Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

thank you commissioner vashan and also thank you  commissioner she for mentioning I said 2024 but   this is our first meeting of 2025 so uh I need  to get with the correct year here all right um   can we please have a roll call yes Commissioners  Brown and Rose are excused commissioner Austin   here Sheffer here sheath here bashani here  Cher sahira here all right uh let's move on   to approving the minutes uh from the last  meeting so the uh last meeting on December   11th 2024 uh if there are no Corrections I'll  entertain a motion to approve so moved I'll   second very good have a motion in a second uh all  in favor say I I I I uh any opposed any extensions   all right with that the motion is approved  all right moving right along uh at this time   uh citizens who uh wish to discuss any items  that are not on the agenda can be discussed uh   at the public input uh portion of the meeting um  as a reminder the commission can't uh discuss on   any of those things but we can ask for it to be  added to the agenda of a future meeting uh does   anyone wish to speak on items not on the agenda  tonight all right we have someone please just uh   state your name hi my name is Wayne SOA 351 island  in the very highrisk fire area uh as we all have   known uh recently we've uh survived another fire  in Monrovia to the work thanks to the work of   thousands of firefighters we're still here it's  interesting if you take the damage map from the  

alad UN of Fire and you overlay it on Monrovia  everything on this side of the freeway would be   gone if that fire had hit here that's how big it  was so we thank the firefighters for their work   and I wanted to remind the Planning Commission  that you are a line of defense in all of this   if we think back to the early 1900s they used to  build homes with wooden shingles and everybody   involved in home construction and and fire service  knows that that's a stupid idea but they did it   and they did it for a long time in Los Angeles  until there was a fire that killed a lot of people   and then they said we ought to have a law against  that and sure enough they passed a law and there   weren't any more wooden shingles until the 70s  when a bunch of forest companies decided that' be   probably be a good idea if we brought those things  back and make us some money they built homes again   with it and sure enough by the end of the 80s  there was some really big fires in Los Angeles   and people were again were killed with the result  of that and so it took until 2012 for California   to finally Outlaw wooden shingles all that time  people on planning commissions knew the wooden   shingles are a bad idea and you all have the power  to stop dumb ideas even if the regulations don't   necessarily require it and so one citizen would  like you all to remember that going forward that   you're you're our line of defense against dumb  ideas and we'd like you to look at those ideas   going forward take the best that we can learn from  these new fires that tell us how we really should   be building ignoring the fact that we shouldn't  be building in the areas that I live in I know  

that but I'm there now and I have to live with  it let's try to make sure that people that are   going to live in those dumb areas is have the  safest measures that they can have going forward   so thank you for what you do and keep doing  it going forward thank you very much Mr SOA   all right do we have anyone else uh who wishes to  speak during the public input portion of tonight's meeting all right hearing nothing uh we can  move on to the uh public hearing portion of   tonight's meeting um tonight we have one  oh sorry the public input portion of the   meeting is closed and we'll move on to the  public hearing portion uh tonight we have one   uh public hearing item on the agenda um first  up is uh ph1 which is a variance request uh V 224-1 uh the subject property is at 166  North Sunset Place with Steve algori as   the applicant and the variance request is  to reduce a new structures yard setback and   I believe uh planning technician  Brenda quesada is presenting the   staff report and as soon as you're ready  you can get started with that thank you   I appreciate your um cooperation uh so we  are having some tech technical difficulties

unfortunately for Pro ioke coming out yeah no problem take your  time to get the it up and

running should we take a short do you want  to call a recess sure for 10 minutes or to 10   minutes sure uh yeah let's take a 5 to 10 minute  recess and then we'll come back at uh 750 sounds good e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e for keep yours don't get Mar

guys since they're not preap they certainly preapproved you're po more hous oh yeah don't have a back still

a lot of things to yes they can more yeah yeah all right thank you everyone for your patience  while we resolve the it difficulties I think we   have everything in order and we can call  the meeting back into order uh all right   let's continue on with the staff report for  ph1 go ahead uh Miss kisada thank you chair   and good evening Commissioners uh so our first  item tonight is a request to construct a 2,000   square foot detached garage with an overall height  of 17 ft in the rear yard of an existing single   family home the request includes a variance to  reduce the rear yard setback from 60 ft to 20

ft as the Planning Commission you have the  authority to Grant variances when special   circumstances exist that make strict  application of the zoning ordinance   and undue hardship compared to what  other property owners in the same Zone experience the property is located at 166 North  Sunset Place and is currently developed with   a single family home and a detached 1,800  ft² Barn which has deteriorated over time   the owner would like to replace it with a  functional garage for vehicle storage and workshop the lot is located in the  RL zoning district and is one of the   largest Parcels in the neighborhood  measuring 33,000 Square ft which is   significantly larger than most surrounding  Residential Properties so for context the   neighboring lots are about 13 the size  of this parcel the closest comparable   lot sits directly south at8 north Sunset Place  however this is used as a tennis club and not a   residence also the other surrounding properties  are standardized single family residential lots so looking at the site plan the applicant  is proposing to remove the old barn which   is located in the middle of the backyard and  construct a new garage in a different location   on the lot the owner wants to build a functional  garage which he plans to use for vehicle storage   and maintenance this includes a hydraulic  lift for vehicle restoration and repair work

