MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills Estates was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North, by CHAIRMAN YOO. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CHAIRMAN YOO led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Carman, Schachter, Medawar, Scott, Zigrang, Chair Yoo Planning Director Wahba, Senior Planner Naughton, Associate Planner Thom 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER to, APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2017. There being no objection, CHAIRMAN YOO so ordered. 5. AUDIENCE ITEMS None 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS THAT ARE PRESENTED FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON TONIGHT S AGENDA AND ALL SUCH RESOLUTIONS SHALL BE READY BY TITLE ONLY. COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER, TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 6-A. There being no objection, CHAIRMAN YOO so ordered. 7. BUSINESS ITEMS None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA-07-17; APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. GARY CAMPBELL; LOCATION: 2620 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH; A Grading Application for 331 cubic yards of cut and 395 cubic yards of fill. A Neighborhood Compatibility Determination for a new one-story residence. Multiple Variances are requested for the following: (1) an encroachment into a required front yard of a developed residential lot; (2) to decrease the front yard setback by more than 10%; and (3) for the existing accessory structure to remain in the front yard. (KT) Associate Planner Thom summarized the Staff Report (as per written material). In response to a question by COMMISSIONER SCOTT, Planning Director Wahba stated that prior to this item being brought back to the Planning Commission, the architectural style will need to be reviewed. 1
COMMISSIONER ZIGRANG moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER MEDAWAR, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING George Sweeney, Architect, stated that the Rolling Hills Home Owners Association Board of Directors held a meeting regarding the appropriateness of this architectural style. Mr. Sweeney provided a presentation on the designs of neighboring homes. COMMISSIONER SCOTT inquired regarding the setback. Mr. Sweeney replied that the variance is for the front yard setback only. COMMISSIONER ZIGRANG asked about the barn in the front of the house. Mr. Sweeney stated that it will remain as-is. Valerie Kelly, Neighbor, stated that she is delighted with the design and is in support of this project. Wesley Christensen, Neighbor, stated that he is excited for the Campbell s and is in support of this project. Gary Campbell, Applicant, stated that he has support from his neighbors and stated that he has lived at this property 37 years and is trying to improve his property. Mr. Campbell also added that he does not see how this property is not compatible to other homes in Dapplegray. COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER ZIGRANG, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONER SCOTT stated that the setback and decrease in front yard area requested is adequate, and stated that he is in favor of the Neighborhood Compatibility and variances. COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER stated that due to the unique situation of this property being under the Rolling Hills Home Owners Association, there is no need to make a policy decision for this type of home to be allowed throughout the City. COMMISSIONER ZIGRANG stated that Rolling Hills has done their due diligence as far as the architectural design review and that the variances are fine. COMMISSIONER MEDAWAR stated that he is in favor of this project and also is okay with the variances. COMMISSIONER CARMAN stated that she likes the characteristics of this home and is also in favor of this project. COMMISSIONER YOO asked what changes staff would like to see when this item is brought back to the Planning Commission. Director Wahba stated that the item could be continued to the next meeting of June 5, which in time the variance resolution will be prepared to include suggestions from the Planning Commission in the conditions for approval. COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION APPROVING PA-07-17 TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 5, 2017. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN Chair Yoo, Medawar, Carman, Schachter, Scott, Zigrang 2
Planning Director Wahba stated that the Planning Commission has directed staff to bring back a resolution approving PA-07-17 at the next meeting of June 5, 2017. The public hearing remains closed and there will not be any notification to neighboring residents. B. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-17; APPLICANT: SCOTT DARNELL, ON BEHALF OF SRE DCM PV, LLC; LOCATION: 27520 HAWTHORNE BLVD. (PENINSULA POINTE); An amendment to Planning Application 18-15 (City Council Resolution No. 2374) and adoption of an Addendum to a Certified Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding that the Project, with Mitigation Measures of the Conditional Use Permit to allow 1,845 SF of medical office use and reduction of Assisted Living Units from 89 to 84; modification of the Precise Plan of Design for changes to surface stall parking arrangement and outdoor recreation areas; and amendment of a Variance to allow two additional parking stalls in the side setback area. Senior Planner Naughton provided a presentation for PA-02-17. Planner Naughton added that two additional letters were received by staff today and were sent to the Planning Commission via e-mail and hard copies were also provided on the dais. COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER stated that one of the letters mentions that another tenant was going to exercise his five year option and asked if it is possible that a future modification request may come before the Planning Commission in the future. Planner Naughton stated that it is possible and Director Wahba stated that any future modification request would have to come from the property owner. A discussion was held on clarification on the decision before the Planning Commission with an emphasis on being careful not to get involved with the tenant/landlord dispute. COMMISSIONER MEDAWAR moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Douglas Pancake, Architect, provided a presentation on the project proposal. Mr. Pancake stated that it is not unusual for Senior Care Facilities to have clinical spaces within their buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER asked that the clinic spaces in other buildings are for the residents of the building and not private practices. Mr. Pancake stated that it can be for both resident and non-residents of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER stated that he is concerned that similar modification requests will come from other tenants. Garrett Colli, Perkins Coie, Land Use Lawyer for Applicant, stated that there is one tenant who has a long-term lease and the applicant is trying to revise the permits for the property and does not believe that there will be other tenants with similar requests in the future. Dr. Schenley Co, Tenant, stated that he has been a tenant for 5 years and the lease ends the end of this year with an option to renew for an additional 5 years. Dr. Co stated that he became aware of this project in February and was not given notification from the property owner or the City. Dr. Hendrik Baars, Tenant, stated that he became aware of the project 6 days before the public hearing in February. Dr. Baars provided background on his search for a building to lease for his practice. Peninsula Pointe had all of the amenities that he was looking for. Dr. Baars stated that he has 17 years left on the lease. Dr. Baars stated that he does not want to be part of an assisted living facility. The new design changes accessibility to restrooms and elevators, equipment accessibility in the garage will go through the new trash dumpster area, construction will be a distraction, and parking will be difficult. Steve Thorp, Newport Beach, CA, stated that he grew up in Rolling Hills Estates and sonin-law of Dr. Baars. Mr. Thorp stated that the applicant has no interest in keeping the charm of Rolling Hills Estates alive and stated that the applicant is asking the Planning Commission approve two incompatible uses together. Mr. Thorp asked that the Planning Commission to deny the application. 3
