Loading...
CC SR 20160906 05 - Code Amendment Minor ModificationRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 09/06/2016 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to initiate code amendment proceedings for RPVMC Sections 17.78.040 and 17.78.050 to clarify the "minor modification" process for previously -approved decisions and conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Initiate code amendment proceedings to codify a "minor modification" process pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.78.040, and to clarify the process for interpreting previous decisions and/or conditions of approval pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.78.050. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Octavio Silva, Associate Planner 0 -,s - REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development° APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager�po__� ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. June 14, 2016, Planning Commission Staff report (page A-1) B. June 14, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes (page B-1) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: This code amendment initiation request was originally placed on the August 2, 2016, and August 16, 2016, agendas, but was continued without discussion to tonight's meeting due to the lateness of the hour. Sections 17.78.040 and 17.78.050 of the Development Code (RPVMC Titles 16 & 17) make provisions for the processing of project revisions and the interpretation of previous decisions and conditions of approval. In light of public concerns regarding Director -level modifications to Planning Commission and City Council -approved projects by the former Director of Community Development, the Planning Commission, at its June 14, 2016, meeting, reviewed the Director's implementation of applicant -initiated amendments to projects (Section 17.78.040) through a standard "minor modification" project condition and the Interpretation Procedure provisions (Section 17.78.050) of the City's 1 Development Code. Attached are the June 14, 2016, Planning Commission Staff report and meeting Minutes (Attachments A and B, respectively). As a result of this hearing, the Planning Commission agreed that there are inconsistencies in the existing Development Code language that should be corrected to provide clarification as to when a "minor modification" may be approved by the Director, and when the Interpretation Procedure should apply. As such, the Planning Commission directed Staff to forward a recommendation to the City Council to initiate code amendment proceedings to codify a "minor modification" process in Section 17.78.040, and to clarify the process for interpreting previous decisions and/or conditions of approval in Section 17.78.050. Thus, Staff recommends that the City Council initiate code amendment proceedings for these Development Code sections, as summarized below. Amendments to Approved Applications (Section 17.78.040) Section 17.78.040 (Attachment A, p. A-6) provides the Director with discretion to determine when an applicant's requested modification to a project is considered substantive. While there is some debate as to the meaning of the word "substantive," historical practice indicates that the Director has applied a reasonableness test to whether or not a proposed amendment to a project is considered minor in nature. Hence the standard "minor modification" condition of approval that is applied to all projects (Attachment A, p. A-2). If the Director determines that a project revision is minor in nature, the Director will process a "minor modification" to memorialize the change to the project. If the Director determines that a project revision is not minor, or was a topic of debate or concern during a public hearing process, the Director will require that the review and approval of a revision to the project be considered by the final decision-making body at a public hearing. In reviewing this section of the Development Code, the Planning Commission was concerned that there is no language that formally allows the Director to approve minor modifications, and thus recommends that a code amendment be processed to codify such language. As reflected in the meeting minutes (Attachment B), a concern was raised as to how to define a minor modification, with certain examples cited. If initiated, this concern will be vetted through the code amendment proceedings. Interpretation Procedures for Approved Projects (Section 17.78.050) Section 17.78.050 (Attachment A, pp. A-6 & A-7) establishes provisions for interpreting decisions and conditions of approval granted by the City in cases of "uncertainty" or "ambiguity." While it is clear that discrepancies between approved plans, interpretations of established conditions of approval, and/or new issues that stem from construction that were not addressed or considered as part of an original project approval require reconsideration or interpretation by the original decision-making body, the consideration of truly "minor" revisions to projects seems misplaced in this Development Code section. More specifically, Sections 17.78.050(A)(4) and (5) establish provisions for considering minor modifications to project approvals that are similar in scope to that 2 which was originally approved and do not result in a substantive modification to the approved project. In reviewing this Development Code section, the Commission felt that subsections (A)(4) and (5) should be deleted to avoid conflicting with Section 17.78.040, as discussed above, and to prevent further confusion, since a minor modification is distinctly different from an interpretation procedure. CONCLUSION: In order to resolve any unintended confusion with the above-mentioned Development Code sections and the City's historical process for addressing minor modifications, Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council initiate a code amendment that codifies a "minor modification" process in Section 17.78.040, and clarifies the process for interpreting previous decisions and/or conditions of approval in Section 17.78.050 of the Development Code, as summarized above. If initiated, this matter will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, which will then forward a recommendation to the City Council for its consideration. Both reviews will occur as duly -noticed public hearings. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council's consideration: 1. Identify additional options for Staff to research, for Planning Commission and City Council consideration at a future meeting. 2. Direct Staff to take no action at this time. 3 CITY OF tiRANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION �r FROM: ARA MIHRANIAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR j{� DATE: JUNE 14, 2016 ��� "' "' VVV SUBJECT: DIRECTOR'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINOR MODIFICATION CONDITION AND THE INTERPRETATION SECTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE RECOMMENDATION Review the Director's implementation of the Minor Modification Condition and the Interpretation Section (17.78.050) of the Development Code, and, 2. Forward a recommendation to the City Council to initiate code amendment proceedings to clarify and codify a minor modification process for Sections 17.78.040 and 17.78.050 of the Development Code. BACKGROUND Over the past several months, public concerns have been expressed regarding "Minor Modification" decisions made by the former Director to previously approved planning projects. In light of these concerns, at the April 12, 2016 meeting, the Commission directed Staff to agendize an item for the May 10th meeting that discusses how the Director implements the Minor Modification condition. This agenda item was continued by the Planning Commission to the June 14th meeting so that the full Commission can participate in the discussion. Additionally, at the May 10th meeting, the Commission asked Staff to include in its report a discussion on the Interpretation Section (17.78.050) of the Development Code. The Commission is now being asked to review the Director's report on this subject matter. DISCUSSION In many cases, a