Loading...
PC MINS 20170228 Approved 3/14/- 0 7 4'41 . CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:13 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser (arrived at 7:32 pm), Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Commissioner James was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Senior Planner Kim, Senior Planner Mikhail, Associate Planner Seeraty, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at the February 21st meeting the City Council heard the Commission-recommended Minor Modification Code Amendment, with minor modifications to change the required appeal period from 5-days to 15-days, and directed Staff to come back with an application fee and a reduced appeal fee. The City Council also approved the Commission-recommended Conditional Large Animal Permit for the Pony Club, and continued to discuss topics to be included in a citywide noise ordinance. Director Mihranian reminded the Commissioners that the League of California Cities annual Planning Commission Academy begins on March 1st. He also distributed late correspondence regarding agenda items Nos. 4 and 6. Commissioner Nelson reported that he attended the CHOA expo on Februaryl5th. He also reported that a response was provided to Mr. Turner's question at the last Planning Commission meeting regarding a traffic signal at the intersection of Western Avenue and Peninsula Verde Drive COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the February 14, 2017 Minutes Vice Chairman Cruikshank moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Bradley abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 2. Height Variation/Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016-00416): 30803 Via la Cresta Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the Resolution as presented by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Cruikshank. P.C. Resolution 2017-05 was approved, (5-0). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Appeal of Site Plan Review(Case No. ZON2016-00332): 27501 Western Avenue Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the case, and explaining that since the last Planning Commission meeting on this subject the City Council held the Annual Compliance review at which time they adopted a revised set of conditions addressing noise, construction, and other impacts that were occurring as a result of the operations at the cemetery. In addition, the City participated in mediation with the Vista Verde condominium owners and the parties are currently negotiating a potential settlement agreement. Because that may affect the appeal process according to the applicant, they are requesting another continuance to this item. Given the situation, Staff is recommending the Planning Commission grant the applicant's request and continue this item to the March 28th meeting. Commissioner Nelson questioned how the settlement with Vista Verde ties into Inspiration Slope project. Director Mihranian explained that Staff is under the impression that if this settlement agreement is signed, the appeal of the retaining wall will be withdrawn by the appellant meaning that the appeal would no longer be considered by the Commission and that the Director's decision becomes final. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 2 Noel Weiss stated that he contends the City Council's action in regards to the compliance review and that a compliance review is a compliance review and not an invitation to impose new entitlements. He asked that before the next scheduled meeting that Green Hills provide the documentation they indicated they would provide, or else say they are not going to provide it. Lastly, in reference to Commissioner Nelson's comments regarding Inspiration Slope, he explained that one of the considerations they gave to the City was that they would be willing to drop all of their administrative appeals and current litigation as part of this settlement agreement. Commissioner Emenhiser arrived at this time. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if they had an update on the density issues discussed at the previous meeting. Senior Planner Kim stated the applicant is available if the Commission has any questions. Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Resich if he could give the Commission a status on the density questions raised at the previous meeting. Nick Resich (Green Hills) stated Green Hills staff is putting the requested information together, however when then heard about the possible settlement agreement they were not aware whether this information was or was not a part of it. Therefore, Green Hills has asked for an extension to continue gathering the necessary information. Commissioner Nelson noted this appeal hearing started in November, and that this process has gone on long enough. He requested that the information be provided at the March 28th meeting and that this appeal be heard at that meeting. Director Mihranian understood Commissioner Nelson's frustrations and concerns, however noted there are other variables in play that are contingent on this appeal that needs to be seen through. He agreed that some of the requested information is readily available, but there is other information Green Hills needs to put together and they've been waiting because of the discussions taking place between the City and the Vista Verde Condominium homeowners. He stated he can give the Commission a status report on this issue at the March 14th meeting. Commissioner Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to March 28, 2017 as recommended by Staff, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser abstaining. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Coastal Permit, Grading Permit, and Variance (Case No. ZON2016-00125): 104 Spindrift Lane Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 3 Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report, explaining the three applications that are necessary for this project. She discussed each application and the need for each of the applications. She reviewed the proposed new home, showing the various elevations, and discussed neighborhood compatibility. She stated that staff received one email requesting the chimney be reduced in size to help preserve a view, noting that the applicant has reduced the width of the proposed chimney in response to public comment. She stated staff was able to make the required findings for the Coastal Permit, Grading Permit, and Variance, and was therefore recommending the Planning Commission approve the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Emenhiser was concerned with the reduced setbacks, as well as the neighborhood compatibility. He noted that this is one of the smaller lots in the neighborhood with a rather large home being proposed on the lot. He was concerned about what type of precedence would be set by approving a large home on such a small lot. Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted the grading plan was not prepared by a civil engineer and he did not feel the grading plan was adequate. He noted very little information is shown on the grading plan, such as finished grades, finished surfaces, and new contours. He asked staff what type of scrutiny staff puts into this grading plan. He also questioned if the applicant is required to show cut and fill calculations signed and stamped by a licensed civil engineer that verifies the amount of grading. Director Mihranian explained that from a planning standpoint, there is some flexibility in the information required by the Planning Department in terms of grading based on the submittal requirements stated in the Development Code. He noted that Building and Safety requires grading plans to be prepared and wet-stamped by a licensed engineer during the plan check process. Commissioner Leon asked staff if the architectural review board in this area had reviewed and approved the plans. Associate Planner Seeraty answered that the architectural review board of the area did review and approve the plan, but did not know if it was the final version of the project plans before the Commission this evening. Louie Tomaro (architect) stated this project has been challenging from every aspect. He explained the original plan was to remodel the existing house, however as they got into it they found the existing house has a lot of non-conformities, as well as infra-structure and foundation issues. He stated he has done the grading calculations that are before the Commission this evening, and they will be on the grading plans that are submitted to Building and Safety. He discussed the rear yard setbacks and explained why he had to go to the rear for the modest addition. He stated he tried to build under and back to minimize any impacts to the neighbors. He felt the house is modest in size, as it will only be 2,100 square feet. He explained projects in the Beach Club are very difficult, and it is Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 4 nearly impossible to do anything without the need for a Variance. He felt the Variances on this project are justified to modestly rebuild this house. Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Tomaro how he intends to get construction equipment onto that extremely narrow road. Mr. Tomaro stated that fortunately there is a balance in the grading which will minimize the export on the property. He explained it will have to be staged properly and it is very challenging to get the vehicles in and out. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Tomaro to explain the differences in design from the plan approved by the architectural board and the plan presented to the City. Mr. Tomaro explained the only difference is that in the current design he pulled the top floor back and created a little more open space on the first floor. He stated the changes are very subtle, and he will submit the new plans to the architectural committee. Director Mihranian explained that what is rather unique for this proposal is that there are no variances for the side yard setback. He stated that typically projects in this area ask for variances in the front, rear and side yard setbacks. He noted, however, that Staff has noticed there is an encroachment into the side yard setback by six inches, and Staff is working with the applicant to correct that. Therefore, there will be a slight change to the plans as a result of that adjustment. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the project as recommended and conditioned by Staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Bradley stated this is an odd lot, and he is not typically in favor of Variances to change the lot coverage. However, when looking at the rest of the neighborhood, and the fact that the architectural committee has approved the plan, he would be in favor of the project. He added that he would like staff to look at what would be involved to clarify for all of the residents in the area what is possible by creating some type of overlay. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he was not in favor of approving the second largest home on the third smallest lot in the neighborhood. Commissioner Leon agreed that it would be beneficial for this area to have some set of guidelines they can use in the future as to what is an acceptable front, rear, or side yard setback. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated he understood the architect's explanation of the calculations used for the grading, however he requested that staff provide this type of data in the staff report in the future. He felt the architect did a good job in addressing privacy concerns and other concerns in this odd neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2017 Page 5 The motion to approve the project as recommended by staff, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2017-06, was approved (5-0-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting. Director Mihranian commented that Staff would reach out to the Beach Club to see if they are interested in initiating a conversation to create an Overlay Zone. 5. Compliance Review No. 4 of the Point View Master Use Plan Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2010-00087): 6001 Palos Verdes Drive South Commissioner Leon stated he must recuse himself from the next two items, as he lives within 500 feet of the Point View property and he has been actively involved with the project at 48 Cinnamon Drive as part of the architectural review