so here's the proposed site plan uh showing the  proposed location of the new garage under normal   circumstances his detached garage would only  require a 3ot setb from the rear property line   in the RL Zone however because the proposed  garage exceeds 14 ft in height it must comply   with the main structure setback required ments  which in this case means a 60t rear yard set back this slide illustrates what the property  would look like if the garage had to meet the   full 60t rear yard setback you'll notice that  the garage would be positioned awkwardly in the   middle of the yard which is not a practical or  efficient use of his rear yard open space this   would also impact existing mature vegetation  including a 100-year-old avocado tree that the   owner wants to preserve also the applicant  is requesting a 20ft setback which is more   consistent with the setbacks for the for  other tall accessory structures in the RL zone now before I continue I'd like to clarify  a small typo in the staff report the report   states that the requested 20ft rear setback is  consistent with the standard requirement for RL   Zone properties that have a typical 149 ft lot  depth the correct statement is that the 20 foot   setback is consistent with the minimum lot depth  requirement for RL Zone properties which is 100 ft   this clarification does not change the overall  analysis as the key Point Remains the Same the  

subject property is significantly de deeper  than both the minimum and the typical RL lots   and applying the standard setback formula  results in a disproportionately large rear   setback requirement the variance request aligns  with existing neighborhood patterns and ensures   a reasonable use of the property in other words  this law is being held to a much stricter setback   standard than the other properties within the same  Zone and neighborhood which creates an unnecessary burden moving on to the garage design here are  the north and west elevations uh the new garage is   designed to match the existing homes in terms of  style materials and colors ensuring architectural compatibility and here's a look  at the South and East Elevation s now staff did receive one question from a  neighbor during the development review committee's   advisory review process the neighbor wanted to  know whether the existing fence separating the   properties would be changed we confirmed that no  modifications to the fence are being proposed and   the Landscaping along the property line will  remain this helps preserve privacy between   properties the slide also shows photos of the  existing barn and the surrounding Landscaping   which helps illustrate how the new garage  will be screened from neighbor neighboring properties so in addition to standard conditions  this project includes a specific condition of   approval requiring the removal of the existing  Barn before the final building permit for the  

new garage is issued and that the detached garage  shall be no less than 20 ft from the rear property line staff believes that the three  variance findings can be met this   is based on the unique size of the lot  compared to surrounding properties the   proposed 20ft rear setback aligns with  typical setback requirements for similar   structures within the RL Zone and the fact that  the variance does not Grant a special privilege   but instead adjusts the requirement to  fit the specific characteristics of this slot staff recommends approval of  the variance from the commission   as the 20 foot setback is a reasonable  and fair adjustment because it aligns   with zoning minimums maintains consistency with  neighborhood development patterns and prevents   unnecessary disruption to the property  while preserving open space and privacy   given the unique depth of the lot enforcing a  60ft setback would be disproportionate compared   to standard RL Zone Lots which typically require  20 ft this variance does not Grant a special   privilege but instead ensures practical use of  the property allowing the garage to be placed in   a logical and functional location while protecting  mature landscaping for these reasons staff   recommends approval of the variants so this  concludes my presentation I'm happy to answer any   questions from the commission uh and the applicant  is here with us tonight as well so uh he is also   available for any questions thank you great thank  you very much for that staff report uh are there  

any questions from Commissioners regarding the  staff report commissioner Austin quick question   um regarding like the shop use was the applicant  um provide you the detail of what that shop is   is it more mechanical woodworking or something  related to the Autos it's related to Auto uh there   is a workshop within the structure uh however any  reparations or restoration belongs to his personal vehicles like likewise um um I didn't see on  the um on data sheet one any requirements for   sprinklers or anything from the fire department  they were made aware of of this being a yes yes okay any other questions from the Commissioners  I have one um I know there's a condition to this   effect but is there any intent to change any  of the screening vegetation along the rear   property lines or anything other property  lines no no intent to change any of the   existing vegetation on site great uh and I'm  very pleased to hear about the preservation of   the 100-year-old avocado tree that's uh great  to hear um okay so I believe now is the time   and place for public input uh regarding ph1  will accept testimony in the following order   um the applicant if they wish to speak then  persons in favor persons with concerns and   then the applicant will have a chance to respond  if necessary um with that uh does the applicant  