planning project approved by the City may undergo some form of a revision prior to the issuance of building permits, and in some cases during construction. This is primarily because the planning process generally involves architectural plans which are more or less conceptual, and when the engineered structural plans are prepared (typically after planning approvals are obtained), revisions are necessary to address engineering issues. Furthermore, during the structural engineering process, property owners have typically spent more time realizing the details of their project which may also result in some form of a revision. Because of this, the Development Code (Sections 17.78.040 and 17.78.050) provides provisions for project revisions. Pursuant to Commission direction, the following discussion explains the various Code provisions for revisions to planning project approvals, including the differences between minor A-1 PC MEMO — MINOR MODIFICATION JUNE 14, 2016 PAGE 2 and substantive revisions, as well as explaining how the Director implements the "minor modification" condition. Amendments to Approved Applications Section 17.78.040 of the Development Code establishes provisions for considering amendments to applications approved by the Director, Planning Commission, or City Council that are initiated by the property owner. In this case, amendments include revisions to approved project plans, as well as the modifications (deletion, addition, modification) to existing conditions of approval. According to Section 17.78.040, substantive amendments, as determined by the Director, are to be reviewed by the same body which took final action on the project approvals. Section 17.78.040 specifically states: A. An amendment, which proposes a substantive revision to the plans or project approved by an application that has been granted in accordance with this title, may be initiated by the property owner, at any time it is deemed necessary or desirable, upon petition to the director and submittal of a fee, as established by resolution by the city council. The determination of what constitutes a substantive revision shall be made by the director. Amendments to the project shall include, but are not limited to, the deletion or modification of existing conditions of approval, or the inclusion of new conditions of approval. B. The amendment to the project shall be considered by the same body which took the final action in granting the original application, utilizing the same hearing and noticing procedures, review criteria and appeal procedures as required by this title, for consideration of the original application. Based on past practice, the Director has generally determined a revision initiated by a property owner to be substantive if the approved building envelope is proposed to be increased or intensified in areas that have been identified as a concern by neighbors and/or the deciding body during the planning process, such as height, square footage, neighborhood compatibility, or setbacks. If a proposed project revision is determined by the Director to be substantive, the revision is sent back to the final deciding body for consideration at a duly noticed public hearing. Minor Modification Condition In order to provide the Director the ability to consider project revisions that are not found to be substantive, a standard "minor modification" condition included in all planning project approvals, including Council -approved and Commission -approved projects, so that requested project revisions do not have to go back to the final deciding body. The intent of this condition is to simplify the development process for property owners in cases when project revisions would result in a negligible difference to the original approval. The standard language of the minor modification condition specifically reads: The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantial change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. For purposes of this condition, the Director would consider a proposed project revision to be minor A-2 PC MEMO - MINOR MODIFICATION JUNE 14, 2016 PAGE 3 in nature when the building envelope is not increased or intensified, or if increased, the revision will not result in impacts to neighboring properties in terms of views, height, square footage, neighborhood compatibility, or setbacks (issues that are identified during the planning process). Furthermore, a revision can only be considered minor in nature by the Director if the modification does not reverse previous decisions or conditions intended to mitigate concerns raised by the public or the deciding body. The following are some examples of projects that the Director may consider to be a "minor modification" without sending the project back to the final deciding body: • Roof Height Increase — There may be cases when the project architect did not account for the roof tiles in the overall height of the structure. To account for this increase in the maximum roof height condition, a "minor modification" may be considered to allow the roof height condition to be increased by approximately 6- to 8 -inches provided that views analyzed from neighboring properties during the entitlement process are not impaired. • Basement Addition — There may be cases where a property owner wants to add a basement for storage purposes or to house utility equipment that was not identified in the original approved plans. A minor modification may be considered provided that the basement is not visible and that the added square footage is negligible without skewing the neighborhood compatibility calculations. • Building Footprint — Often times, a property owner will want to slightly modify the building footprint after planning approvals have been obtained based on design modifications realized during the engineering stage. A minor modification may be considered if the modified building footprint does not result in view impacts (as analyzed during the planning process), does not increase the visible square footage by approximately a few hundred square feet, and does not reduce the minimum setback requirements. • Facade Modifications — Changes to the architectural or facade details may be considered as a minor modification provided that the details remain compatible with the immediate neighborhood as analyzed during the planning process, and provided the details do not adversely impact neighboring properties in areas such as views or setbacks. • Accessory Structures — A minor modification may be considered by the Director for accessory structures such as pools, spas, fountains, cabanas, guest houses, trellises, outdoor kitchens, etc. which are improvements routinely processed by the Planning Division over-the-counter provided that these structures comply with the City's development criteria in terms of height, setbacks, and lot coverage, and do not intensify issues addressed during the planning process for the primary project. • Grading — During the planning process, grading plans have typically not been fully vetted by the project engineer. Revisions may be considered minor if the grading quantities do not result in an increase in either export or import, and will not adversely impact neighboring properties by creating mounds that will be visible or impair views from neighboring properties. In summary, there is a level of discretion the Director must consider when determining whether a modification qualifies as "minor" or "substantial." The scope of the requested modification must not alter the general intent of the findings of fact made by the final deciding body for the planning applications, or the conditions of approval imposed on the project that would result in adverse impacts to neighboring properties. The Director must first review the project record to consider what, if any, issues were raised during the planning process to determine if the requested modification can be processed as a minor modification. More often than not, the Director will not A-3 PC MEMO - MINOR MODIFICATION JUNE 14, 2016 PAGE 4 process a minor modification for revisions to projects that involved public testimony opposing a project. That being said, there is no set quantitative calculation