Nelson. Commissioner Gerstner noted that Mr. Ehtessabian referred to some of the trees on the property, and suggested an alternate height should be considered. He asked staff which trees Mr. Ehtessabian was referring to. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that he believed Mr. Ehtessabian was referring to tree No. 12, a Norfolk Pine, and explained that after the City received Mr. Ehtessabian's Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2015 Page 10 correspondence staff considered the possibility of trimming that tree to a 26 foot height. Based on the view analysis, staff felt trimming the tree to 26 feet in height would achieve view restoration to all of the properties, and therefore that is staffs recommendation. Commissioner Gerstner asked if there are other trees on the property that staff recommended trimming to the ridgeline that Mr. Ehtessabian may want to have trimmed higher. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that it was his understanding that Mr. Ehtessabian was suggesting that for those trees that will not be part of the removal and replacement, they be allowed to grow to or be trimmed to a height of 26 feet. He explained that after doing the view analysis, staff felt that only tree No. 12 would be out of the view, and view restoration achieved, if trimmed to 26 feet in height. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked if trimming tree No. 12 and lacing the tree would be beneficial to the views. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that lacing could be done, but the network of branches is very thick, and was not sure what type of effect would be gained by lacing. Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to modify the motion to include the Norfolk Pine not only be trimmed as recommended by staff, but also laced, seconded by Chairman Nelson. Commissioner Cruikshank noted there was earlier discussion to allow the foliage owner extra time to plant new trees after the existing trees were removed. He suggested modifying condition No. 8 to require the view restoration work be done in 90 days, but all subsequent tree replacement be done within 180 total days. Senior Planner Alvarez pointed out condition No. 10, and suggested the same amendment be made to this condition. Vice Chairman Tomblin agreed to amend the motion to modify condition Nos. 8 and 10, seconded by Chairman Nelson. The motion to approve staff's recommendation for the Ehtessabian property, as amended, was approved, (5-0). With that PC Resolution 2015-16 was adopted. 6. Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2015-00383) Director Rojas stated that the City Council has directed staff to consolidate the trimming or removal of City trees into one Department. With that, he explained that staff is eliminating the current process for City trees that block a view as written in the Code, as there is an interim process that the Public Works Department is implementing to deal with situations where City trees are blocking views. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2015 Page 11 Vice Chairman Tomblin asked what the impetus behind this direction from City Council was, and if this is a City Council directive, why is it before the Planning Commission. Director Rojas explained that residents expressed some frustration with the current City Tree Review process to the City Council. The City Council authorized staff to put together a study group to look into the issues and the Public Works Department put forth a number of recommendations to the City Council to consolidate everything under the Public Works Department. The City Council agreed to the recommendations. He noted one of the action items was to amend the Code to eliminate the current code process. He noted that because the applicable code section remains unchanged, residents can still apply to the Community Development Department for a City Tree Review Permit during the time while the Public Works Department is initiating an interim policy. This makes it very confusing for the public, given the intent was to consolidate everything under the Public Works Department. Therefore, after discussing this with the City Attorney, it was agreed that it would be best to rescind all language having to do with the current process from the Zoning Code, and have residents go through the Public Works Department for these issues. This item is before the Commission because the Commission has to approve all changes to the Zoning Code before the City Council finalizes the decision. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked if the Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council that this change may not be a good idea. Director Rojas answered that the Commission can do that if they can articulate the reasons they are against the Code amendment, and staff will present that to the City Council. Vice Chairman Tomblin referred to the city trees in the Berry Hill Drive neighborhood, and felt that as long and painful as that process may have been, at least both sides had the opportunity to present their cases to the Planning Commission and have their opinions heard. If something like this were to go directly to the Public Works Department, he asked if there will be a process or will the trees just be removed. Director Rojas answered that it was his understanding that with the new process if a resident contacted the Public Works Department with a complaint that a City tree was blocking their view, the Public Works Department would contact a view restoration staff member to do an analysis and Public Works would trim the tree accordingly. He explained that currently the Code states that if a City tree is determined to cause a view impairment it is automatically removed. With the new process, the Public Works Department has the ability to trim or shape the tree rather than automatic removal. Commissioner Gerstner was concerned that what was being proposed was to eliminate the current process in exchange for no process in the Public Works Department. Director Rojas explained that the official, formal process from Public Works has not been brought before the City Council, however in the interim the Public Works Department is dealing with these situations on a case by case basis. Planning Commission Minutes September 8. 