want to speak tonight yes I do please go ahead  uh come to the podium state your name the floor   is yours thank you my name is Steve Al gory  once 66 North Sunset Place I'm the owner of   166 North Sunset Place and I appreciate you  gentlemen and the Planning Commission taking   this under consideration uh I'm here for any  questions um a quick point is something was   brought up uh I don't work on cars commercially  this is only for my own personal vehicles and   actually one Bay is is a wood shop there's an  internal partition will be a wood shop it'll   be basically parking for four cars and then one  Bay will be for just whatever light cleaning I   own my own vehicles that I presently own I don't  plan on acquiring any new vehicles or anything else thank you very much Mr alory anything  uh yeah if anybody has any questions uh   we'll cover them at the end of the testimony P  yes sir thank you all right um any persons in favor good evening chair and Commissioners  my my name is Brian amaguchi I'm in favor   of passing this variance um I applaud Steve for  trying to improve his property and reinvesting   in the neighborhood and for making a little bit  higher so the architecture matches his main house   um preserving that kind of those small details  makes a big difference in just preserving the   character of Monrovia what I'd propose to you  as you look at this variance and if you end up   passing it I'm would ask if you're looking at  a simmer properly down in line would you deny  

a 20ft sit back for the rear of the property  if not then I'd say there's the minimum of 3   fet then there's this formula for 20% from  3 feet all the way to whatever length it is   I'd say set a maximum of 20 feet so 3 feet use the  formula and then a maximum of 20 feet in ordinance   so that the next person who has a big lot doesn't  have to come before the DRC have a Christmas break   have a meeting canceled because of a fire and  now come to a Planning Commission and now and   if you pass it another 10 days to wait for appeal  process that poor guy has had to wait probably   three months and that costs money um I hope he  has a contractor lined up if not right now trying   to find a contractor after the wildfires is going  to be a nightmare so if it's if you decide to say   yes to this person I'd say also send a message  to city council say why don't you adjust the   ordinance so that there's a maximum setback  not just a formula to go huge amount because   you know there's there not a whole lot of long  Lots but there are a few and if you delay this   guy you're going to delay the next guy thank you  Mr Yamaguchi uh do we have any persons opposed all right so no need for rebuttal  um any questions from the Commissioners okay uh uh so with that uh  the public testimony portion of the hearing   is closed uh now is the time for the commission  to discuss and debate if there are any comments feel free to chime

in all right seeing nothing uh if there's no  further discussion is there a motion I'll move   to approve uh V 20 2020-1 pursuant  to the recommendations in the staff report I'll second that we  have a motion in a second   can I get a roll call please yes commissioner  Austin yes Sheffer yes Chief yes bashani yes   chera yes all right with that uh the uh the  motion passes thank you very much oh oh the   appeal language uh does director bero want to  read the appeal language uh yes thank you don't   have handy yes items of the Planning Commission  may be appealed if filed in writing um an appeal   uh fee does apply and that filing must be done  within 10 days of tonight's hearing thank you   thank you very much all right um moving right  along in the agenda uh we are done with the   public hearing portion of tonight's meeting and  we can move on to administrative reports we have   one administrative report on the agenda today  um that is ar1 um which is a request uh GPC [Music]

and I believe director bero has the staff  report so whenever you're ready you have the floor display size all right well thank you very much commission  um I hit a button when I came in over here and um   okay looks like we got our presentation going what  a rocky night with uh it stuff and PowerPoints   um but thank you this is a general plan Conformity  finding request for the property located at 222   East property um staff is requesting that  the commission find that the city's proposed   acquisition of this property conforms with the  provisions of the city's General plan so the   subject site is located on the south side of East  Cyprus Avenue between South Ivy and California um   the property is also designated in the general  plan for residential low density this area allows   for single family development at a density of 5.8  dwellings per acre and then other uses associated   with the residential um low density Zone allows  for churches schools and Parks when determined   to be compatible with the neighborhood now this  specific property is unique it's very large in   size compared to the other properties in the  area consists of four Parcels that measure   about 180 by 180 totals close to 34 of an acre  so a little over 32,000 Square ft in size um   the property is also developed with a very early  Monrovia res residence that was constructed in   1892 and as you can see this early home is was  constructed in the Victorian era Queen an Style

um this home uh also has um gone undergone  a lot of deferred maintenance and there's   a lot of improvement items that need  to be taken place on this home um this   slide just showcases some of the exterior  conditions of the residents and then here   you can see some of the Interior living  space um that um is in dire need of of TLC so the uh Monrovia City Council entered into a  purchase agreement um with the property owner at   their meeting on January 21st 2025 with the goal  to preserve this early monrovian home this 1892   Victorian home now the goal of this purchase um  is if the city does if the Conformity passes this   evening and the sale proceeds the city would  be continuing to assist with clearing out the   property and then begin undertaking necessary  work to prevent further deterioration secure   the building and then bring it back to the  city council for landmark discussion and other   consideration now the California government code  section 65042 stipulates and the requirement that   any potential acquisition of real property for  be submitted to and reported upon by the Planning   Commission as to its Conformity with the adop  a general plan staff has completed an analysis   and finds that this acquisition is consistent with  land use element goal number nine which calls for   preserving the character of existing neighborhoods  and historic resources um historic preservation   as the commission know is an integral part of land  use planning and has a lot of significant benefits  

