Loading...
2012 04 10 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 10, 2012 7:04 p.m. CALL TO ORDER A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Alderson. PRESENT: Commissioners Barrows, Weber, Wilkinson, Wright, and Chairman Alderson. ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Senior Code Compliance Officer Anthony Moreno, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: There being no comments, or suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners Wright /Barrows to approve the minutes of February 28, 2012, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were no Public Hearing items scheduled. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Appeal 2012 -006 a request by Christine Clarke, President of Kestam Corp., General Partner of Stamko Development Company for consideration of appeal of Public Nuisance Code determination regarding the maintenance of a 22 acre Regional Commercial zoned site located on the southeast corner of Auto Center Drive and Adams Street. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 Planning Manager Sawyer introduced Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno who presented the staff report; a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked for clarification of the function of the Planning Commission, at tonight's meeting; more specifically were they to determine if the violation occurred, but not to what degree. Planning Manager Sawyer responded the charge for the Planning Commission was to .determine whether or not a violation existed at the time of the notice; not to come to solutions of how to deal with the situation. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Barrows asked about a possible solution for `the situation across from Lake La Quinta where the fence dips down. Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno deferred to Public Works for the response. Principal Engineer Wimmer said there were many options available. He explained the typical process but also mentioned that the fencing could be higher, or alternatively, there could be another fence put a little bit further back on the property that would be a higher height; anything that can help ameliorate the fugitive dust. Commissioner Barrows said the stabilizer doesn't last as long as it needs to and she appreciated the additional information. Principal Engineer Wimmer said stabilizer was one of the approved methods, but it did have to be applied with some periodicity. Discussion followed on disturbed soil and when is it considered to have gone back to its natural vegetative state. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Mark Moran, 53545 Avenida Cortez, property manager for Chris Clarke introduced himself and said he had been a long -time La Quinta resident. He said that the issue was not about the fact that there was -2- Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 a violation, but the way it was handled. It was a procedural issue. He was concerned that he, as the property manager, was never notified that there was ever any problem on that property. He gave some background on how long he had been property manager for Ms. Clarke. He explained that one of their problems had been Mr. Velarde's acreage in front of the property which contributed to blowing vegetation from that property to the subject property. He stated some of the blowing dust comes from their parcel, but most of it does not. He reiterated that he was concerned about the process and the procedure and said Mr. Moreno should have notified the property owner and asked. for permission to enter the property; which he never did. He stated that almost every item that has been brought up has been corrected. Mr. Moran additionally stated that some of the things that weren't corrected were not on the subject property. He gave the example of the Aventine wall, the graffiti problem and the City's graffiti program. He then went on to comment on people using the interior land as a convenient dump for a number of construction activities all unrelated to this property. He said it is very difficult to stop people in the middle of the night when they decide to dump stuff on your property. He said being notified of the dumping situation without actually disturbing the property would have been very beneficial. He said the property manager, or the property owner, would have been more than willing to go on site with the Code Enforcement staff to discuss the various issues and their correction. He added that there was no dispute. They did violate the law. He was just concerned as to why they had to deal with these issues by an appeal to the Planning Commission instead of through a kinder, gentler approach. He commented on several on -going violations on the subject and surrounding properties, but concluded by saying that he had gotten no calls and had never been asked to do anything on that property. Yes, there were some violations; some were theirs and some were not, but the process could have been a lot fairer and a lot less hectic and certainly a lot less expensive. 7 Chairman Alderson asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions of Mr. Moran. I r _ Commissioner Weber asked Mr. Moran if he was basically indicating that there were violations there, but that some of the violations were due to extenuating circumstances. -3- Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 Mr. Moran responded that was correct. Commissioner Weber continued by saying what's under the Planning Commission's consideration was whether there were violations that occurred; which Mr. Moran had indicated. He asked if .Mr. Moran had ever received a written notice of the violations. Mr. Moran said he had not received any notice, but the property owner, Ms. Clarke had received them. He then added that not all the violations were theirs; i.e., the graffiti on. the Aventine wall. Commissioner Weber said at some point the City, if they're going to access that, wouldn't they have to access that wall through the subject property. Mr. Moran said all they had to do was jump over the wall because there was an easement between the wall and Ms. Clarke's property and the City had the right to be in that easement. Chairman Alderson said according to the. application, the site was visited four to six times a week to ensure its