2015 Page 12 Commissioner Gerstner asked if there is a written process that the Public Works Department is using in dealing with these case by case situations, and felt that the City is getting rid of a process that not only protects the City, but also protects the residents. He stated that if he makes a complaint to the Public Works Department about City trees, the Public Works Department will decide, but use some undefined process, whether or not to trim those trees. He also felt that, over the years, the Public Works Department has chosen to do things that are specifically against the City codes, and while he has a lot of respect for the Public Works Department, their discretion when it comes to the residents and the finer points of that may not be in the center of their skill set. He felt that having a defined process will help them with that skill set. Director Rojas stated that in all of years dealing with the current process, he heard a lot of people objecting to tree removal, but couldn't remember anyone objecting to tree trimming. He felt the Public Works Department is taking the approach of not removing trees, but rather trimming them. He stated that staff can come back to the Planning Commission with more information on what the Public Works is doing during this interim period. Commissioner Gerstner suggested that the Public Works Department may want to look at a policy that, until the City Council approves a formal policy and process, the Public Works Department will only trim city trees rather than remove them. He was concerned that the City Council's direction to suspend this process was essentially directing staff to get rid of the current process, which reasonably protected the residents, in exchange for nothing. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated the Planning Commission serves at the pleasure of the City Council and the Commissioners try to be supportive of the City Council. However, he also felt that the Commission's job is also to inform the City Council and give them any additional information that may help them in making their decisions. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he completely agrees with Commissioner Gerstner's comments. He stated that he respects and trusts the City's Public Works Department, however, he was concerned that there is now no consistent process for the public in regards to city trees. He stated he was going to have trouble making a decision on this topic without knowing what the interim procedure for dealing with city trees will be. Director Rojas understood the Commission's concerns, and felt that if the Commission's consensus was that they were not open to pursuing a code amendment until they see the final process that the City Council ultimately will be presented, then staff can table this item until January. However, if the Commission is looking for the interim procedure from Public Works, he felt staff could bring that process back to the Planning Commission for review. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2015 Page 13 Commissioner James stated that he spent some time studying what findings are required in order for the Commission to approve this recommendation. He noted that the Commission must find the amendments are consistent with the General Plan and with the Coastal Specific Plan. He stated there was nothing in the staff report referring to the Coastal Specific Plan. He also felt that if the Commission is going to find something is consistent with the purposes and goals of the General Plan, then the Commission should have a replacement procedure in place to review. He also noted language in Section 3 that the Commission must make findings, based on its own independent review. He questioned what it is the Commission is supposed to be doing. Assistant City Attorney Burrows suggested the Commission could direct staff to present a more detailed staff report providing the evidence upon which the Commission could rely on making this finding. Commissioner James read Section 4, and noted the language that the Commission must make a finding that these amendments are "necessary" to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare. He did not think these amendments were necessary; they may be better, or they may be a good idea, but he did not think they were necessary. He asked the City Attorney if the Commission had to find this as necessary to make the code amendment change. Assistant City Attorney Burrows explained that this language is generally included when making code amendments. She added that if the Commission cannot make these findings, the information will be sent back to the City Council with their comments on why these findings cannot be made. Commissioner James felt if there were information in the staff report that could tell the Commission how it is these findings are justified, and in doing that, provide the Commission with something more as to what the replacement procedures might be. He felt this may also be doing a service to the City Council and could get everyone in a place they can agree on. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to September 22, 2015, at which time staff will present a staff report that will include an interim procedure that will be used by the Public Works Department that will replace what is being deleted from the Code, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Chairman Nelson wanted to ensure that the residents of the Berry Hill neighborhood that are in the audience will know what they can do tomorrow to take care of a City tree. As long as that is covered, he will support the motion. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the only way these residents will know what to do tomorrow in regards to a City tree is if the Commission does not change this code. He recommended the residents wait two weeks until there is a procedure in place before approaching the City. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2015 Page 14 The motion to continue the public hearing was approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on September 22, 2015 The pre-agenda was approved with the addition of the code amendment item that was just continued to this meeting. Director Rojas noted a status report on the General Plan will also be included on this agenda. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked staff about the landscaping plan at the Crestridge Road project. Director Rojas stated that issue may be on the September 22nd agenda. He explained that the Commission still needs to review the final landscape plan. He explained the Commission previously raised some issues that staff looked into, one being the ability to plant trees over the geogrid behind the retaining walls. Because of that, there has been some changes to the landscape plan. Additionally, staff is waiting for the applicant to submit a rendering of the revised landscaping, and if it is received in time, the item will be placed on the September 22nd agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2015 Page 15