such as revitalization of neighborhoods um this  subject residents is one of monrovia's early homes   it is a Victorian area home and has significant  character defining features which staff beli would   make it qualify for landmarking um the home has  experienced deferred maintenance and it is in need   of Rehabilitation work and the city's ability to  purchase the property will allow for the city to   facilitate that preservation effort so with that  staff is recommending that the commission find   that the proposed uh acquisition of real  property is in Conformity with the provisions   of the Monrovia General plan thank you and  I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have thank you director bero uh questions from  the commission sure Mr Austin I don't know if   this is a quick question or a complex question  but after if this passes and the city acquires   the real property and makes the updates and  then goes back to council would it come back   towards Planning Commission if they they found  a deemed something that didn't um jive with the   current zoning so this the analysis right  now is that this this home is located in a   residential Zone it's a single family house so  it does conform to this General plan land use   designation and Zoning um if the city council  um wants to pursue a landmark designation   then that would go to the historic preservation  commission for their consideration before going   back up to the city council what is the this of  this project once it's completed So currently   right now this the the only thing the city  council has considered is the preservation   the only thing the city council has considered and  staff has evaluated under and for environmental  

review is the preservation of this property  so there's no future project that has been studied commissioner Chief yes excuse me uh  was the house originally built at this site I   believe the house was originally constructed  at this location that's a signif significant   Siz lot and I was wondering what the future  holds uh lots of lots of things could go on   that property if the city is owning it yes and  and and um unfortunately we haven't contemplated   anything further Beyond uh preserving this  house for historic preservation purposes thank you another questions okay um I have some  questions so um are there other examples   of the city acquiring property for the purpose  of historic preserv um the city shortly before   I came aboard with the city the city acquired  the historic Depot um and we the city when they   acquired it that property was also in significant  disrepair and need of TLC um the city um worked   with a a developer um and through coordination was  able to facilitate the restoration Rehabilitation   of the Santa Fe Depot um we've the city's also  initiated a lot of different types of variety   of land use proposals to coordinate land use  and historic preservation efforts so um I think   monroi has a long history of of preserving its  over 160 you know currently designated struct  

structures and making sure that we don't lose  our City's history um what happened with the   depot acquisition does the city still own that I  believe the city still owns it and has sublet it   to samuelon feder and so it's in a long it's leas  long-term lease agreement it's leased okay I see um were there other options considered by  the city aside from an outright purchase   uh for instance were there any  type of you know partnership   or encouraging some other agency or some other  private entity to acquire this and preserve it   that unfortunately I'm not aware of that  a lot of the purchase and sale decisions   are made through the city manager's office  and we keep them separate from Community   Development and land use um decisions so  um the only thing I I am aware of is that   this there's city council interest in purchasing  the property for historic preservation purposes um other questions or comments here before I  continue um so when I'm looking at the um at   the general plan uh the general plan is not  specific in this goal about um the purchase   of a property being you know a a means for  historic preservation and so that's why   am probing in this area um is to see um you know  is this indeed conforming uh to the general plan um a chair if I may yeah um I think it's  important to note that um when looking  

at whether this action is consistent with the  general plan this consistency finding does not   have to match exactly a general plan and policy  that is outlined associated with the goal the   the the action is is would this action further  the goals and policies the general goals right   of the general plan and not go against any of the  the goals of the general plan not be in Conformity   and I think there's several policies that focus  on the preservation of monrovia's neighborhoods   and historic structures and so the overarching  goal of preserving a property when a city has   a very robust historic preservation program is  is it very much in Conformity with the general plan all right thanks um uh and I'm uh forgetting  here this is Administrative report uh so do we   have a public hearing on this particular item so  we should take public comment on this item but we   don't have an official public hearing on this  item thank you very much um so in that case uh   we can open up the public hearing portion of this  administrative report uh if there are any uh folks   wishing to speak in favor or opposed uh now would  be the time to approach the podium and make that comment I don't see anyone so I believe we can  close the public comment portion uh of this   particular agenda item um any other discussion  or comments from the commission comforable this   because I oh can you hit your mic thanks yes I  was going to say I'm a little uncomfortable with  

this because I don't understand how the city  can purchase private property then pour City   funds into it to redevelop it without having plans  further on um it's just uh doesn't I don't see the   full circle here so I'm a little concerned one of  the other things that we don't have insight into   in this particular report uh at least is the maybe  you would call that an Exit Plan you know how the   city does the city intend to own this property  indefinitely does the city intend to preserve   this particular property and then sell it um do  you have any ments or insight into that as well   um I I what I could offer is and um you know the  primary goal right I've said this a few times is   is the preservation of this property and from an  Environmental Quality standpoint when um a city   is considering um a piece of property a purchase  that is subject to the California Environmental   Quality act so there's going to be further  discussion at the city council level I am certain   of the long-term plan for this property as that  plan is developed that will ultimately if a plan   long-term plans developed that will ultimately  need additional environmental review analysis   um before any project decision can be made um so  for for legal purposes right now the the purchase   of the property uh for preservation um purposes is  the only thing we've studied under the California   Environmental Quality act and I think that that's  an important thing to consider any greater beyond  

