Loading...
PC MINS 20150922 Approved October 27, 2015 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDESY11/ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nelson at 7:01 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Assistant City Attorney Christina Burrows led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Leon, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Nelson. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Seeraty, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas noted there were no City Council items to report. He distributed one item of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 3. Chairman Nelson reported on his completion of the City's Leadership Academy with Commissioner Cruikshank. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Code amendment (Case No. ZON2015-00383) Commissioner Emenhiser stated he was not at the previous meeting where this item was discussed, however he has read the documentation and the minutes and felt he can participate in this discussion. Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining the Commission had asked staff to present to them an explanation of the interim process that is being used by the Public Works Department in regards to trimming of City trees, and this interim process is summarized in the staff report. He noted that the Deputy Public Works Director has reported that the Public Works Department has processed four requests under the interim process from the public with no issues or concerns. He noted that staff feels much of the controversy over City trees revolves around the removal of the trees, and since the idea right now is to trim the City trees rather than remove them, he felt the interim process should work out fine. Therefore, staff is recommending the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council amend the Code to remove the current City Tree Review Permit process from the Code. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff why action from the Planning Commission was needed on this item. Director Rojas explained that this is an amendment to the Zoning Code, and all amendments to the Zoning Code must first be reviewed by the Planning Commission, with their recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if the City's arborist will be involved in this streamline process. Director Rojas explained that there is an arborist under contract with the Public Works Department that is involved in all of the tree trimming work. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff what the cost is for the current process for City trees. Director Rojas answered that there is no cost to the applicants. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned why currently work on City trees is brought to the Planning Department rather than the Public Works Department. Director Rojas explained that the current process is under the Zoning Code, and therefore requires that a decision be made by the Community Development Director to deal with City trees that are blocking views. However, the Ordinance was very specific that the only solution to City trees that are blocking views was removal. Under the current interim process, there is no fee involved and tree removal is avoided. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if this interim process has any appeal process and if the Commission will ever be involved in the decisions for some of these trees. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2015 Page 2 Director Rojas answered that Public Works decisions are not appealable to the Planning Commission or the City Council, as they are decisions made for taking care of the City's infrastructure. However, because the Planning Director makes the decision on whether or not a City tree is significantly impairing a view, if a resident disagrees with the Director's decision, that decision is appealable to the Planning Commission. On such an appeal, the Planning Commission would be acting solely on whether or not the tree created a significant view impairment. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned the statement in the staff report as a result of this action, the City Council found no significant impacts on the environment. Director Rojas clarified that the paragraph on page 4 of the staff report referred to by Commissioner Emenhiser, is a reference to a Negative Declaration certified by the City Council in 2010. Staff is piggybacking on that Negative Declaration to say that simply eliminating this part of the Code as a clean-up item will have no negative impact to the environment. Commissioner Cruikshank noted in the staff report that before carrying out the tree trimming process, the Public Works Department will notify adjacent neighbors. He asked staff to define adjacent neighbors. Director Rojas answered that Deputy Director Jules has indicated to him that adjacent neighbors would be three or four homes on the same side of the street as the tree, and any home across the street from the tree. Commissioner Cruikshank asked why tree trimming for view restoration issues has not always been an issue and practice of the Public Works Department. Director Rojas explained that was one of the points that was brought up by residents who pushed for this change. He explained that the answer is that historically anything that has to do with view impact or restoration, which is a subjective, discretionary decision, was dealt with by the Planning Department because Planning staff are the ones who have the experience and training to make those type of discretionary decisions. Therefore, City trees issues related to views has been handled by the Community Development Division, while City trees issues for any other reason has been handled by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Cruikshank asked if the ultimate goal is that someone from the Public Works Department will have the same ability as someone on the Planning staff in terms of understanding view restoration. Director Rojas answered that the Public Works staff will still rely on the Planning staff to make view restoration decisions. Commissioner Cruikshank referred to attachment D on page 4 of the report, and asked for clarification. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2015 Page 3 Director Rojas clarified that attachment D was an attachment to the previous City Council staff report, which was prepared by residents who were advocating certain changes in the City Tree Review process. Commissioner Cruikshank asked if these changes applied to the trees in the Miraleste area that are part of the Miraleste Parks District. Director Rojas answered that the Miraleste Parks District is a separate entity and the Ordinance does not apply to trees on the Miraleste Parks District property. Commissioner Gerstner asked if there is anywhere other than the staff report that this interim process is outlined and explained. Director Rojas stated that the Public Works staff is currently working on a written policy, and noted that the policy will be put on the City's website for the public. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Jim Morrison explained that he questioned the type of replacement tree that was chosen to replace the pines on Berry Hill Drive, as the Sunset Garden book indicated they can grow much taller than 16 feet in height. He suggested that the city's arborist look at replacement trees that are to be planted in the city's right-of-way before they are planted. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon noted he was not at the last meeting where this subject was discussed, however he is very familiar with the subject and has read the staff report. He continued by stating that view impairment due to trees is something that takes years to happen, and is not something that happens overnight. Therefore, he did not think it was a problem that needs to be remedied quickly. He stated he is a big proponent of streamlining processes, however he felt that what is missing in this process is a notification period which is sufficient, such as a 60 day notification period, and the notification should be done prior to the decision being made. He also felt that there should be some type of an appeal process that is explicit rather than implicit. He stated he would be in support of approving this process with the addition of a notification process and some sort of appeal process. He stated he would also prefer to see a written document rather than looking at a staff report with in concept ideas. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed that there should be some type of appeal process included. Director Rojas clarified that what is currently before the Planning Commission is a code amendment to repeal language in the Development Code. It is not within the Planning Commission's purview to direct the content of the Public Works Department's interim policy and procedures. However, he will relay the Commission's concerns and Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2015 Page 4 suggestions to the Deputy Public Works Director. He noted that if there are concerns with Public Works interim policy, the Commission can forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Ordinance with advisement to take certain actions in regards to the interim process. Commissioner Emenhiser explained that part of his concern is that there may be unintended consequences with this action, and encouraged the City Council and staff to take a slow and steady approach to this situation rather than rushing ahead with a streamlined approach. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the Commission was not so much deciding how the interim process was to be set up as much as saying the Commission does not want to repeal something until there is something else in place. Director Rojas understood, stating that the Commission could continue this public hearing so that staff can present to the Commission a written policy from the Public Works Department, and a member from the Public Works Department can be present at the meeting to answer any questions. Commissioner Cruikshank commented that there should be something in writing that better defines what is considered an adjacent neighbor. He stated he was in general agreement with making things easier and to not have to go back and forth between the two departments. He felt that if the Public Works Department is already doing the trimming and maintenance of city trees, adding this component makes sense. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that he would prefer to see everything in writing, including the suggestions of a definition of neighbors and an appeal process, before he could make a motion or vote on this issue. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the public hearing until the Public Works Department has prepared a written interim policy, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Director Rojas suggested continuing the public hearing to a date certain, October 22nd Commissioner Emenhiser amended his motion to continue the public hearing to October 22, 2015, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Chairman Nelson asked that, in writing this interim policy, staff look very carefully at certain things such as dates, an appeal process, and other comments that had been made by the public and the Commission. The motion to continue the public hearing to October 22, 2015 was approved, (7-0). 