that determines what is considered a "minor" versus "substantial" revision. However, generally speaking, the revision should not increase the building footprint by more than approximately a few hundred square feet or the height by more than approximately 6- to 8 -inches. It is also worth noting a Director's discretion would generally differ for residential projects versus nonresidential projects because of differences in the breadth and scope of these two types of projects. Interpretation Procedures for Approved Projects In addition to project revisions described above, Section 17.78.050 of the Development Code establishes provisions for interpreting decisions and conditions of approval granted by the City in cases of uncertainty or ambiguity. This Code section also sets provisions for considering minor modifications to project approvals (underlined below for emphasis), which may be considered a contradiction to Section 17.78.040 and the "minor modification" condition process described above. It should also be noted that the specific distinction between Section 17.78.040 and Section 17.78.050 (discussed below) is that 17.78.040 relates to revisions initiated by the property owner, while Section 17.78.050 can be initiated by the Director, Planning Commission, City Council, property owner, or any interested party. Specifically, Section 17.78.050 states the following: A. In cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any decision granted in accordance with this title, or to further define or enumerate the conditions of approval of an approved application, an interpretation procedure shall be followed whereby the body which took the final action in granting the original application shall conduct an interpretation review of the decision in question. Said interpretation review may be initiated by the director, planning commission, city council or upon the written request of the property owner or any interested person. Said interpretation review shall utilize the same notice, hearing process and review criteria required by this title for consideration of the original application. The interpretation review procedure shall be applied, but not be limited to the following situations: 1. Discrepancies between approved plans and subsequently revised plans; 2. Interpretations of conditions of approval; 3. New issues stemming from construction of the approved project which were not addressed or considered as part of the original project approval; 4. New minor project modifications that are similar in scope to the project considered under the original application (emphasis added); and 5. Minor modifications to the approved project as a result of and in conjunction with city decisions on subsequent discretionary applications (emphasis added). B. In cases involving the interpretation of a decision of the planning commission and/or city council, the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the appropriate review body. The director's written interpretation shall include a determination on whether said interpretation decision constitutes a minor, nonsubstantial revision to the approved application. Upon review of the director's interpretation, the appropriate body shall either: 1. Concur with the director's interpretation, and if the interpretation results in a minor revision to the approved application, approve the revision by minute order; or 2. Make a determination that the subject interpretation may result in a substantive revision to the originally approved application and thus require a formal review hearing; utilizing the same hearing, noticing requirements, review criteria and appeal procedures, PC MEMO — MINOR MODIFICATION JUNE 14, 2016 PAGE 5 required by this title, for consideration of the original application. C. In cases where the interpretation review is initiated by the director, planning commission or city council, no fee shall be required. In cases where the interpretation review is initiated by an applicant/property owner or interested party, a fee, as established by resolution of the city council, shall be required. Cases in which an interpretation review shall be considered as initiated by an applicant/property owner or interested party include but are not limited to: 1. Situations in which there is a difference of opinion between the director and an applicant or interested person as to whether a subsequently revised plan is consistent of the originally approved plan; and the applicant or interested person seeks the opinion of the review body which took the final action on the approved application; and 2. Situations in which there is a difference of opinion between the director and an applicant or interested person on the interpretation of a condition of approval, and the applicant or interested person seeks the opinion of the review body which took the final action on the approved application. Based on the above, Staff is of the opinion that Section 17.78.050 described above contradicts Section 17.78.040 and the "minor modification" condition process described earlier in the this Staff Report because both provisions and practices address "minor modifications" or non -substantive amendments, but with different processes. Thus, it is Staff's recommendation that the Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to initiate the code amendment proceedings to correct or clarify the contradiction and to codify a process for minor modifications. In doing so, Staff seeks Commission input on how minor modifications should be processed. Staff suggests the following: 1. Adding a section to 17.78.040 that describes processing minor modifications similar to the condition of approval discussed earlier in this report; and, 2. Deleting subsections 4 and 5 from section 17.78.050 as it pertains to minor modifications. In considering Staff's suggestions, the Commission should take into account that there are instances where proposed revisions resulting in negligible changes should be allowed to be considered by the Director, as opposed to bringing the project to the final deciding body, to minimize construction delays and added costs to the property owner. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On May 26, 2016, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News announcing tonight's agenda item and inviting public comments. Additionally, on June 7, 2016, an announcement of tonight's agenda item was sent to the Planning Commission list -serve subscribers. To date, Staff has received no public comments. In the event comments are received after the transmittal of this report, they will be provided to the Commission at the meeting as late correspondence. ATTACHMENTS • Section 17.78.040 • Section 17.78.050 A-5 17.78.040 - Amendments to approved applications. A. An amendment, which proposes a substantive revision to the plans or project approved by an application that has been granted in accordance with this title, may be initiated by the property owner, at any time it is deemed necessary or desirable, upon petition to the director and submittal of a fee, as established by resolution by the city council. The determination of what constitutes a substantive revision shall be made by the director. Amendments to the project shall include, but are not limited to, the deletion or modification of existing conditions of approval, or the inclusion of new conditions of approval. B. The amendment to the project shall be considered by the same body which took the final action in granting the original application, utilizing the same hearing and noticing procedures, review criteria and appeal procedures as required by this title, for consideration of the original application. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.78.050 - Interpretation procedure for approved applications. A. In cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any decision granted in accordance with this title, or to further define or enumerate the conditions of approval of an approved application, an interpretation procedure shall be followed whereby the body which took the final action in granting the original application shall conduct an interpretation review of the decision in question. Said interpretation review may be initiated by the director, planning commission, city council or upon the written request of the property owner or any interested person. Said interpretation review shall utilize the same notice, hearing process and review criteria required by this title for consideration of the original application. The interpretation review procedure shall be applied, but not be limited to the following situations: 1. Discrepancies between approved plans and subsequently revised plans; 2. Interpretations of conditions of approval; 3. New issues stemming from construction of the approved project which were not addressed or considered as part of the original project approval; 4. New minor project modifications that are similar in scope to the project considered under the original application; and 5. Minor modifications to the approved project as a result of and in conjunction with city decisions on subsequent discretionary applications. B. In cases involving the interpretation of a decision of the planning commission and/or city council, the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the appropriate review body. The director's written interpretation shall include a determination on whether said interpretation decision constitutes a minor, nonsubstantial revision to the approved application. Upon review of the director's interpretation, the appropriate body shall either: 1. Concur with the director's interpretation, and if the interpretation results in a minor revision to the approved application, approve the revision by minute order; or 2. Make a determination that the subject interpretation may result in a substantive revision to the originally approved application and thus require a formal review hearing; utilizing the same hearing, noticing requirements, review criteria and appeal procedures, required by this title, for consideration of the original application. C. In cases where the interpretation review is initiated by the director, planning commission or city council, no fee shall be required. In cases where the interpretation review is initiated by an applicant/property owner or interested party, a fee, as established by resolution of the city council, shall be required. Ag6 Cases in which an interpretation review shall be considered as initiated by an applicant/property owner or interested party include but are not limited to: 1. Situations in which there is a difference of opinion between the director and an applicant or interested person as to whether a subsequently revised plan is consistent of the originally approved plan; and the applicant or interested person seeks the opinion of the review body which took the final action on the approved application; and 2. Situations in which there is a difference of opinion between the director and an applicant or interested person on the interpretation of a condition of approval, and the applicant or interested person seeks the opinion of the review body which took the final action on the approved application. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) Page 2 A-7 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 14, 2016 CALL TO ORDER �-&Approved 7/12/16 � The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:01 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner James led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, James, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Commissioner Leon was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Senior Planner Mikhail, Planning Technician Lugo and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS City Council Items: Director Mihranian reported that at the June 6th meeting the City Council denied an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Director's unsubstantial amendment for the project at 5448 Bayridge Road. He reported that the City Council also reviewed the FY 16/17 budget and Capital Improvement Plan at its May 31s' budget workshop. A public hearing on the proposed FY 16/17 budget and Capital Improvement Plan will be held at the June 21, 2016 City Council meeting. Staff: Director Mihranian distributed one item of late correspondence for agenda item No. 2, two items for agenda item No. 3, and one item for agenda item No. 4. Finally, he reminded the Commission that the City will hold its annual July 4th festivities at the Civic Center site. Commission: Chairman Tomblin reported that he will be meeting with the City Manager, City Attorney, and Director Mihranian on June 21St COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE re ardin non -agenda item): As Noel Weiss stated he felt there was a need for an interpretation review of the City Manager's decision to allow roof top storage of vaults at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum at Green Hills. He stated the Master Plan does not allow for storage of vaults anywhere at the site without a Conditional Use Permit. He did not believe the City Manager had the authority to make this type of decision unilaterally and felt these types of decisions should be made after a public hearing. Matt Martin read a section from the State's Health and Safety Code, Section 9575, which discussed the ability of the City to revoke or cancel any permit or approval issued because of misrepresentation or false statements made by the applicant. He felt that the City is obligated under State law to revoke the permit for the mausoleum in Area 11. Sharon Loves stated she found out that the City has had personal meetings with the residents on Avenida Feliciano regarding Inspiration Slope. She stated the residents in her area never got to have a meeting with staff and never received phone calls from the City. She felt this might be because the residents on Avenida Feliciano are Rancho Palos Verdes voters. She pointed out that the Lomita residents called the City many times while the mausoleum in Area 11 was being built, to no avail. Joanna Jones -Reed recalled a former Planning Commissioner stated, during the public comments at a City Council meeting, that the Lomita residents had been screwed. She agreed, and felt the Lomita residents had been cheated, swindled, tricked, and deceived. She also mentioned the residents on Avenida Feliciano who are allowed to have meetings with the Mayor, City Manager, and Community Development Director when the residents of Lomita were not given this opportunity. She asked several questions to the Planning Commission regarding Green Hills. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of May 10, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Approved, (4-0-2) with Commissioners James and Emenhiser abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Compliance Review of Point View Master Plan Case No. ZON0210-00087 Senior Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the project and the approvals that have been given. She stated this is the third compliance review, as required by the Planning Commission at the last compliance review hearing. She stated staff has been monitoring the site since October. She stated that, as noted at the last compliance review hearing, a noise study had not been completed and was still required. This noise study has now been supplied by the applicant and is included with the staff report. She briefly discussed the results of the noise study and also noted that staff had received a comment letter from a Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 2 A -IN neighbor regarding the noise at the site. She noted a comment letter was received in regards to traffic impacts, however explained the traffic study that was conducted concluded the Event Garden would not have a negative impact on traffic. She stated that staff was aware of the public's concerns regarding traffic on Palos Verdes Drive South, however staff does not believe there is a direct nexus to the Event Garden. She noted that cumulative traffic impacts will be looked at for the General Plan update that will be coming before the City Council. She stated there will be another compliance review in the fall of 2016. Commissioner Nelson asked staff to confirm that when the noise study was done, the chimes at Wayfarers Chapel, peacocks, a motorcycle, and general aviation were the outstanding noise issues. Senior Planner Mikhail answered that was what the noise study noted. Commissioner Nelson asked if staff had received any complaints from residents before the notice was mailed out. Senior Planner Mikhail responded that staff had not received any complaints in regards to the Event Garden since October 2015. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing, Jim York (applicant) discussed his farming program at the site, noting that Terranea has expanded their garden on the property and he provides vegetables and avocados to Terranea. He also noted he is growing wine grapes on the property. He stated the events have gone well at the property, and there have been several charity events. He noted that there have been no complaints over the past year in regards to the Conditional Use Permit. He stated he would like to request a few minor changes to the Conditional Use Permit to simplify things. He explained that currently he is allowed fifty events, and he was requesting that all fifty events have the same requirements. He also noted he is the only venue on the Peninsula that is required to turn off all sound at 9:30 p.m. He requested that for Friday and Saturday nights only he be allowed to have music until 10:00 p.m. Vanessa Bowman stated that for 2016 all thirty of the larger events have been booked and nine of the smaller events have been booked. She stated she works closely with all of the pre - approved DJs, caterers, and event planners to ensure all restrictions and requirements are complied with before, during, and after the event. In addition, there is someone on site for every event with a decibel meter to ensure sound limits are not exceeded. She requested that the twenty small events be blended with the thirty larger events to have all of the same requirements, and that music be allowed until 10:00 on Friday and Saturday nights only. Commissioner Nelson clarified that the request was to increase attendance at the twenty small events to 300 guests. Ms. Bowman stated that was correct. She noted that the average attendance at the large events throughout the year is 158 guests, and they have not held an event with 300 guests. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 3 The only exception to that was the Las Candalistas event, however they obtained a Special Use Permit from the City for that event. She stated the largest event booked this year is estimated at 230 guests. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if the Commission can consider major changes to the CUP at this meeting, such as changing the time or increasing the attendance. Director Mihranian explained that if the Commission wants to consider increasing the number of events, or any changes to these events, it will require a public notice. He stated that Mr. York will have to submit a CUP revision application and staff will then have to do the proper analysis and agendize the item at a future, duly noticed public hearing. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked Ms. Bowman why they felt they needed to increase the attendance at the small events. Ms. Bowman explained that their thirty large events are already booked, and limiting the other events to only 50 guests is too restrictive. They feel they are missing out on business because they have to turn away requests with more than 50 guests. Chairman Tomblin requested that if Mr. York does submit the application, when the staff report is prepared he would like to see a chart of the dates and times of the larger events. Karen Stockbridge stated she was a member of Las Candalistas and stated that non-profit organizations depend on the generosity of people like Mr. York and his Catalina Gardens to be able to hold an event for charity with very low overhead expenses. She stated that Catalina Gardens is very contentious about the restrictions of their CUP and make Las Candalistas stay to the exact standards allowed and to be very considerate of the neighbors. Minas Yerelian objected that every time Mr. York comes before the Planning Commission he asks for something more, such as more events or larger events, and the Commission allows it. He reminded the Commission that the illusion of a golf course is the key to the entire event, and noticed there were no pictures displayed of the golf course. He stated the golf course is not maintained and therefore the CUP must be revoked. He pointed out that Mr. York is not in compliance with his driveway, as it is supposed to be an earth -toned color. He stated the use of this property is changing from residential to commercial with the blessing of the City Council. Finally, he questioned why events are lasting until 9:30 rather than the approved 8:30. Chairman Tomblin asked staff to discuss the status of the golf course. Senior Planner Mikhail stated that before the October 2015 compliance review Mr. York had taken her around the property and showed her the golf course. She noted it is not a typical standard golf course, but it is considered a golf course. Chairman Tomblin asked staff for an update on the driveway Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 4 AE Senior Planner Mikhail explained that the driveway that was installed was a grey tone, as opposed to an earth tone. The Commission at that time agreed the grey tone could be maintained, and added additional conditions regarding slurry sealing in the future. Chairman Tomblin asked staff to discuss the 8:30 versus 9:30 issue. Senior Planner Mikhail explained that at the last compliance review in October 2015 Mr. York requested a modification of the time frame from 8:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. The Commission approved that modification. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if the golf course on site was a playable golf course. Senior Planner Mikhail stated there are holes and a putting green at the site. She noted that in the staff report, condition Nos. 32 through 37, are the specific conditions that are applicable as to how this golf course is to be situated and improved. Commissioner Emenhiser reminded the Commission that at the time of the initial review process for the event garden, the question came up as to whether this site would be better suited as the site of eighty five homes, or would it be better suited for the current uses. He noted that in the past six months there has been one complaint about the activities on the site, which tells him that Mr. York and his staff are doing everything they can to conform to the conditions established by the City. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser moved the staff recommendation to receive and file the status report, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated that he would like to know more about the golf course on the property, and stated that if Mr. York comes back to the Commission with a request to make modifications to the site, he would like to know more about the golf course and he would like to review the property and golf course in order to make a more informed decision. The motion to receive and file the report was approved, (6-0). 3. Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project Status Report Senior Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, stating that at the May 11th meeting, in light of some concerns raised by the public, the Planning Commission requested staff provide a status report on the project. She noted the Commission is not being asked to make any decisions on this project, but rather to receive and file the report. She explained the first item of concern was how and why cable barrier installed on top of the walls. She gave a brief history of the walls and their approval, and explained the cable barrier was installed by the developer for safety, security, and liability reasons. She displayed a photo and pointed out how the landscaping has grown in around the wall. She also noted the applicant has indicated they will paint the cable barrier a hunter green color. She gave a brief status on the landscape Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 5 IJ plan, showing a before photo and a rendering of what the wall will look like after the landscaping grows in. She stated that the applicant will have to provide certification to the City stating they have complied with the approved landscape plan and provided all required irrigation. She noted a question from the Planning Commission as to why the roofs of the structures were changed from pitch to mansard roofs. She explained that the previous project planner directed the developer to use an incorrect set of plans when it came to submitting plans with pad and ridgeline elevations. As a result, the applicant had to modify some of the roof pitches in order to comply with maximum height and pad elevations. She noted that condition No. 115 does require the roof pitch of specific buildings be reduced to a 1 3/:12 roof pitch, which is essentially a flat roof. However, she noted a bright white material has been installed on these flat roofs that are of a concern to residents and staff. As a result, staff approached the developer and gave them an option to modify the roof color or seek Council approval to allow the roof portion to remain white. The developer has approached staff with an alternate roofing material, and staff specified an acceptable color and approved the material. Finally, the last question had to do with the overall density of the project. She explained that staff has reviewed the Council approved plans and compared that to what is being built, and confirmed the project is being built in compliance with what was originally approved by the City Council. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. April Steiger showed a photo taken from her home which looks down on the project. She pointed out a shiny white roof, and stated it was always her understanding that was supposed to be a tile roof. She stated the Planning Commission originally approved a plan for all 60 of the buildings on this site to have peak roofing with all tile surfaces. She stated the Commission also approved 6 houses to have their peaks lowered, which resulted in a flat surface that could not be tiled. However, this result was not discussed or disclosed at the meeting. She felt that the color of the flat sections should be required to match the color scheme of the roofs throughout the development. She also objected to the high shine and glare of the current material. She noted that staff has selected the pli-deck to be installed on the flat portions of the roofs, and requested that the physical samples of the pli-deck that is proposed to be installed be compared to the actual tile samples to make sure they are is the best match. She pointed out the Planning Commission did not approve the flat, shiny, non - tiled roof tops that are proposed for nine units. Richard Rockoff stated the pli-deck can be done in custom colors and urged the City to take advantage of these custom colors to mitigate the negative appearance of a flat roof. He stated there are several sealers and finishes that are manufacturer approved, noting some have a lower reflectivity than others. He stated the material comes with a ten year warranty, and needs to have a complete reseal done after approximately five years. This leaves the quality of the condition of the roofs and his future views at the hands of the Homeowners Association and how well they take care of the needed work. Chairman Tomblin asked staff the status of the completed building No. 18 in terms of the white roof. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 6 AM* Senior Planner Mikhail answered the applicant would be altering the roof on building No. 18 to have the pli-deck material. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner James noted that the City Council approved the Conditional Use Permit for this development. With that, other than to receive this report, there is nothing the Planning Commission can do to respond to the comments and concerns of the public, as this will have to be taken to the City Council. Commissioner James moved to receive and file the report as recommended by staff, and recommend that the City Council agendize this item for discussion. Seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Director Mihranian asked the Planning Commission to clarify the second part of the motion. He questioned if it was the Commission's desire to provide the Council with a status report, as staff has not heard any requests from the City Council to hear this item. Commissioner James responded that it appears to him there are changes at the site that are not minor and the applicant, if necessary, should make an application to modify the CUP to include these modifications, and it should be heard by the City Council. Director Mihranian suggested the wording of the motion might be to advise staff to review the changes and to determine whether or not these changes should be brought back to the City Council for review and approval. He explained the permits have been issued, decisions have been made administratively, and whether or not these decisions should have been administratively or not, staff is trying to reconcile these changes and different plans and move forward. With that, he was not sure it was necessary to go to the Council with these past decisions, however he noted that in the future any further changes not described in the staff report will go back to the City Council. With that, Commissioner James modified his motion to receive and file the report as recommended by staff, with a strong recommendation that staff take this item to the City Council for review in light of the numerous mistakes that have been made in the past and the concerns that have been raised. Seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Commissioner Nelson asked how the white roofing was approved. Senior Planner Mikhail stated the type of material was approved, however the white color was not approved. She explained the developer was approached by staff and provided two options: to match the color to the tile on the buildings or go before the City Council with a revision to request the white be allowed to remain. The developer chose to match the color to the tile and has been working diligently with staff since then. Commissioner Nelson asked staff if, since the CUP was approved by the City Council, the City Council would be the ones to approve any changes to the CUP. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 7 OMAN Assistant City Attorney Burrows responded that was correct, the City Council approved this CUP and any requested amendments to the CUP would have to go before and be approved by the City Council. The requested amendments would not be heard by the Planning Commission. Chairman Tomblin asked if staff would revise the staff report on page one, the bottom of the paragraph. In reading the paragraph he felt the wording implied the Commission approved the walls, which was not the case. Director Mihranian stated the staff report cannot be amended at this point, as it has already been distributed to the public. However, he stated it was important to make that clarification in the minutes so that it is documented for the record. Chairman Tomblin referred to page 3 of the staff report, in reference to the cable barrier, and stated he appreciated the developer's offer to paint those cables a hunter green color. He asked if the Commission would be willing to accept that offer to paint the cables. Chairman Tomblin moved to make a friendly amendment to the motion to have the cables on top of the wall painted a hunter green color. Commissioner James did not accept the friendly amendment explaining that, procedurally, the Commission should be receiving and filing the report, and not making changes to the project. Chairman Tomblin understood and, rather than make a motion, suggested the developer may want to consider painting the cables hunter green. The motion was approved, (6-0). 