that would require significant more review um one  more question uh maybe for our City attorney uh we   have a few findings that we're intending to come  out of this particular discussion with um I think two of them oh one of them relates to squa whether  or not that applies and the other is the general   plan conformance is it possible to uh vote on  them separately or uh do we vote on them all together so just to clarify the decision before  you right now is whether this acquisition conforms   with the general plan um um per the staff report  we don't think that the acquisition is subject   to squa um per number one in the recommendation  section so I don't think there's a squet decision   before you tonight um however the decision is  whether the acquisition conforms to the general   plan very good thanks for the clarification  commissioner off something to think about and   it um if they they acquire the city acquires the  land they could make a park a meeting facility   rehab it sell it to a private party and I think  before us this evening is it does it conform   with those um types of properties that would  would relate within the Zone in in that area   um it sounds like that there's the the plan is to  rehab it and bring back maybe options and um that   that was like my question if they brought back  options that didn't meet the zoning thing would  

it come back to to Planning Commission and have  its normal routing and I I think that that the   answer is yes yeah that that's what I was trying  to get to if they came back with some kind of um   you know plan that was outside the scope of  that zone it would have to come back you know   but like I said they could sounds like from from  director bro's report you could have a park you   could have a meeting facility um some kind of  like City function thing or rehab it and sell   it to somebody who wants to live there would  a private party be able to have like a like a   um a gathering you know um you know rent that  out and uh have U you know Gatherings kind of   similar and I don't know if this is a good good  suggestion like um the property behind us the   old Steve Baker home could could somebody come  in like at the city rehabed it and had like a   Gathering you know a private business down there  would that come back towards us because it doesn't   zoned right so I think the city council still  needs to offer further direction to the city   manager's office on the prospective use of the  property um you know when when our city manager   spoke to our city council it was very clear that  the primary goal was preservation and that there   would be follow-up discussion with the council  at a later date so really until that occurs we don't we that this is what we have before  us yeah and to piggy back on what Cherry was   saying I think it's important to note that  you're deciding whether the acquisition for   specifically historic preservation purposes  conforms to the general plan so it's a fair   Fairly narrow decision um and there's we don't  know exactly what will happen in the future but   right now we do know that the purpose is for  historic preservation thank you commissioner

Chief could you please demonstrate how this  conforms with the general plan certainly so the um   General plan has a land use element right which is  one of the elements contained in our general plan   and the that land use element stipulates all the  land use designations it describes the land use   designations what's allowed within the those land  use designations and then it has another section   that talks about land use element issues goals  and policies and there's a total of let's see here   about 15 land use policies that give direction on  uh to the commission to the Council on making land   use decisions and it also provides Direction on  how we Implement municipal code and Zoning codes   um the the one goal that staff has identified that  is consistent with the acquisition of the property   is um relates to goal number nine and that is  preserving the character of existing neighborhoods   and historic residences so this home being one  of monrovia's earliest structures being built   in 1892 having um potential historic significance  given the architectural featur it was built within   the um period of significance when Victorian era  architecture was being constructed in Monrovia um   it there are not many structures of this scale and  Architectural detail that exist in the in the city   which raises its value under historic preservation  um under uh policy 9.1 for example um it would the  

preservation of this home would allow the city  to continue to implement its own preservation   ordinance uh for designating and preserving  and safeguarding the structure um in this neighborhood thank you just one last question  so this whole point of this report is because   the city's buying this property we we need  to give this confirmation of Conformity if   it was a private person buying it this  wouldn't even be question at all correct   I mean I guess I mean I understand what  B was saying earlier but I guess that's   not our privy right now we're just focusing  on this one specific thing at hand that is   correct I do have questions about that though  yeah I think as as Chelsea said we're judging   or finding is this consistent with the  general plan for the purpose of historic preservation any other questions or comments or discussion okay I think we've oh just to go ahead  commissioner Austin I think that since the city   is acquiring it there's more scrutiny than if a  private party would buy it and they would have   to let's say they want to demo it they would have  to come and go through all those those Hoops but   one could acquire the property and Rehab it and  sell it I think there seems to be more checks   and balances at least on the preservation side and  what's going on and if it comes back around to us   you know in due time it's going to take a while to  rehab so you know we can go there um I'm willing   to put a motion out and we can have further debate  and the motion would be to find that the proposed   acquisition of real property is in Conformity  with the city's General plan as stated in the  