board. He left the dais at this time. Senior Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the uses on the property and what is allowed with the Conditional Use Permit. She explained that since the last compliance review staff has met with the event coordinator and the residents at 1 Fruit Tree on several occasions to discuss some of the concerns that have been occurring with the operation. Because these discussions were ongoing, the compliance review was moved from the Fall to this evening. She stated that for the purposes of this compliance review, Staff analysis was based on field observations, input from neighboring property owners, and discussions with the applicant. She stated that overall, Staff is of the opinion that the applicant is in compliance with the conditions of approval, with the exception of certain operational hours and noise impacts that were relayed to Staff during meetings with the neighbor. With regards to noise impacts, she noted that comment letters received since the last compliance review in June 2016 expressing concerns with event related noise that are adversely impacting neighboring properties, such as DJ's, loud music, and cheering. She noted that the applicant is required to submit a noise study each year, the most recent being submitted in November 2016. She discussed the specifics of the report, and that the study found the noise generated from the event was within the acceptable noise level parameters. However, given some concerns raised by the public with regards to the noise consultant, Staff was recommending Condition No. 72 be amended to require the noise consultant be retained by the City, with all costs borne by the applicant. She stated that Staff was informed that some members working at the events are allegedly at the site beyond the hours permitted by the CUP and that property management staff is not always on site to ensure the conditions of approval are being complied with. She noted the event coordinator has been informed of this, and they have their own internal review taking place to mitigate this concern. Staff also suggested an amendment to Condition No. 70 requiring an employee of the property owner to be on site during and after the event. She discussed concerns raised with a temporary tent installed to help to provide shelter for food preparation, as well as an outdoor scullery area. Staff reviewed the amendments to Condition No. 64 to help address these issues. Given there have been complaints over the past several months, Staff felt it was important Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 6 to continue with the compliance reviews, with the next review after the two largest events scheduled in July have been held. Chairman Tomblin asked Staff if there was a reason the tent in question is temporary, and not a permanent tent structure. Senior Planner Mikhail answered that the applicant has not indicated they wish to construct anything in the area of the tent, and she was not sure the neighbors would want to see anything permanent in that area. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Jim York (applicant) explained that since the last compliance review there have been 30 large events and several smaller events, and all events were compliant with the conditions of approval. He stated he has significantly expanded agriculture at the site, and has hired a farm manager. He noted that he has been meeting the conditions established by the City, and questioned why he has to have more reviews. Vanessa Bowman felt it is possible for the neighbors and Catalina View Gardens to co- exist, and was very pleased with the recent discussions with the Wrights to address their concerns. She explained that understanding the issues and getting specific details about any noise concerns is vital to finding solutions for all involved. With regards to hours of operation in Condition No. 70, she stated there is a site representative on site on the day of an event from 11 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. She noted that there are two people present for the closing shift during the larger events. In regards to Condition No. 64 and the temporary tent, she explained hours of operation for installation of equipment is needed as they are permitted to hold events on Sundays. She asked that the Sunday hours be the same as on Saturday, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Currently she has three events booked on a Sunday, and she felt only one of those will require the tent. She also explained that in addition, there may be the occasional need for tents on the ceremony lawn and reception area due to inclement weather. These tents would likely be installed the day before the event during the allowed hours. Chairman Tomblin noted three letters were received regarding the noise levels at the site that goes past the 9:30 mark. He asked Ms. Bowman to comment. Ms. Bowman explained the music ends at 9:30 and guests depart. She felt that during the typical half hour between 9:30 and 10:00 when guests depart, there may be talking and laughing that the neighbors are hearing. She also noted that they stop food and beverage service at 9:15 to help facilitate the guests exiting. Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Bowman if she has had any discussions with the Wrights in terms of their concerns with the noise associated with the erection of the temporary catering tent. Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 7 Ms. Bowman answered that after understanding the Wright's concerns she met with the rental company to discuss options to minimize the noise. Chairman Tomblin asked how often that tent is put up. Ms. Bowman stated that not every caterer on the list chooses to put up the tent, and estimated that 80 percent of the larger events use the tent. Joan Wright(1 Fig Tree) stated she is requesting there is a complete shutdown at the site by 9:30. She explained that the kitchen area at the site is active after the event ends and she hears dishes, glasses, and people talking until 10:30 at night. She also asked that microphones be prohibited, as she can no longer sit outside in the evening and enjoy the quiet of the night. She felt these operations at the property are hurting her property values. Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Wright her opinion on having the catering tent as a permanent structure. Ms. Wright answered that she would prefer it not be a permanent structure, as she would have to look at the tent all of the time and it would spoil her view. Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Wright if she was contending the staff and catering crews are at the site until 10:30 p.m. Ms. Wright stated the clean-up in the kitchen area, which is a relatively new area outside of the compound, lasts until 10:30. Chairman Tomblin asked staff to comment on this. Senior Planner Mikhail noted Condition No. 70 allows for the workers to be on site until 10:30. Ms. Wright agreed that the workers are off site by 10:30, but felt that 10:30 was too late and not reasonable. She reiterated that her complaint is the sounds of the dishes, glasses, and workers in the kitchen area that goes on until 10:30, but added that they are off of the site by 10:30. Minas Yerelian read from a letter that stated that if any City Council members lived where he does,they would not allow an outdoor nightclub to be in place. Mr. Yerelian questioned why the City allows this noise nuisance in the City. He stated that someone said Mr. York does charity work, but pointed out that so does ISIS and Hezbollah. He did not feel the property was in compliance in terms of the required golf course, and that staff was collaborating with Mr. York. He stated there is no golf course and the Conditional Use Permit should be revoked. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2017 Page 8 Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked staff if this outdoor tent kitchen was approved by the City. Senior Planner Mikhail answered that the tent was not approved, and is something new on the site. She explained that staff feels that given the health and safety aspect of preparing food the tent is acceptable to include in the conditions of approval. Chairman Tomblin noted that there was always catering at the events, and asked what has recently changed so that the tent is now needed. Senior Planner Mikhail answered that it was her understanding that the catering has always been at the events, however without the tent there was a problem with debris from the trees and surrounding vegetation falling into the food preparation area. Therefore, the caterers requested the installation of the temporary tent. She explained that it is not the tent area that is generating the noise that concerns Ms. Wright, but rather the noise coming from the scullery. Commissioner Nelson referred to Condition No. 72 and suggested removing the language if the City finds the noise from an event has resulted in exceedance of any event related noise thresholds, the City shall require further restrictions on events. He didn't think it was right to restrict all future events because one event had a lot of noise. He also asked Staff how far they felt the scullery and cook tent could be moved from the Wright's property. Vanessa Bowman explained that there really isn't a way to get the tent any further from the Wright property, based on where the existing caterer's area is. She stated the scullery is going to be moved to the other side of the tent which she is hoping will mitigate the noise concerns from the Wright property. Director Mihranian suggested a temporary tent to enclose the scullery area might help mitigate the noise impacts. Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted Ms. Bowman had stated food and drink service stops at 9:15. If the staff begins clearing and cleaning dishes at 9:15, he asked if staff could be finished by 10:00. Ms. Bowman answered that would be difficult, especially for the larger events. Chairman Tomblin referred to Ms. Bowman's comments about temporary tents in the event garden for the weather, and asked if this was a new request that the Commission needs to address. Senior Planner Mikhail explained that the use of temporary tents for rain is not currently addressed in the Conditional Use Permit. She stated that Staff would understand if temporary tents had to be erected because of weather, but the Commission can address it if they feel it is necessary. Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 9 Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if notices are sent to all of the residents within a 500 foot radius every time there is a compliance review. Senior Planner Mikhail answered that notices are sent to residents within 500 feet for each compliance review. Commissioner Emenhiser discussed his home and the proximity to Terranea, noting that things have changed in the neighborhood. However, he also commented that the neighbors around Mr. York's property are being given the opportunity several times a year to come before the Planning Commission to discuss any issues they may have with the property. He felt that there are burdens of progress in the community, and felt that Mr. York and Ms. Bowman try, within the limits of their abilities, to do all they can to mitigate the concerns. He was a little concerned that the City was getting to the point where they are micromanaging a business that is partnering with a number of charitable events in the City as well as Terranea. Vice Chairman Cruikshank agreed he did not think the City should micromanage a business. However, he felt that part of the problem with noise complaints is that if one is not there to hear the noise complaint the City is taking one word against another and it is impossible to make a fair judgement. He asked if City Staff has had the opportunity to go out to the site during an event. Senior Planner Mikhail stated she did go out to the site during one of the events, and for that particular event she didn't hear anything that was alarming. She noted this is all relative, as these noises may be very upsetting to other people. She also felt it was timing, as she was there between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. and it may have been noisier after 9:00. However, she explained that what has happened in the last year that hasn't happened before is that the neighbors and the applicant are getting together and having an open dialogue about what is happening at the property. Vice Chairman Cruikshank felt that was the right way to go about solving this problem versus adding new conditions to the CUP. If he knew there were more times when Staff went to the Wright property and stayed for a little while to hear the highs and lows of what is going on at the property, and if a sound study is prepared by an independent party showing that the property is in compliance, then he would be comfortable reducing the number of compliance reviews at the property. Senior Planner Mikhail agreed, noting she would be able to visit the property more often. Director Mihranian added that the City Council has funded a part time code enforcement officer with the intention of having work done in the evenings and on weekends. Once this position is filled, this is something that can be assigned to that code enforcement officer. Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 10 Commissioner Nelson moved to approve Staff's recommendations, as amended to modify Condition No. 72 to remove the sentence, "If the City finds the noise from an event has resulted in the exceedance of any event related noise thresholds, the City shall require further restrictions on events." Additionally, to modify Condition No. 64 that will permit set-up and tear-down on Sundays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Director Mihranian stated that Staff believes the requirement in Condition No. 72 may come from the Mitigated Negative Declaration and suggested that, instead of deleting that sentence, modify the sentence to say: "If the City finds the noise from an event has resulted in the exceedance of any event related noise thresholds, the Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing, may require further restrictions on events." He also suggested that at the beginning of the paragraph on Condition No. 64, that the word "enclosed" be added to "temporary tent". Commissioner Emenhiser seconded the motion. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend the motion to make this an annual review rather than a semi-annual review. Commissioner Nelson accepted the amendment to his motion. Director Mihranian asked if it was the intention to strike the next scheduled review in August 2017 and have the next review hearing in November 2017, and annually thereafter. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that was the intention. Chairman Tomblin questioned why set-up and tear-down would be needed on a Sunday, and asked Ms. Bowman to return to the podium. Ms. Bowman explained that if the site is rented for an event on a Sunday, the rentals for that event, including the catering tent, are brought in on the day of the event. She noted that currently there are no hours of operation that permit them to do the installation of the event on a Sunday. Commissioner Bradley stated he is not in favor of bringing items back to the Planning Commission just to bring them back, however he felt there was enough public comment and issues with the noise that he would like to see this item brought back twice a year. He therefore could not support the current motion. Commissioner Emenhiser understood, and wanted to encourage staff to reassess their efforts and Mr. York and Ms. Bowman to work diligently with the neighbors to find solutions. He was concerned that sending out public notices two or three times a year to the neighbors within 500 feet was encouraging an adversarial relationship rather than trying to solve any issues. Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 11 Commissioner Nelson asked staff how many notices were sent out for this meeting, and how many parties responded with negative comments. Senior Planner Mikhail answered that 108 notices were sent out and 4 parties responded with negative comments, noting that these negative comments were received before the public notices were sent out. Commissioner Nelson noted this is only 3 or 4 percent of the parties responding negatively. He felt the Commission has addressed and mitigated these concerns. Chairman Tomblin noted that at the November 2017 review if the Planning Commission finds there are issues that may need more attention, there is nothing preventing the Commission from requiring another review in six months' time. Commissioner Bradley was in favor of going in the opposite direction of having a review in August, and if there are no issues at that time, extending the next review out to one year. Chairman Tomblin stated that August is still during the busy season, and waiting until November would allow for the majority of the events to take place and be evaluated. Commissioner Emenhiser appreciated the comments, but felt comfortable with the motion as it stands. Vice Chairman Cruikshank referred back to Condition No. 64 and the scullery. He asked what would happen with the scullery if there is no catering tent as it is described in the condition. Senior Planner Mikhail stated that there are occasions where there is no temporary catering tent, and the Director suggested earlier that the Commission might want to require the scullery be enclosed by a tent as well. Director Mihranian also suggested wording saying the scullery be located between the catering area and the wall. Vice Chairman Cruikshank agreed the area should be called the catering area rather than the temporary catering tent. Commissioner Nelson accepted the change to the motion, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Vice Chairman Cruikshank referred back to Condition No. 70, noting the wording that the City may elect to terminate or modify the yearly reviews. He asked if that should read the Planning Commission may elect to terminate these reviews. Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 12 Director Mihranian stated that it should read the Planning Commission, and that wording can be changed. Commissioner Nelson accepted the change to the motion, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion to accept Staff's recommendations as modified was approved, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2017-07 was approved, (4-1-1) with Commissioner Bradley dissenting and Commissioner Leon recused. 