4. Director's Implementation of the Minor Modification Condition and Interpretation Section of the Development Code Director Mihranian presented the staff report, explaining this item was requested by the Commission to be placed on the agenda for discussion on how the Director implements the minor modification condition, as well as the interpretation section of the Municipal Code. He stated that over the past several months many questions have been asked, both at the City Council level and Commission level, as to how and why certain decisions have been made administratively. He discussed the section of the Municipal Code which allows the Director to consider amendments to previously approved decisions that are initiated by the applicant or property owner. With this language he explained staff applies a standard condition to every decision made, which allows the Community Development Director to make minor modifications to city approvals. He also discussed the Municipal Code section regarding interpretation procedures for approved projects. He explained these two different code sections are supposed to work together, however they are not very clear and cause ambiguities. Therefore, staff is recommending the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to initiate a code amendment proceeding so that staff can clarify some of the Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 8 L-02991 code sections. He explained staff's recommendation, as discussed in the staff report. He stated staff is seeking direction from the Commission on what they would like done, and to forward a recommendation to the City Council to consider. Commissioner Emenhiser explained that on one hand he has some sympathy for the Community Development Director, as this person wants to be consistent with past decisions and have consistency in the decisions made by the Department. However, on the other hand, recently there have been occurrences where a decision has been made by the Commission and modifications have been approved by the Director that may not have been considered minor. He also pointed out that there have been three Directors in the past six months, and questioned if each Director would interpret something the same way. He felt it may be helpful if there was a way to quantify, not just qualify, these amended approvals. He encouraged the Director to include public and Commission involvement as much as possible in making these modifications to protect himself and his staff. Commissioner James stated that he had previously met with the Interim Community Development Director, now Director Mihranian, and the two Senior Planners to discuss this very issue. He felt there are really two separate issues, one being the way the sections work, which he did not think they worked very well, the other being what a minor modification is. He stated the topic of the definition of a minor modification is a good discussion to have, but it is different than the way the language of the section should work. He pointed out that the code talks about a substantive change rather than a substantial change, and these two words are not the same at all and mean different things. He asked the Director if it was staffs intention to remove the concept of minor modifications from the Code, but rather move it to a different place in the Code. Director Mihranian answered that was correct. He added that defining a minor modification is very difficult to quantify, and any proposed verbiage should try to attempt to give some direction in the Code as to how to apply a minor modification rather than try to define a minor modification. He explained that minor modifications are different in a case by case situation, and so many variables should be factored in when making the determination of whether or not it is a minor modification, that he felt it would be very difficult to quantify. He felt that many of the staff decisions made in the past regarding minor modifications should have been made by the deciding body rather than staff, however these are past decisions and the practice he would apply as Director will be what is reflected in the verbiage that will be presented to the Commission and the Council. Commissioner James understood and urged the Director to err on the side of going back to the body that made the decision when looking at a minor modification if the decision is at all close. Commissioner Bradley pointed out that it was important to factor and balance expediency into this decision. He did not want to hamstring Planning Department's ability to act in a timely manner and have everything become a multi -month process to get anything done. He felt there has to be some type of discretion and some type of trust given to the Director, and there will always be some type of judgement the Director will have to make in deciding if a Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 9 modification is substantial or not. He felt that trying to foresee every different type occurrence that may take place will overly constrain city staff to be able to execute in a timely manner. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned what type of notice and oversight occurs when these over-the-counter approvals are given by staff. He questioned if there is any type of paper trail involved. Director Mihranian explained that in the past when the Director approved a minor modification over the counter, there has been some sort of a paper trail, such as staff memos. He also explained that in making a decision on whether or not a proposed modification is minor, staff looks at the history of the project and any opposition that may have occurred during the public hearings, and the tone of those concerns. Staff also looks at whether or not the proposed change is visible from the street or a neighbors' home. He noted there are many factors that go into the decision as to whether or not a proposed modification is minor. Commissioner Emenhiser felt that in the future the Director should not hesitate to bring grey area issues back to the Planning Commission for a decision to help avoid any problems or discrepancies. Director Mihranian noted that in some cases the applicant may be requesting an additional ancillary use on the property, such as a swimming pool, and these types of uses are allowed by right and there is no level of discretion. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Noel Weiss felt the status quo was fine, and the Commission should have more faith in the staff and themselves. He stated this is a conversation regarding discretionary approvals, and this is a circumstance that is prone to abuse. The only check and balance in place so that the special interest don't gain the type of entry that has led to so many problems for the City, is the right to initiate an interpretation review for minor modifications. He noted the public can request this review for a few, or the Planning Commission can initiate such a request. He encouraged the Commission to come up with specific language to address this issue. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner James felt the Commission should try to draft some language, and that the City Council would appreciate the Commission's input. Director Mihranian explained that currently this is a procedural matter, and if the Council initiates the code amendment proceedings the matter will come back to the Commission, at which time the Commission will draft language and forward that verbiage to the Council for consideration. Commissioner James noted that staff's recommendation does not include a recommendation that the matter be sent back to the Commission to draft language. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 10 Director Mihranian explained that is inherently built into the process of code amendments to Title 17 of the Development Code. He stated that all code amendments to Title 17 have to be reviewed first by the Planning Commission and then by the City Council. With that understanding, Commissioner James moved to accept staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if staff has the ability to interact and work with other departments in the City in regards to proposed modifications to plans. Director Mihranian answered that the request and whether it affects another department is often discussed with other departments, at the discretion of the Director. Commissioner Nelson felt that if the Commission was going to define "minor", they should also define "major", "substantial", and "substantive". He did not think it was fair for the Director to have to make these types of determinations without a definition in place. Commissioner James agreed, and moved staff recommendation, and if appropriate, to add specific definitions to the code, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was approved, (6-0). NEW BUSINESS 5. Capital Improvement Plan Planning Technician Lugo presented a brief staff report of the draft 2016 five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). She explained what a CIP is and noted the proposed plan outlines the objectives for the five year plan, summarizing the list of proposed projects for the infrastructure categories in addition to the budgeted CIP work for the 2015/2016 fiscal year. She stated staff has reviewed the list of capital projects in the draft CIP and believes the CIP continues to be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. With that, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution attached to the staff report. Commissioner James stated the question before the Commission is whether these proposed projects are consistent with the General Plan, and not which ones he likes or does not like. With that, he stated he has no issues with the projects listed in the CIP. Commissioner Emenhiser noted that there was a discussion last year when this issue was presented as to whether or not the financial viability of the City is in the purview of the Planning Commission. At that time, he mistakenly agreed that it was outside of the Commission's purview. He noted that in the General Plan there is a large chapter entitled the Fiscal Element, and therefore he felt the Planning Commission does have some responsibilities for the financial viability of the City. Commissioner James stated it was his understanding that this list of proposed projects will be presented to the City Council so that they can then pick and choose, based in part on the Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 11 B-11 City's fiscal abilities, which ones to proceed with. Therefore, he felt the question before the Commission was whether any of these proposed projects were ones that shouldn't be considered, regardless of whether or not the City can afford it. With that in mind, he did not see any that meets that threshold. Director Mihranian stated the CIP was discussed at the May 31St City Council meeting, where they went item by item to look at the fiscal aspects and the scope of each project, and was vetted by the Council at that meeting. The item before the Commission is only to find that these projects are consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he would like to see more scrutiny and have a better explanation of the Civic Center Master Plan, the Torrance Airport Storm Water Quality project, and the Hawthorne Boulevard Signal Synchronization project. Commissioner Nelson stated he would also like to have a better explanation of the Torrance Airport Storm Water Quality project, the Civic Center Master Plan, and anything to do with storm drains. However, with that being said he pointed out that the projects have been before the Finance Advisory Committee and before the City Council for review. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated he would be interested in review the Coastal Bluff Fence project and the Marquee Signage, as well as a discussion on the original versus total budget. Director Mihranian began by stating he does not know all of the details on each of the projects, as they are driven by the Public Works Department. He discussed the Civic Center Master Plan, noting the requested budget is to bring in consultants to work on developing a Master Plan for the Civic Center. In regards to the Torrance Airport Storm Water Quality project, he explained that the City and the Peninsula have watersheds that drain into other jurisdictions, and per the Water Quality Act, the city is responsible for the quality of the water that ends up in the watershed that drains into these jurisdictions. Commissioner Emenhiser discussed the Ladera Linda item from last year, and the suspicion that the traffic light synchronization project was more of a backdoor way to run fiber to City Hall, and he continues to wonder if this is the best use of city resources. Director Mihranian stated it was his understanding that the City Council, at a previous meeting, gave authorization to fund some fiber optics installation between Hesse Park and City Hall. He also noted that this item was budgeted last year and is continuing onto next year's budget. Vice Chairman Cruikshank referred to the coastal bluff project, and asked staff if they knew what type of material was proposed to be used to replace the existing fencing. Director Mihranian did not know. He added that he was recently on the trail and observed several areas where the fencing and piping were rusted and in disrepair. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked staff to discuss the item in regards to marques signage Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 12 B-12 Director Mihranian explained the intent was to add two reader digital type signs, one at City Hall and one at Hesse Park. He also stated it was his understanding that this item was modified at the last budget meeting, but he did not know the specifics of those modifications. Chairman Tomblin expressed his concern that the Planning Commission would not likely approve a lighted marques type sign such as the ones being proposed in the CIP. Director Mihranian stated he just contacted the Deputy Director of Public Works who informed him this project has been pulled from the CIP. Vice Chairman Cruikshank referred to the original versus total budget, and asked why the two numbers are so different. Director Mihranian stated he was not in a position to comment on the actual dollar figures in the budget, as he had no knowledge of those figures. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation, with questions on the Coastal Bluff Fence Replacement program, the Hawthorne Boulevard Traffic Synchronization Project, the City Hall Marquee Sign, and had serious concerns regarding the Civic Center Master Plan and the Torrance Airport Storm Water Quality Project, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner James felt that the motion was trying to put some things into the decision the Planning Commission was supposed to be making that shouldn't be there. He noted that the Civic Center Master Plan, which he would not be in favor of, was still in the parameters of the General Plan. He therefore could not support the motion as currently stated. He suggested a motion amended to approve staff's recommendation as modified by the withdrawal of the marques sign program from the CIP. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend his motion to approve staff's recommendation, noting Commissioner's questions regarding the Coastal Buff Fence Replacement Program, the Hawthorne Boulevard Traffic Synchronization Project, and serious questions in regards to the Civic Center Master Plan and the Torrance Airport Storm Water Quality Project, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved (5-1) with Commissioner James dissenting. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to include in their report to the City Council that the Commission was not questioning the coastal bluff fence replacement program, only that there were questions on the type of materials that would be used in the replacement fencing. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre -Agenda for the Meeting on June 28 2016 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 13 B-13 Chairman Tomblin noted that since there are no items scheduled for this meeting, staff's recommendation was to not have a meeting on June 28th. He asked staff about future projects that may be before the Commission in the next several months. Director Mihranian stated there are several projects throughout the City that have been submitted to the Planning Department and will be heard by the Commission in the upcoming months. Commissioner Nelson moved to cancel the June 28, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 14 AWA Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 15 B-15