staff report for uh 222 East Cyprus I'll second  it thank you commissioner Austin all right we have   a motion we have a second let's go on to a roll  call vote please commissioner Austin yes Sheffer   yes Chief yes bashani yes Cher tahara No all right  uh with a vote of 4 to one uh the motion carries   um thank you very much for leading us through all  of that discussion and responding to our questions   um with that we have uh reached the end of the  administrative report section of our agenda um   and we can proceed to the community development  director report uh which I believe we have a   bricks and mortar topic on the agenda yes thank  you commission um happy New Year we're kicking off   our brick and mortar and this one we um have for  you was actually requested by the commission at   the meeting in December for a discussion on tree  preservation and so I'd like to um briefly walk   through the different types of tools that the city  of Monrovia has the Planning Commission has at um   your fingertips to um Implement tree preservation  the first is the city's oak tree preservation   ordinance which applies Citywide and we'll go  through that other other um tools are um our   Hillside development standards and those apply to  properties that are not covered um by a specific   plan when someone is developing in the Foothills  um the some of there are specific plans all of our   specific plans that cover Hillside development  such as the Madison specific plan have separate  

policies and standards and for tree preservation  that are um take president over the municipal   code and then another tool historically that the  commission and staff has used on development is um   the use of conditions of approval and specifically  conditions of approval relating to the   preservation of trees that aren't oak trees and  um you know and and when those are drafted there's   they're generally in intent to offer a balance  between preservation neighborhood compatibility   and Economic Opportunity so real briefly um  monrovia's oak tree preservation ordinance   was adopted in 1987 and Monrovia was a leader  in actually being one of the first cities in   our Valley to to adopt such ordinance um  um uh the this ordinance encourages the   protection of mature oak trees Citywide um  and and that is through a permit process so   all oak trees are covered but it focuses  in on mature oak trees so oak trees that   have a specific diameter of 10 ft or more  and that's measured 2 feet above the ground level and with this with every ordinance that um  is contained in our zoning code and and Municipal   Code there's always a purpose and so it's very  important to look at that purpose to understand   what is the intent of all these regulations and  so I wanted to read this and that is so we all can   absorb it and it says according to the municipal  code the purpose of the O tree preservation   ordinance is the preservation of healthy oak  trees which are necessary to prever preserve  

the present Scenic Beauty and Heritage of Monrovia  maintain property values and promote conservation   of Natural Resources it is the intent of this  chapter to establish regulations for the removal   and pruning of oak trees within the city in order  to retain as many trees as possible consistent   with the purpose thereof and the reasonable  economic enjoyment of private property so as   this ordinance was put together I think um you  know it tree preservation is is a very important   topic and it's also a very sensitive topic I think  for every per everyone um you know is in favor of   tree preservation um but there's different levels  of degrees and some people Property Owners like   to have property ownership rights and so it's  always you know a careful balance and that's um   how this ordinance was drafted with that in mind  so oak trees all oak trees um are protected um   when they meet the size threshold and  on all properties and anywhere on the   property except for single family properties  so single family developed properties not Zone   properties but developed properties oak trees  are only protected in the front yard and on a   street facing sidey yard all other areas in the  City commercial developed multif family it's it   doesn't matter where they're located they're  protected and then there's also conditions in   in the ordinance that stipulate when a permit  is required so um the obvious isn't when you   remove an oak tree or when you prune or remove  onethird or more of the canopy or root system or   when irrigation is installed or grading is  proposed within a drip line of a protected

tree now whenever any of those thresholds are hit  the property owner applicant is required to come   to uh the planning division they submit a site  plan showing the location of the tree often times   um if the tree is being removed and there's really  no obvious um reason for the tree to be removed we   can't tell visually that the tree is dead or um  that the tree is truly impacting a structure then   the we will ask for an certified Arbus report um  there is a review before the DRC the development   Review Committee and that fee is $78 if if an  arborous report is presented then that fee is   waved um the DRC reviews all applications for  these tree preservation permits um however from   time to time natural things happen and there  is an immediate if there's an immediate threat   to life or structure then there the ordinance  identifies either the police department the fire   department or the community services division  Grant some authority to immediately remove the tree so now let's talk about other preservation  tools um so um another when um projects come come   forward and there's a a significant tree could  be an oak tree um and there's it it's the city   can use the variance process right to allow for  the preservation of an oak tree or a significant   tree that that um is significant to the area  um by making findings for granting a variance  

um the development Review Committee um um looks  at the preservation of all mature trees through   entitlement process and we the committee uses tree  like different types of conditions of approval to   Oppo impose when applicable it's important to  note with respect to oak trees that there are   violations for cutting down a an oak tree and  on single family properties um it is considered   an infraction and in all other instances this  is stipulated in the municipal code it it's a misdemeanor that that penalty is only for  oak trees right that's specific correct   yeah thanks and so protections from other  trees so I wanted to just showcase What's   um what type of tree related protections we  have in our hilde development standards so um   they're a little bit more stronger protection of  existing vegetation is is contemplated through   site planning every reasonable effort is made  to preserve mature trees especially Coast live   oak trees but not just the the Yol trees  um and then we have stipulations regarding   in landscape plans um indicating the extent and  type of trees if they're going to be removed   what they're going to be replaced with and so  we saw some of that detailed information when   we were dealing with the uh normas project  um that new single family on that vacant lot okay so then with the use of conditions of  approval so outside of V trees when planners   are working with different developers when  the commission is reviewing plans um the   the commission the review authori is of any  action that's discretionary there's always  

