Loading...
PC MINS 20170613 4 Approved 6/27/17_ CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman James at 7:05 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Director Mihranian led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, Leon, Nelson, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman James. Absent: Chairman Cruikshank was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Deputy Director Kim, Senior Planner Alvarez, and Assistant City Attorney Gerli. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that the City Council is in the process of considering initiating various Staff-proposed code amendment proceedings to amend certain sections of the Development Code to correct inconsistencies and to provide further clarification. The Planning Commission will be reviewing the proposed amended language this summer in order to forward a recommendation for the Council's consideration late this year. He reported that the Planning Commission will be considering later this summer an amendment to the Land Use Map and the Zoning Map as part of the City's consideration to annex three properties on Rue La Charlene. The Director also reported that at the June 6th meeting, the City Council continued to a date uncertain, the introduction of an Ordinance that would amend the City's Fire Code, due to concerns on how the amended Fire Code would impact property owners. Lastly, Director Mihranian reported that the City Council will consider an appeal of the Commission's approval of a new single-family residence on Rolling Ridge Road at its June 20th meeting. He noted the appeal pertains to a condition related to view protection. Director Mihranian noted that late correspondence was distributed for Agenda Item Nos. 2 and 3, and reminded the Commission that a mandatory sexual harassment training course will be held at Hesse Park on August 29th at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Emenhiser announced his and Chairman Cruikshank's candidacy for City Council in November. Commissioner Tomblin noted that he has received several inquiries regarding the Commission's review of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities in the public right-of-way, and would discuss this later in the meeting under Future Agenda Items. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Gene Steiger expressed his opposition to a proposed cell site at 28809 Crestridge Road. He described the mock-up that is directly opposite his driveway indicating that the facility will be visible from many rooms in his home. He explained that this neighborhood has underground utilities, so there are no wires or poles in the view frame. He felt that the cell site tower and large equipment box violates neighborhood compatibility guidelines and will impact the property values in the neighborhood. He felt a more suitable site can be found, and invited the Commissioners to come by his home to see how it will impact his home. Jeff Calvagna stated he is an electrical frequency engineer, and has spoken before the City Council and the Palos Verdes Estates Planning Commission many times in regards to the cell sites. He stated the proposal that will be before the Commission does not meet the requirements of the City Ordinances. He asked the Commission to review Sections under Title 12 of the City's codes in regards to cell sites. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the May 9, 2017 Minutes Commissioners Emenhiser, Leon, and Tomblin noted they were not in attendance at this meeting and would have to recuse themselves from the vote. Commissioner James noted a clarification on page 1 of the minutes. Director Mihranian noted that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes, and that the corrected May 9th minutes will be brought back for the Commission's approval at the June 27th meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No ZON2016- 00162): 30717 Rue Langlois Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2017 Page 2 Director Mihranian presented a brief staff report, explaining that at the May 9th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission moved to approve the project as modified by the applicant and directed Staff to return with a Resolution for adoption this evening. He stated the Commission closed the public hearing at the May 9th meeting, and he noted there is one speaker present who would like to speak on this item tonight. He explained it is at the Commission's pleasure as to whether or not they want to open the public hearing to hear public testimony. Commissioner Nelson stated that the public hearing has been closed, and he would prefer that it remain closed. Vice Chairman James agreed that was procedurally the correct way to go about this, however he also noted the Commission is here to serve the public and a member of the public is requesting to speak. Commissioner Leon felt that the Commission should remain transparent, and if there is a request to speak, the request should be granted. Commissioner James reopened the public hearing. Yantien Wong stated she was seeking clarification on the Commission's explanation of appropriate neighborhood scale. She stated that at the first public hearing the Commission seemed to agree that the design was not in scale with the neighborhood, yet at the second public hearing the house was approved even though it is proposed as a two-story house at 4,500 square feet. She stated that she did not feel this redesigned project is to scale with the rest of the neighborhood. She asked that the Commission state, for the record, that a 4,500 square foot two-story house is compatible with the neighborhood. She stated that if the Commission cannot make that statement, the project should be appealed, and she should not have to pay for that appeal. She stated that she may eventually remodel her home and wanted to know what the parameters to do so would be in terms of the size and height of the proposed home. Commissioner James asked Staff if it was appropriate for the Commission to attempt to respond to the speaker. Director Mihranian stated that he felt the Commission has responded to the speaker's concerns as reflected in the Resolution. He stated the Resolution findings discusses the project's compatibility with the neighborhood in terms of size and bulk and mass. Commissioner Emenhiser explained that a quantifiable window or envelope has not been established through a ratio process. Therefore, what the speaker is asking for under the current rules, is not something the Commission can give. Vice Chairman James stated the process is subjective, which is why there is a Planning Commission to make these decisions based on the City's Code. Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2017 Page 3 Vice Chairman James closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve and adopt Staff's recommendation. Assistant City Attorney Gerli explained there are three Commissioners present who were not present at the May 9th meeting when the decision was made. However, she stated that if the Commissioners read the staff report and watched the video and are familiar with the entirety of the record they may vote on the passage of the Resolution. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he had not watched the video, and would therefore recuse himself from the vote. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that the standard in the past was whether or not the Commissioner had read the minutes from the meeting in question. He asked if that does not apply anymore. Assistant City Attorney Gerli answered that if the subject has to do with property entitlements, then watching the meeting video and reading the staff report are the standard. Commissioner Emenhiser noted the previous standard was to review the minutes, and asked if the Commissioners are now being asked to either read the staff report, view the video, or do both. Assistant City Attorney Gerli stated that if the current standard is to review the minutes, then for now that is what should be required. Therefore, if a Commissioner has read the meeting minutes, they may participate in the vote. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he has reviewed the minutes, but not watched the video, but felt he could participate in the vote. Commissioner Tomblin stated he had also reviewed the minutes, but not watched the video, but felt he could participate in the vote. He noted that he was at the meeting in March when this project was first heard by the Commission. Commissioner Leon stated he has read the minutes but not watched the video, but was going to recuse himself from the vote. Director Mihranian noted there was a quorum to vote on the motion and that there is a motion on the floor, but no second to the motion. Commissioner Emenhiser seconded the motion. Commissioner Bradley stated he was the dissenting vote at the previous meeting, and still strongly opposes the project based on bulk and mass. He felt this project is beyond the bulk and mass found in the neighborhood, and relies on the corner lot which he stated Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2017 Page 4 was an outlier in terms of numbers. He stated that he would still encourage his fellow Commissioners not to support the project. Vice Chairman James asked Staff if the Commission had any authority to waive the appeal fee, or if this was something the speaker should request from the City Council. Director Mihranian answered that pursuant to the Council-adopted Fee Schedule and the Municipal Code, there is an appeal fee to file an appeal to the City Council, however the fee is refundable if the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision, and is partially refundable if the Council makes certain modifications to the project. The motion to accept Staff's recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution 2017-16 thereby conditionally approving a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review was approved, (4-1-1) with Commissioner Bradley dissenting and Commissioner Leon abstaining. Commissioner Emenhiser moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the filing fee for an appeal of this project be waived, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Commissioner Nelson stated that he understood the reasoning behind the motion, however it was setting a bad precedence for future cases. He stated that he could not support the motion. Commissioner Emenhiser recalled that the Planning Commission has made this type of recommendation in the past on particularly controversial issues that may be appealed to the City Council. Director Mihranian explained that the Municipal Code is very clear as to what applications the City Council can waive fees for and under what circumstances. He pointed out that any change to a decision made by the Planning Commission that is before the City Council on appeal would qualify for some type of refund if the Council modifies the Commission's decision. Commissioner James stated that he agreed with Commissioner Nelson that this was not the correct process, also pointing out that the motion to approve the project passed. He stated that he has sympathy for the neighbors, however there are rules the Planning Commission must apply to each project and certain findings that must be made. The motion failed, (2-4) with Commissioners Nelson, Tomblin, Leon, and Vice Chairman James dissenting. 3. Appeal of View Preservation Notice of Decision (Case No. ZON2016-00015): RPV Estates HOA Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2017 Page 5 Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the project and appeal. He reported that since the December 13, 2016 meeting, the Applicants and the Appellant agreed to remove two Pine trees, Tree Nos. 1 and 6, where the removal of Tree No. 1 restored the view of the city basin and the removal of Tree No. 6 partially restored the view of the ocean and shoreline. In addition, two trees, Tree No. 2 and 3, were trimmed in such a way where the applicants were satisfied, and Tree Nos. 4 and 5 were left as is as the Applicants and the Appellant had agreed that these trees provide meaningful privacy. Therefore, the only remaining issues is whether Tree No. 7 should be removed or trimmed and the Association Board had yet to meet to discuss the matter. He explained that the Association has a board meeting scheduled for June 15th where they plan to discuss Tree No. 7, therefore the Appellant is requesting that tonight's Planning Commission agenda item be continued to the June 27th meeting to allow the Association's Board the opportunity to discuss the issue. However, he explained the Applicants do not wish to continue the public hearing, as they are not confident the Association's Board will decide to either trim or remove Tree No. 7. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that Staff recently visited the Applicants' property to assess the views after the tree removal and trimming. He stated that Staff determined the tree removal and trimming eliminated the significant view impairment that Tree Nos. 1 through 6 caused, and therefore Staff reached the conclusion that Finding No. 2 of the mandatory permit findings cannot be made, as the trees no longer significantly impairs the view. However, Staff determined that Tree No. 7 continues to impair the ocean and shoreline view, and Staff recommends that Tree No. 7 be trimmed to a height of 16 feet, which is the maximum height reduction allowed by the City Guidelines. Staff also recommends that the tree be trimmed during the dormant season and maintained. He stated this recommendation is in close agreement with the Appellant's initial request to the Commission. He noted additional recommended tree maintenance conditions are contained in the draft Resolution. Commissioner Bradley referred to a photo of Tree No. 7 and pointed out a nearby palm tree. He asked Staff if the palm tree caused more of a view impairment than Tree No. 7. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that since the December public hearing, a neighboring palm tree has grown up into the view. The Applicants have spoken to the palm tree property owner to have the tree trimmed. Commissioner Leon referred to the photo in the Staff Report, and felt that the trees still cause a view impairment of the ocean. He stated his recollection of discussions regarding the removal of the trees rather than trimming them down a few feet. He asked if the Applicants support the recommendation that Tree No. 7 be trimmed rather than removed. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that the maximum height the City can recommend trimming is to 16 feet. He stated the Applicants support that recommendation, as they feel they would regain their shoreline and ocean views. June Kobayashi (Applicant) stated she and her husband have had numerous meetings with the Association in regards to the trees, and several trees have been removed or Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2017 Page 6 trimmed. She stated Tree Nos. 2 and 3 have been shaped and she can see the view through them, however they have grown quite a bit since trimmed and there is already quite a bit of new growth on them. In regards to Tree No. 7, she stated she would prefer to have the tree removed rather than trimmed. She stated that she and her husband would like to see a resolution to this tree matter as soon as possible. She stated that she and her husband have read the Staff Report and Staffs recommendations, and though it is not ideal, she stated they could live with it. Kathy Campbell, property owner at 12 Paseo De Pino, stated she wanted to ask the Commission to continue the hearing until after the HOA Board meeting, since it is the HOA Board who has legal authority over the common area. She stated it is the Board who has the legal authority to make decisions regarding this property, and therefore she stated that it would be most prudent to allow the Board the time to meet and make their decision. However, in regards to Tree No. 7 she stated that she understood the Kobayashis' said they would be willing to live with the tree being trimmed. She questioned if the Staff or the Planning Commission has the legal authority to ignore the express statutory language of the Ordinance, which she stated has been ignored in this case. She stated the Ordinance requires that residents initiate the process and the Kobayashis are not residents. She stated the view should be taken from the viewing area and the documentation submitted be compliant. She stated the documentation is non-compliant. She also stated that everyone is under the assumption that the Kobayashis had a view from their home, however she stated the Kobayashis paid $174,000 less for their property than the property two doors up with the exact same floor plan. She asked why this would happen, noting she felt it was because there was not an ocean view from their property. She asked the Commission to either continue the public hearing to allow the HOA to meet or deny the application. Commissioner Nelson asked Mrs. Campbell when the Association Board last met. Mrs. Campbell answered that the Board met on March 9th, at which time the Board voted unanimously to require the Kobayashis to fulfill their terms of the agreement. Commissioner Nelson asked what the tree work recommendation is for the Association Board meeting that will be held on June 15th. Mrs. Campbell answered that Tree No. 7 is an agenda item for discussion by the Board. She explained that there is a new Board in place, and not all members of the new Board were members of the old Board. She added that their agendas don't include a recommendation, as they allow the meetings to evolve. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mrs. Campbell if she was a member of the Board. Mrs. Campbell answered that she is not a Board member. Vice Chairman James asked Staff to address Mrs. Campbell's comments regarding the City's failure to follow the language of the Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2017 Page 7 Director Mihranian explained that this issue was addressed at the December 13th meeting, and Staff looked up the definition of a resident and past practices of the City, and it was determined that the Kobayashis are tax paying property owners in Rancho Palos Verdes and they are protected by the View Ordinance, whether they reside in the City or not. Vice Chairman James closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson stated that part of the HOAs charter is to be a good neighbor, and he did not feel this HOA was being a good HOA. He stated it appears the HOA has put this issue on the back burner and there has been excuse-after-excuse as to why they couldn't