Morgan Gallagher, Rutan & Tucker, stated that it was not their intent to put the City in the middle of a landlord/tenant dispute. Ms. Gallagher stated that these are two entirely incompatible land uses and is not what was contemplated as described in the RHE General Plan. The proposal for shared parking goes against what is stated in the Municipal Code. Ms. Gallagher stated that the Addendum is inconsistent with CEQA requirements in that the patients are not considered sensitive receptors, when they should be since during this project they will be surrounded by constant disruptions from construction. City Attorney, Kane Thuyen, stated that he would like to remind the Planning Commissioners that their role is to make land-use decisions. Charles John, Tenant, stated that he did not receive notification about the project and stated that there is insufficient parking for residents in the area already. Director Wahba stated that the City sent notifications to all businesses and residents within a 500 radius of the project and is not sure why some tenants did not receive the notices. The notices were posted on-site and on the City website. COMMISSIONER SCOTT asked about details about the equipment access through the new trash bin storage and the restroom accessibility for the dental clinic. Mr. Pancake stated that there will be a one-person restroom for the office space and the trash storage is subject to revision. Mr. Pancake stated that it is wrong to put senior residents in undesirable areas and believes it the responsible and better thing to do is to put seniors where they are able to access services that they need. COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER asked if an Attorney s, CPA s, or Pediatric office would be compatible in the building and stated that it just happens that the office is a dental office and the applicant is attempting to say that this qualifies as a compatible mixed-use project. COMMISSIONER ZIGRANG stated that if this was an empty building, would the medical office be designed in the same location. Mr. Pancake stated that it is in a desirable location closer to the entrance but he would have considered putting it elsewhere. COMMISSIONER YOO stated that in a mixed use project, you typically have two businesses that want to be there and this is not the case for this project. COMMISSIONER SCOTT asked about the piping from the equipment storage area to the suite. Dr. Baars stated that the pipes come directly from the office to the storage area in the garage. Garrett Colli, Perkins Coie, stated that a mixed use project does not require interdependent uses and stated that this project is in a mixed use overlay zone and the purpose is to provide a broad range of housing and services to the community. Mr. Colli stated that staff noted a shortage of senior housing and this would meet some of that need and this project is consistent with the zoning. Mr. Colli stated that staff found that no additional CEQA review is required, and secondly staff has recommended approving the findings as required by law to approve the project. COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER MEDAWAR, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONER ZIGRANG stated that he has built mixed use projects, but this not a well-designed mixed use project. COMMISSIONER MEDAWAR agreed and stated that this needs further review. COMMISSIONER CARMAN stated that in the General Plan states that, it outlines the goals and policies that promote limited orderly growth while minimizing land use conflicts. COMMISSIONER CARMAN believes that mixed use projects should have a commonality of uses or a purpose that are symbiotic and in this project there seems to be a conflict. 4
COMMISSIONER SHACHTER stated that regarding the precise plan design there are slight modifications, on the variance it is not substantial. COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER stated that this happens to be a dentist and the applicant is attempting to say it is mixed use but he has not reached that conclusion. COMMISSIONER SCOTT stated that he does not have a problem with the addendum but he does not consider this a mixed use proposal and rather a way to settle a landlord/tenant dispute. COMMISSIONER YOO stated that the addendum and changes are not significant, but the dental office who is not a willing partner is a problem. COMMISSIONER YOO stated that if this was presented as part of the initial project, he is not sure that it would have been approved. In addition, there is an issue with other aspects such as, providing for the necessary sanitation needs, design, and accessibility for the office. A discussion was held to consider the options for this project. COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER SCOTT, TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Garrett Colli, Perkins Coie, stated that he would like that this item be continued to provide an opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of making changes to this project. COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER MEDAWAR, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER SCOTT, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A DATE UNCERTAIN. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN Chair Yoo, Medawar, Carman, Schachter, Scott, Zigrang Director Wahba stated that notifications will be sent to residents/businesses within a 500 radius of the project before this item is re-scheduled to come back to the Planning Commission. 9. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMISSIONER SCOTT stated that there is a solar installation in his neighborhood where the back roof faces the sun but it was installed in the front roof and angled it towards the back. COMMISSIONER SCOTT stated that the City should have something in place to encourage the installation to be in the appropriate location. Director Wahba stated that he will look into this. COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER stated that regarding the solar panel item that came before the City Council, it seems there may be a way to approve the item. Director Wahba stated that the item will be going back to the City Council on May 9, 2017. 10. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Wahba stated that the City Attorney will be holding a meeting on May 9, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. to discuss disclosure laws, the use of electronic devices, and e-mail and the second part will be a review of the Brown Act. 11. MATTERS OF INFORMATION A. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF JANUARY 24, 2017 5
B. DRAFT PARKS AND ACTIVITIES COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES (1/17/17) C. DRAFT PARKS AND ACTIVITIES COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES (12/19/16) COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER SCHACHTER to, RECEIVE AND FILE ITEMS 11-A THROUGH 11-C. There being no objection, CHAIRMAN YOO so ordered. 12. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN YOO adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m. to the next Planning Commission meeting of June 5, 2017. Carol Corea Minutes Secretary Douglas R. Prichard City Clerk 6