ability to add a condition of approval for  tree preservation there uh generally though   those cons those considerations for the condition  of approval there has to be a Nexus and um some   examples of how the commission has used tree  preservation conditions in the the past are   to address privacy impacts tonight we made sure we  had the maintenance of screening so that views are   not impacted on adjacent property um often times  in the early planning stages the planners will   look at a project and balance all the land use  considerations on a project right tree the tree   preservation may not be the only consideration  that's being considered for example if the project   has a a a risk or could increase traffic demand  in the case of a drive-thru and there's a need   for additional drive-thru Lanes trying to fit  all the components of this of a project to make   it successful um we have to outweigh the um get  there's always a give and take right um and then   we we do our best to look for feasible site design  design um Alternatives and again the use that that   the commission and staff and the city council  historically has taken is you know absolutely   consider preservation um and also consider balance  the preservation with property owner rights and   even the capacity for enforcement um um more  rules means more enforcement on the city Side  

so before the commission this evening I wanted to  go over two real life um um uh use of conditions   in our in practice and the two that came to  mind that I have printed before you are the   conditions for the Chick-fil-A and Starbucks  project which was approved by the city council   on August 3rd 2021 and then the In-N-Out  project that was approved on o October 12th 2022 okay so grab my conditions here okay here we go okay so the first one um that  I was hoping we could look at was the one for the   chickf uh excuse me the Chick-fil-A project  and that one is for the property at 820 West   Huntington Drive you guys have that for you okay  so the first thing to consider that staff and and   the council and the commission considered with  this project is if you take a look at that data   sheet um one of the first things the takeaways are  is that this project required a significant number   of entitlements it also required it's not kind of  shown on this data sheet but it also required a   municip iple code amendment required an action of  the council in um in order to get this project um   to be allowed um that there was a standard in the  municipal code that said new construction had to   be a minimum height of two stories in order for  a drivethru to come in to the city on that site   that had to be revised to allow single story  development okay so through this through the  

process um there was significant concern that  was brought to the city's council's attention   regarding a large sycamore tree that was  located in front of the park property   the city council heard those concerns and um  asked the applicant to study their site plan   and gave that that hearing was continued and the  council said okay go back to the drawing board   your lot has significant depth there's a  park dedication that's being proposed we   want to see if there's a way to shift your  drive-thru queue on the Chick-fil-A project   and preserve the park land for dedication and try  to preserve the um sycamore tree um the council   directed the applicant specifically to hire  an arborist the city hired their own arborist   and there was a lot of study surrounding that  um um tree and ultimately Starbuck uh excuse   me Chick-fil-A was able to preserve it and as a  result there were very um stringent conditions   that were put on the Chick-fil-A project um that  basically require it required that uh developer to   follow a lot of different preservation monitoring  throughout the project and then even stipulated   that you know should that tree be impacted there  was going to be a replacement of that tree so that   the the Chick-fil-A scenario is an example of very  strict very clear directives um that are very easy   to enforce and very carefully laid out okay the  next um set of conditions before you were for  

the In-N-Out project okay so um thinking about the  In-N-Out project when that project was originally   um came to the city it was about 2021 so just a  year after the pandemic had um begun um Huntington   Oak shopping center was cons uh experiencing a lot  of vacancies um the the project applicant uh being   in an out there was a lot of concern both on the  city side and I think the community side about um   managing the amount of trip generation and queuing  that we knew in and outs generated um and on this   particular project the considerations I think that  were balanced were traffic Economic Development   and through the public hearing process there  wasn't significant concern that um staff felt   that um there was a particular tree that was  being pointed out for being preserved so as   a result um when the condition was drafted you  can see on the uh In-N-Out number 24 um it was   it was drafted in a way that didn't prevent the  de velopment from moving forward so the second   sentence here is the purpose of a tree retention  plan shall be to preserve all healthy trees that   will not interfere with the site plan will not  adversely be impacted by the construction of the   project and which are consistent with the types  of trees that are present in other areas of the

center now we're in 2025 we're no  longer in 2022 and and what I can say   is every single project that goes through a public  hearing process the planners are listening we're   observing and we're learning and we're gaining  the cues of okay this is a Hot Topic this is   something we now need to consider early on  and I one thing that I my my take away on   the Chick-fil-A project is I remember one of our  beloved council members looked at me she saw some   um palm trees and she said I never want to see  a palm tree again on a future development and   mental note was made they are out we talk if we  when plans come across our counter we know no   palm trees another mental note we've made is the  use of native trees I think over the last several   years we've heard you know not just drought  tolerant but native trees um we've also taken um   commissioner Austin's uh suggestions about the  use of artificial turf um instead of using Turf   and so from time to we'll always make sure  that's in there sometimes we miss it but you   you're our check and balances and we can put  that back in so I I think I'm I'm going to   uh kind of conclude with my overview here and um  I'm happy to answer any questions you have um as   so thank you uh thank you very much director buo  this was a good overview of tree preservation   and I really like the examples that you gave  of these difference in planning conditions  