security. Mr. Moran said that was correct. He added he was there almost every day. He did say he had recently been on a two -week vacation, but other than that he was there almost every day. Chairman Alderson then asked if Ms. Clarke (the applicant) would like to speak. Ms. Christine Clarke, President of Kestam Corp, General Partner of Stamko Development Co, 2205 North Poinsettia Avenue, Manhattan Beach CA 90266, introduced herself and said she wanted to comment on a couple of points. The first point Ms. Clarke wished to comment on was the Lake La Quinta letter. She stated she had just gotten it when she arrived at the meeting and said the pictures provided showed what the City approved for her PM 10 plan. She then commented on the placement of the fencing, the property line, and the retention basin in that area. She also stated she met with another Code Enforcement staff member, last fall when she received a complaint about dust coming BEE Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 off the property, and it turned out that when you go to the site and look at the way the property and the fence dip down, that it isn't on her property. It is really in the setback which the auto dealers run. She continued that when she met with Mr. Moreno's people out there, it turned out that the dust seemed to be coming off of Mr. Velarde's property. She said the dip was there because there was a retention basin there. In reference to Lake La Quinta, this was an underlying development issue that the City had approved and the fence could not be moved because it was at the property line which she had to be responsible for under her PM 10 Plan. The second point Ms. Clarke wished to comment on was the fact that she got this notice on March 19, 2012, actually 33 minutes before 5:00 p.m. and she had to contact Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno to ask why he hadn't called her because she could have taken care of some of these items. Some of the items she didn't even know existed because Mr. Velarde's property sits in front of a big chunk of her property and his vegetation is over her fence. She then went on to explain that the vegetation was so high she could not see the gate. She said she did not make a practice of walking on the property because it had been stabilized, not even three years ago, per City approval. She said she was out there with Mr. Moreno's co- worker in September /October (2011), as well as with Mr. Moran, and the staff member agreed that the stabilization on the property was okay. Ms. Clarke stated she had fixed the following items: 1) the little piece of fence that was down; which was actually a gate, 2) the green screen, 3). the two signs, and 4) covered the graffiti. Ms. Clarke then gave anecdotal evidence of why the signs had to be constantly monitored and repaired and why the graffiti could not be covered with green spray paint. Ms. Clarke continued by explaining why there was construction debris on the property and how it probably got there. She commented that she did not know from what vantage point Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno's pictures were taken, but those viewpoints were not from public streets. There was one taken from a two -story apartment, in Aventine, with a view all the way to Auto Center Drive, which showed a discarded tire. She said that was not from her construction, it was from people throwing debris on her property. She said when she was out visiting the property, on a daily basis; she never knew -5- Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 there was a gate on the northwest corner because of the height of vegetation on Mr. Velarde's property. Ms. Clarke said she has done all that she could do to fix those things she was responsible for. She fixed all those things on March 24, 2012, but the pictures were taken on March 20, 2012. She then commented on the statement of violations "remove hazardous trees or vegetation ". She said there was no blockage of any pedestrian sidewalk, or street due to anything she had done. The reason for the blockage was with the winds. The tumbleweeds and vegetation blow and blow and they blow into the fences, which creates a problem, but then it actually ends up blowing away again when the next wind comes. Mrs. Clark said • the soil had been stabilized. She commented on people walking on her property; as well as a vagrant who was found living in her retention basin and how that broke the seal on the stabilization. She further commented on the easements; those that belonged to the City and those that belonged to the Auto Dealership; saying that the people at Lake La Quinta needed to understand that the City authorized the PM 10 Plan, authorized where the fences were, authorized what was going on and how high the fences were supposed to be. Mrs. Clark commented on covering up the graffiti on the green fence and how she had driven around the City of La Quinta and looked at the back of other commercial shopping centers where they had to spray paint their dust control fences with spray graffiti paint. She relayed comments from others stating how you could spray paint the fences, but the graffiti just didn't go away. Ms. Clarke said she'd looked at the site on Washington Street where the fences were falling down and said at least she was willing to do her job as a property owner to maintain her property. All she was asking was for the City to be a little more cooperative and not issue out a citation like this when she didn't even know what it meant. She added she had done a lot of work and would continue to maintain the property. That was her job as a property owner, but Lake La Quinta and the City of La Quinta needed to understand what is PM 10 for her property as it related to Adams Street and her realization that Lake La Quinta had an issue, but they needed to be aware of this situation. M Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 Commissioner Weber asked Ms. Clarke about the various addresses that were shown on the documents in the staff report. He asked if she received the notification at the address shown as the mailing address. Ms. Clarke said yes, it was sent to 6080 Center Drive. Unfortunately, that was during the one and a half weeks that the office was closed. When the certified letter came in, it wasn't received until 4:25 p.m. that