do anything. He stated it appeared the HOA was an obstructive force for a reasonable homeowner's request. He stated this issue has been going on for quite some time, and did not think the HOA will find a resolution on June 15th . Commissioner Bradley commented that in reading the City Ordinance the only section subject to interpretation is that of significant view impairment. He stated that the view impairment in the latest picture submitted to the Commission is significant. He stated that if the Kobayashis are willing to accept this degree of view impairment, he would be willing to have an open mind about it. Vice Chairman James stated that, if all possible, he would like to see this issue resolved tonight. He noted that there are no representatives from the HOA Board at this meeting, nor has the Board submitted any correspondence to Staff. Vice Chairman James re-opened the public hearing to allow Commissioner Tomblin the opportunity to ask Mrs. Campbell questions. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mrs. Campbell what she would like to see as an end result of the Board discussions. Mrs. Campbell responded that the whole Board has not had a chance to view the post- trimming. She stated that she would like the entire Board to view this photo and make a decision. She stated that one of the mandatory required findings the City is required to make is evidence of early neighborhood consultation and resolution. The Board went through the correspondence and found a 2011 letter to the owners of this property advising them there is a request the trees be trimmed and the HOA has a process and procedure. She explained nothing was done by the Kobayashis and the trees were allowed to grow another six years before the Kobayashis made their complaint. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there was a reason there was not a Board member or representative present to speak on behalf of the Board. Mrs. Campbell answered that Board members are out of town and the only day they are all available is June 15th. Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2017 Page 8 Mrs. Kobayashi explained that the Board required that she plant replacement foliage at her expense, which she has done, before they would consider removing Tree No. 7. Commissioner Leon asked Mrs. Kobayashi if she was really willing to live with the two- foot reduction in the crown height of Tree No. 7 or if she really wanted the tree to be removed. Mrs. Kobayashi explained that the reason that tree was not cut in the beginning was because a representative of the Association asked that Tree No. 6 be removed first and then re-evaluate the impairment of Tree No. 7, as it was behind Tree No. 6. However, after Tree No. 6 was removed, she did not think it made any difference to the view. She stated she was also told by Bennett Landscaping that trimming any portion of Tree No. 7 would most likely kill the tree. Commissioner James closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson asked Staff who makes the final decision on these types of issues, the HOA or the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Alvarez answered the Planning Commission makes the final decision. Commissioner Emenhiser stated the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has a View Ordinance. He stated he was not interested in re-litigating what the Commission heard at the last hearing. He stated he was ready to vote on this issue. Commissioner Tomblin asked Staff if the Association could appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council if they chose to do so. Director Mihranian answered that was correct. Commissioner Nelson moved Staff's recommendation as modified to memorialize the removal of Tree Nos. 1 and 6 and to remove Tree No. 7. Seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Commissioner Tomblin asked Staff if trimming Tree No. 7 down by two feet came about through negotiations or was that a Staff recommendation. Director Mihranian answered that the recommendation to Tree No. 7 by two feet is a Staff recommendation. The motion to approve Staff's recommendations as modified to memorialize the removal of Tree No. 1 and 6, to remove Tree No. 7, and to maintain Tree Nos. 2 through 5 was approved and P. C. Resolution 2017-17 was adopted, (5-1) with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2017 Page 9 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. After-the-fact Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2017-00115): 5500 Palos Verdes Drive South Deputy Director Kim presented the Staff Report, giving a brief description of the work done on the property and the need for the applications. She stated that applications were submitted by the Applicant, however Staff determined this project cannot be exempt from CEQA because of the habitat removal, and therefore Staff is recommending the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow the Applicant to submit the reports and information necessary for Staff to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. Director Mihranian noted there were no speakers for this item. Vice Chairman James stated that he would prefer not to continue an item to a date uncertain, but rather suggested that the item be continued to the September 26, 2017 meeting, and if necessary, Staff can request a further continuance at that time. Vice Chairman James moved to continue the public hearing to the September 26, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on June 27, 2017 Director Mihranian gave a brief explanation of what the orientation meeting will consist of in regards to the Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance at the June 27th meeting. Commissioner Tomblin noted he had received several communications from residents that cell sites may have already been installed. Director Mihranian explained that the new Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance requires that mock-ups be installed prior to the public hearing. He also noted that there were approvals given by the Public Works Department prior to this new Ordinance to allow new cables or conduits to be installed, and that none of the mock-ups are functioning. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2017 Page 10