and you know we all know how those projects um  are going and so we we understand some of the   impacts of of these conditions on those  developments so do we have questions or comments thank you that was good that was  educational um I in good I'm picking up   the cues um the turf um was thank you very much  won't won't seem a Germaine tomorrow with all the   rain but but you know we go through these Cycles  something that you you said here and I'm glad you   saw that is the native trees the native trees are  um usually more drought tolerant and as we saw in   the last um couple weeks the native trees were uh  more more resilient in the Altadena area I can't   speak for the Palisades area but it's probably  true over there that the Oaks and the sycamores   survivability was better so that that's a positive  there and um and um you know I appreciate the   update on that um the the In-N-Out issue was and  and I'd had a discussion with Sher it was um the   way the trees were taken down was probably um the  one that probably got people's attention um if   they would have taken a chainsaw to them it would  had the same result but it didn't look like a tree   Massacre was going on over there because um I saw  it immediately I was like Wow and now the date we   saw on the on on your presentation shows that  uh it' been a couple years so I lots have gone   lots of things have happened in life and lots of  things have come through here and didn't realize   what we did or didn't do during that thing but  like I said it would look look pretty horrific   from a visual and obviously they must have felt  like that um the those mature trees that were  

there and I forget what they were didn't fit the  site plan um just one of observation that I want   to make um you know we're asking I'm asking these  questions about uh tree preservation uh you know   one thing that I certainly don't want to change  is the reputation of Monrovia uh as a place that's   good to do business and good to develop um and and  I'm not eager to have the city impose a lot of uh   rules and regulations on the residents and tell  them what they can or can't do on their property   uh but we do have to balance that with uh with  protecting the the natural environment in a and   you know being uh responsible stewards of of the  land that we live on so um I think this is great   information that you gave us um if uh if city  council ends up having any thoughts on on this   and then it comes back to the commission we'll  we'll certainly take that as it comes uh and if   we have any follow-up items um I'm sure we can  ask you additional questions in the future but   at this time uh this answered my question on on  gathering information so thank you for that very   welcome thank you I just think that we do a pretty  good job from staff to the Planning Commission to   the Council of figuring out a I don't know a happy  medium or a co-existence and all this and how it   jives together um and we're finding out that as  science involves and here you know shade canopies   are a good thing to keep temperatures down and and  help Society create oxygen and all that I think   we do a pretty good job about that um every once  in a while I I concur with the the C the former   council members think about palm trees um but you  know people do dig them um they're not native and  

they don't offer a lot but um you know I could  understand where she was coming from all right any   other comments or questions all right let's move  along do you have a development update for um the   only development update I was going to provide is  um the city council reviewed the ad ordinance that   that the Planning Commission made a recommendation  on in December their December meeting and they   approved adopted the the ordinance at their  last meeting um at the end of last month   right effective March 5th so it's effective  March 5th so that was a good move so thank you great uh what we saw last night or what we  talked about is that or I saw at this state of the   city was that uh we had 50 plus adus constructed  or at least permitted and I saw some interesting   things on there was like the um um I guess it  would be U prefabbed living or I'm not quite sure   what we call that I thought that that was unique I  heard some groaning in the audience but I was like   this is kind of kind of cool you know we're doing  try to and we're doing it here and what better if   they're in Monrovia to bring some back to Monrovia  not not have the neighbors take on take that on   but and I don't know sure you could probably  I don't remember the name I thought that was   unique uh functional living space to help out and  now that we've seen that there's 10,000 lost homes   or Liv living structures um it's a premium now to  find living space if it was before it's even worse   yeah the name of the company is lifar that's um  recently established in Monrovia and they um have  

created a a um a prototype that's can of a home  that's easy to assemble and can float on water um   staff's still learning about their product we're  we haven't seen one yet but we we want to take a   look at one tool in the toolbox a tool in the  toolbox you know another opportunity if it if   it comes about and I think that that's a good  thing offer a myriad of fixes and go from there all right um and and I'm I'm glad uh you  mentioned the fires commissioner Austin   I was remiss at the top of this meeting um I  was kind of in a hurry to get things started   uh but I really should have mentioned um the  the impact that the fires had uh I think our uh   Hearts go out to all of those who were impacted  by the fires in January um and those of us who   have family and friends and and uh other work  colleagues um who have been impacted it it was   obviously a truly devastating disaster it will  take a long time uh to recover from so um I know   that that lots of folks in our city um and the  city itself are are helping our neighbors uh   recover and and and that's great to see but  it's going to be a very long process so um   all right with that uh do we have any other uh  report rep s or announcements or anything from   my fellow Commissioners oh I got to ask for  Bill when start when when when's in and out opening uh I'll let you know at our  next meeting how's that the progress   is is moving along the rain might slow them  down a little bit they're moving fast I we'll  

we'll get you an updated schedule by the  next meeting all right any other comments   all right uh with that uh we can  adjourn this meeting uh at 8:54 meeting adjourned are not for us those e