afternoon, but that's where it went; Manhattan Beach. Commissioner Weber noted that the material included in the Planning Commissioner's packet confirmed that Ms. Clarke did receive the notice, and said the appeal was stamped paid on March 20, 2012. He said this document stated she was appealing the citation, what he heard was that she agreed there were violations, on the property, at the time it was issued. Ms. Clarke said she spoke with Mr. Moreno, on March 19, 2012 and he told her she had to file a written protest. She then explained the process she had to go through to file the protest and her discussion with Mr. Moreno about a possible rescinding of the violation; ending up with her application to the Planning Department for an Appeal to the Planning Commission. She expressed her concern when she spoke with Planning Director Johnson asking about the hazardous trees and vegetation that was creating a health and safety issue and her concern with Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno going on private property without permission. Ms. Clarke continued that she could now see the tumbleweeds and would get her landscaper, who had been on vacation for three weeks, to get his people to take pitchforks and pull those tumbleweeds out from behind the fence. Commissioner Weber said there were more than tumbleweeds to be removed, from what he witnessed on the property. There was still construction debris that had to be removed. Commissioner Weber then commented on effective Code Enforcement and how it needed to be consistent. He then asked how long it had been since soil stabilization had been applied on that property. 50 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 Ms. Clark said she applied it in the beginning of 2010, and it was done with the City's consent Chairman Alderson asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Commissioner Wilkinson wanted to go over the list of violations and see what had been corrected. General discussion then followed on the list of violations with discussion of what each violation was and what had been completed. Chairman Alderson asked the applicant if she had ever walked the site with the Code Enforcement people. Ms. Clarke said she had not. Chairman Alderson asked was this notice of violation the first notice she had received., Ms. Clarke says yes. There being no further questions of staff, or comments from the applicant, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Ms. Suzanne Albert, 47510 Via Florence, introduced herself and said she resided in Lake La Quinta. (Her house was the house next to the main gate.) She brought up some photos showing what the parcel looked like, across the street from her home. She commented on the height of the dirt on the JC Penney property and the that there was no retardant on it and nothing to block the wind. She said there was zero visibility, during the last big wind, going down Adams from 47' to 48' where Lake La Quinta is. Ms. Albert continued saying her concern was the dust and dirt and difficulty breathing. She commented on the garbage on the site and how it promoted rats and disease and other problems. She said, further, it gets windborne and gets into the Lake La Quinta property. She was very concerned that something should be done; regardless of whose property it was. She then commented on her efforts to contact Ms. Clarke stating she and Daniel Valenzuela, City of La Quinta Public Works Department, tried a year ago, as well as for five weeks in April Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 and May to contact the applicant's office. Mr. Valenzuela called the Manhattan Beach and Marina del Rey offices. When he finally got through, he was told Ms. Clarke was on vacation for nine months. Ms. Albert said she was very surprised there wasn't anybody in the office, but was concerned that the applicant had said nobody had tried to contact them because that was incorrect. She directed the applicant to contact Mr. Valenzuela, in the Public Works Department, to verify how many times he had tried to call to get a conversation going with them. She commented that the City now had the applicant's attention because of the code violation against them. She also took issue with the applicant's comment about their visits to the site five or six times a week and also the sufficiency of the green retardant. She commented it had been two years since it was last done and it typically only lasted eight to ten months. She said that should be taken care of as there's nothing on the soil for retardant; as well as no trees. She commented on the fact that there were million dollar homes across from the site, as well as stating Lake La Quinta residents had previously been informed there would be six foot walls, trees and lights across the street from their community and none of that had been done. She asked how many more years would she have to wait for the promised amenities. She was at the meeting to say something should be done to protect Lake La Quinta and the health of its residents. Planning Manager Sawyer pointed out that the photographs referenced, in the comments, were based on a communication staff received on the previous Friday afternoon; making them too late to include in the Commissioners' packets, and were placed on the dais for the meeting. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification of what occurred when the applicant made their visits four to six times a week. She noted the photographs showed a lot of clean up and maintenance that hadn't been done. Ms. Clarke commented that what the Commissioners were seeing was on the inside of the fence, that was not visible from the outside. She reiterated they constantly check and repair the signs, but they never saw the missing green screen noted in the citation. As it turns out, it wasn't part of the fence, but a gate she was unable to see since it was covered with vegetation that was seven or eight feet tall, from Mr. Velarde's property. She stated she would never have been able to MIX Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 see that unless she was coming south on Adams (shown in Senior Code Officer Moreno's pictures) and would actually have had to look over the fence. She then asked about one group of photos which appeared to have been taken over by the Aventine wall, inside the site. Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno said the photos that were taken were from the cul de sac immediately adjacent to the auto dealership. There were areas where the fabric was shredded and missing and standing footed in that cul de sac you could see pipe, tires, pallets, and different discarded and abandoned debris. There were areas where the fencing was missing; i.e., the fabric on the large stretch where there were piles of lumber and protruding nails. Even the areas where the fabric was fully intact, were so sheer you could see through it to view the discarded debris; which would be in public view. Ms. Clarke said she understood Ms. Albert's concerns but said that property showing up over the fence was sealed. She added it was done in accordance with the City's PM 10 Plan. It was not her choice, but directed by the City and the hill was stabilized and approved by the City two years ago. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the procedures involving a PM 10 Plan. It was his understanding that a PM 10 Plan was submitted by the individual, or the developer, and their engineer comes up with the Plan. It is then submitted to the City for approval. If the Plan does not work, it is the owner's responsibility, -not the City's. He asked if that was correct since he kept hearing that it was the City's PM 10 Plan, but it was not. It was the developer's plan. Principal Engineer Wimmer responded that was correct. General discussion followed on the PM 10 Plan, the signs posted regarding the plan, what happens when you call that number and the responsibilities of the developer, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and the City of La Quinta. Commissioner Wright asked for clarification that the Commission's job on this appeal was to decide whether or not there had been a violation made and the applicant had already agreed there was. He said this -10- Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 appeared to come down to a communication issue that needed to be resolved. He was very aware of the PM 10 situation in the Valley and commented that once AQMD got involved it would be out of the City's hands. Principal Engineer Wimmer stated the City had Ordinances that dealt with fugitive dust control, so in this case it would be both the City and the Air Quality Management District who would prosecute, as they were both responsible for PM 10 in the City of La Quinta. Commissioner Wright then recommended that all parties sit down and resolve the matter because all the Commission was charged with was to comment on whether or not there was a violation. Chairman Alderson said Ms. Albert had some very valid points on dust control. He followed up with general comments on: • Dust control was needed on the site. • Possibly dust control was needed on nearby sites to protect Lake La Quinta residents.. • The dipped fence and what would happen if another fence was put behind it. • More chemical treatment of the soil. • The developer's responsibility to maintain the site, for their own benefit as well as the City's. • The site needed to be cleaned up. • The developer needed to walk the site with the Code Compliance officer. Senior Code Compliance Officer Moreno commented on the fact that a notice had been sent out on the nearby property and the owner had called asking what they could do to ameliorate the problem. They were currently working with the City to resolve any current violations. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant had any comments on these suggestions. Ms. Clark said she agreed with some of the violations and had fixed those. Unfortunately, she didn't' even know what the others were and commented that you would think that you could work together, but that was not what was happening here. -11- Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 Chairman Alderson said that was being offered tonight. Ms. Clarke said she would be more than willing to work on the PM 10 problem. She said she would start cleaning up the dead tumbleweeds and debris, but she would like the City to help her understand what she needed to do. The Chair then recognized Ms. Albert. Ms. Albert said, the Lake La Quinta residents had tried many, times to contact the applicant. She was so frustrated,, at the lack of response that she went to the Mayor who came out and acknowledged they were exposed when the wind was blowing. She was very concerned that Ms. Clarke continued to say that they had not tried to contact her. Ms. Clarke's property manager, Mr. Moran, gave Ms. Albert hiss card and asked her to contact him with any current or future problems. Ms. Albert continued by, commenting on the green fence and dust deterrents needed. General discussion followed as to what the Planning Commission's task was with regard to the case before them; concluding with once it was determined whether or not there were violations the opportunity for the property owner and staff would be opened up for further communication to solve the issues. General discussion followed on consequences of either decision, the time frame for future discussion, how they would be handled, and who would be involved in those discussions. There being no further public comments, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and asked for Commissioner comments. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber /Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2012 -002 upholding the determination that a public nuisance exists at the aforementioned parcel /address with reference to Case No. 12- 1340. Unanimously approved. -12- Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2012 VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. None. Vlll. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report of the City Council Meetings March 6, March 20, and April 3, 2012. B. Commissioner Weber is scheduled to, report back on the April 17, 2012, City Council meeting. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: None X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Barrows /Wilkinson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on April 24, 2012. This regular meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. on April 10, 2012. - Respectfully submitted, Carolyn W Iker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California -13-