6. Site Plan Review, Minor Grading Permit, and Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Case No. ZON2016-00401): 48 Cinnamon Lane Commissioner Emenhiser stated he was going to recuse himself from this item, as he saw in correspondence many friends and former colleagues. He left the dais at this time. Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining that pursuant to a Settlement Agreement between the City and the applicant in 2013, the Community Development Director granted approval of a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit which allowed the property owner to submit the appropriate planning applications to place a manufactured home and a detached garage on the vacant lot at 48 Cinnamon Lane. She stated that Staff feels the proposed house is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of architectural style, bulk and mass, and setbacks as described in the staff report. She also noted that the Portuguese Bend Community Association Architectural Committee granted conceptual approval of the proposed plan. She pointed out on an aerial photo the location of the lot, and noted the surrounding Monks Plaintiff lots where Planning entitlements have been issued or building permits have been issued. She stated that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the property, which concluded that all potential impacts as a result of the proposed residential development could be addressed through certain conditions of approval. She briefly reviewed some of these impacts as detailed in the staff report. She noted that the City Geologist has reviewed the proposed project and made a finding that the subject site improvements are feasible, will not adversely impact adjacent improvements, and will not aggravate existing conditions, thereby granting conceptual approval. She added that should the Planning Commission approve the project, the applicant will be required to submit a more complete and detailed geotechnical reports and a grading plan for review and approval in the Building and Safety Plan Check process. She stated the Fire Department has also reviewed and approved the proposed project. Assistant City Attorney Burrows stated that correspondence was received regarding the Settlement Agreement, and she wanted to speak about the Settlement Agreement. She explained the Settlement Agreement was entered into between the applicant and the City, and allows the applicant to submit an application to construct a house on Cherry Hill Lane or Cinnamon Lane. The applicant submitted a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit application on the Cinnamon lot which was granted and this decision was not Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 13 subsequently appealed. As a result, the applicant submitted the applications that are before the Commission. These three applications are the only applications before the Commission for consideration and any decision made by the Commission will be appealable to the City Council. Vice Chairman Cruikshank discussed the grading plan that was submitted, noting that this is not a reflection of how the driveway will be graded and felt it would be nice to see the true grading plan for the driveway. He asked Staff, if possible, to present more detailed plans to the Commission in the future. Chairman Tomblin referred to the surrounding Monks lots, and asked staff in terms of grading, if there were any differences between those lots and the subject lot. Senior Planner Kim stated the Monks lots are allowed to grade up to 1,000 cubic yards per lot, which is substantially more than the subject property, which is limited to 50 cubic yards. The Monks lots residences average 4,000 square feet in size, while this residence is proposed at 1,900 square feet. In addition, the Monks homes are more conventional homes, while this home is a manufactured home, which will be State certified and brought onto the lot. Chairman Tomblin asked what the reason for the water tank would be on the property. Senior Planner Kim explained that a water tank has been required on all Monks properties to collect runoff and to slowly dissipate the water into the street, rather than have the water flow into the street at a higher rate due to the capacity of the storm drains. Chairman Tomblin noted this is a manufactured home, and asked from a zoning standpoint, if that made a difference. Senior Planner Kim explained the City has already allowed another manufactured home in this area. She stated this home will be very similar to what is already in the area. Director Mihranian added that in the City's Residential Zoning Districts, manufactured homes are permitted. Commissioner Bradley asked what was meant by a State Certified manufactured home. Senior Planner Kim explained that with a State Certified manufactured home there are many aspects of the home that the Building Official would not have to review, as it has met State requirements. The local Building Department would only have to look at aspects such as the electrical, plumbing, or foundations. Director Mihranian reminded the Commission that late correspondence was distributed for this item, and asked the Commissioners to disclose whether or not they have been to the site. Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 14 Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Andrea Joannou (applicant) stated she has spent over twelve years trying to get before the Commission with this project. She understood that there was opposition to this project by the neighbors, however Staff has addressed all of these issues and answered all of the questions in the staff report. She noted the neighbors' request for a certified EIR, stating this is not required for this project, nor was it required for any other Zone 2 lot in the community. She stated she was available for any questions. Cassie Jones stated she questioned the appropriateness and authority of the Settlement Agreement itself to allow the proposed development. She noted that paragraph 4 of the Settlement Agreement states the applicant reserves all of her rights with respect to the Cherry Hill lot and the Cinnamon lot, including without limitation, her rights under the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance to replace the house that was previously located on the