2. Final draft General Plan document and Land Use Map Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2015 Page 5 Director Rojas presented the staff report, noting that the reason for the recommendation was to allow the new City Attorney's office adequate time to review the document. Because staff was not able to determine how long it would take the City Attorney's office to review the entire document, the recommendation was to continue the item to a date uncertain. Commissioner Emenhiser expressed his frustration at the amount of time it has taken to prepare this document and the number of times it has been before the Planning Commission. He hoped that the City Attorney's office would give this review priority so that the process could continue. Director Rojas agreed, but noted that staff did not want to present to the City Council a document where the legal aspects have not been reviewed by the current city attorney's office. Commissioner James agreed with Commissioner Emenhiser, and with that he would prefer this item be continued to a date certain, even if that meant the attorney came back on that date to request a further continuance. Commissioner Emenhiser felt that there has always been another reason for a delay, and agreed that the sooner this is done the better. Assistant City Attorney Burrows noted that she has yet to see the amendments made to the document, but felt that the item could be continued to a date certain in November. Commissioner James moved to continue the item to the November 24, 2015 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (7-0). Director Rojas noted that if, for some reason, the November 24th meeting is cancelled, this item will automatically move to the December 8th meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. CUP Revision, Site Plan Review, Grading (Case No. ZON2014-00175): 2947 Vista del Mar Vice Chairman Tomblin disclosed that he has worked with and known two of the partners on this project for a number of years. He stated that there is no economic benefit to him and that this is simply a revision to an existing CUP, he did not feel he had to recuse himself from this item. Commissioner Cruikshank also disclosed that his engineering company has worked for Mr. Maupin in the past, however he did not think this would affect his ability to make a fair decision. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2015 Page 6 Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report, explaining the applicant is asking to exceed the allowed lot coverage, the grading limit of 1,000 cubic yards, and the pre- approved building envelope. She explained the scope of the project, and the requested revisions to the CUP. She stated staff believes all required findings can be made and is recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner James asked staff what their criteria or standard is for recommending approval of a variance from the 25 percent rule. He asked if it was the amount of slope or was it the fact that others in the neighborhood have been granted this variance to the rule. Director Rojas stated that the 25% standard is not a set rule, but rather is a guideline. He explained that previous Commissions have realized the guidelines for this tract are quite strict, and have allowed case by case exceptions to those guidelines. He noted that for the most part previous exceptions granted by previous Planning Commission's did not allow for the entirety of the slope to be altered, but did try to allow the grading needed for access, a house, a yard, and a pool. Commissioner Cruikshank asked if there are any restrictions or conditions added in terms of requiring a haul route to remove all of this dirt from the site. Associate Planner Seeraty answered that proposed condition No. 28 requires approval of a haul route be obtained from the Public Works Department. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff to explain what is considered grading. Director Rojas explained that, per the Code, any grade alteration is grading. However, the guidelines for this development count only the grading for certain improvements towards that 1,000 cubic yard cap. Vice Chairman Tomblin explained that one of the things he looks at when exceeding the guidelines for a planned development is whether or not the silhouettes blend in well with the neighborhood and if the architect is familiar with the culture of the City. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Doug Maupin (applicant) stated he is one of the owners of this property, and is available to answer any questions. Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Maupin if he would have any objections to a condition being added that any changes made to the plans approved by the Planning Commission come back before the Commission for approval. Mr. Maupin did not have an objection, unless the proposed changes would be lessening the impact of the building. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2015 Page 7 Louie Tomaro (architect) explained this project has been scaled back several times. He stated the house has been designed linear to match the slope to try to minimize how much grading will have to be done. He noted that a large amount of lot coverage is for the driveway because of Fire Department requirements. He also noted the only outdoor space will be the patio and pool area. He stated he was available for any questions. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner James moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Chairman Nelson moved a friendly amendment that a condition be added that any changes to these approved plans come before the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Leon felt that saying any change must come before the Commission is a very broad suggestion, as there are always changes to plans that are made during the Building and Safety plan check process. He suggested defining the changes to something like conceptual changes or changes that are increasing the impact or changing the style of the home. The motion died due to the lack of a second. The motion to approve the plans as recommended by staff was approved, and PC Resolution 2015-17 was approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on October 13, 2015 Director Rojas noted there are no items on the pre-agenda. Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to cancel the October 13, 2015 meeting, seconded by Commissioner James. The motion was unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 22,2015 Page 8