Cherry Hill lot or build a house on the Cinnamon lot. First, as per the staff report, via the Settlement Agreement the City is granting outright approval to build a house at 48 Cinnamon. She stated this is illegal, referring to Ordinance 498 which allows only the 16 Monks plaintiffs the ability to apply for an LME Permit. This was not granted for the other 31 undeveloped lots in Zone 2. If the proposed project has not met the criteria of the fifteen exception categories, an LME application cannot be approved. She also stated that a 2012 Appellate Court decision determined that a municipality cannot enter into a Settlement Agreement that is contrary to, or violates its own Municipal Code. She stated that a second interpretation of the Settlement Agreement is taking it at its face value that it merely gives the applicant the rights that exist under the Moratorium Ordinance to pursue the building of a house on either of the two lots. She stated that, according to the Code, houses suffering damage due to geologic factors may be replaced or repaired, but only on the property. She stated there is no exception listed to rebuild a damaged house on a completely different property. She noted the staff report cites as precedents the moving of a house in 1988, but the Code was different at that time, as it did not specifically refer to the repair or replacement as being limited to the property. She felt the staff report misinterpreted the code. She stated she was available for any questions. Chairman Tomblin disclosed Ms. Jones is his family's veterinarian. He asked Ms. Jones if the issues she has are more of a legal issue, or what her concern is with this project. Ms. Jones did not feel this project should be before the Commission, as she did not believe the City can enter into a Settlement Agreement that violates its own Code. She stated there is no statute of limitations on that if it takes place under closed session or without public input. Chairman Tomblin noted several lots in the area that are under construction, and asked if there was a reason this particular lot shouldn't be built on. Ms. Jones did not think this was part of the question. She stated the City's Ordinance is the City's Ordinance and it does not say you can move a house from a mile away to this lot. She felt the Settlement Agreement was done illegally. Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 15 David Carlton stated he has known Ms. Joannou for many years, and any project she takes on she makes it the best project and best outcome possible. He stated that with his previous experience with the Long Beach Redevelopment Agency, his thoughts were always to encourage homeowners and businesses to put money into their properties, as it benefits all of the community. He felt the City has come up with a reasonable accommodation given the unusual circumstances, and he supports that. He asked the Commission to support the proposed project. Peter Nopper stated he was speaking on behalf of his father, who asked him to represent his Zone 2 property at the corner of Cinnamon and Narcissa. He felt that there seemed to always be something sneaking up on the Zone 2 property owners to stop any kind of building that doesn't make sense. He stated he was in support of the proposed project, as he didn't understand the argument that she can't build. He felt that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was common sense. He felt any impacts her small lot may cause is similar to a flea on an elephant. He supported the project and staffs recommendations. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked staff to respond to the comment that the City illegally entered into this Settlement Agreement. Assistant City Attorney Burrows responded that there is case ruling that cities cannot enter a Settlement Agreement that abridges its rights under the Zoning Code. She stated that in this case the Settlement Agreement allows the applicant to submit an application, but does not cut short any public hearing requirements and the application is going through the normal course under the City's codes. Chairman Tomblin asked Staff, if there was no Settlement Agreement in place, and a resident came in with a request to build on this lot, if there was any reason this lot should not be built on. Director Mihranian responded that it would not be permitted, based on Title 15 of the Municipal Code. Senior Planner Kim pointed out on the aerial this lot and another lot that were not part of the Monks Plaintiff lots. Commissioner Nelson stated the Planning Commission is a land use approval Commission, not a land use denial Commission. He stated that land use denial occurs at the City Council level. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the project as recommended and conditioned by Staff, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Commissioner Bradley stated there is active construction occurring in this area and the staff report very clearly outlined the ways to mitigate any concerns during construction. Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 16 He was therefore inclined to vote to approve the project. He also noted that he did not do a site visit. Commissioner Nelson stated he visited the site three times. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated he also visited the site. He stated he is not an attorney, and has been told that this Settlement Agreement is a legal document. Therefore, the role of the Planning Commission is to look at the three applications before them requesting the development. He did not have any issues with the items and would vote in favor of the motion. Chairman Tomlin agreed that the role of the Commission is not to decide legal issues such as this, but rather the development issues and the three applications that are before the Commission. The motion to certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and to approve the applications as presented and conditioned by staff were approved, and P.C. Resolution 2017-08 and P.C. Resolution 2017-09 was approved, (4-0-2) with Commissioners Emenhiser and Leon recused. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on March 14, 2017 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2017 Page 17