Loading...
PC MINS 20080408 Appr ved May 13, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 8, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Lewis, Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Senior Planner Alvarez, and Associate Planner Fox. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to hear Agenda Item No. 5 before Agenda Item No. 4. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 5. He also noted that he attended the recent League of California Cities Planning Institute Conference. Commissioners Gerstner and Knight noted that they also attended the conference. Chairman Perestam reported that he was contacted by the applicant for Agenda Item No. 5. 1. Selection of Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission Commissioner Tetreault nominated Commissioner Lewis for Vice Chairman. Commissioner Gerstner nominated Commissioner Ruttenberg for Vice Chairman. Commissioner Lewis was selected as the Vice Chairman by a vote of 5-2, with Commissioners Knight, Tetreault, Gerstner, Tomblin, and Lewis voting in favor of Commissioner Lewis. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 2. View Restoration Permit (Case No. VRP2006-00007): 3103, 3109 3117, 3125 3131 and 3139 Dianora Drive, and 3102 Corinna Drive Because of a request from the public to speak on this item, it was removed from the Consent Calendar. Director Rojas reminded the speaker that a decision has been made on this item and that it was on the Agenda in order to adopt the Resolution. Carl Liehr discussed tree Nos. 6 and 7 and his dissatisfaction with the decision made by the Planning Commission regarding these trees. Commissioner Tetreault stated he had originally voted against the approval of the View Restoration Permit. However, he noted that the Resolution accurately reflects the decisions made at the previous meeting and questioned if he should therefore vote in favor of approving the Resolution. Director Rojas explained that the vote recorded on the Resolution would reflect the Commissioner's votes on the actual motion to approve the View Restoration Permit. Therefore, the Resolution would show Commissioner Tetreault's dissenting vote. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-13 thereby approving VRP2006-00007, as presented by staff. Approved, (4-0-3) with Commissioner Tomblin abstaining and Commissioner Ruttenberg and Chairman Perestam recused. 3. One-year extension of Costal Permit, Height Variation, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2006-00168: 13 Sea Cove Drive Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that the Planning Commission's requirement for granting this extension request is that there be a demonstration of substantial hardship, and he did not think the applicant had demonstrated a hardship. He therefore asked that the applicant explain his reasons for requesting an extension. Antonietta Ciccone-Khvang requested a one year extension to submit plans to Building and Safety due to financial and familial obligations. She also stated that their original architect has since retired and they had to seek out a new architect. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2008 Page 2 Commissioner Tetreault moved to grant a one-time, one-year extension of the approval of the Coastal Permit, Height Variation and Site Plan Review for the property at 13 Sea Cove Drive via minute order, thereby setting the final expiration date as April 10, 2009, with all conditions of approval remaining in full force and effect, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No: 68796, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Variance, Site Plan Review, and Environmental Assessment (Case Nos. SUB2007-00003 & ZON2007-00072): 28820 Highridge Road Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. He explained that the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change all require final approval by the City Council, and therefore the Planning Commission's review of this project will be advisory with recommendations to be made to the City Council for their final decision. He discussed the need for the various applications and how staff felt the various findings could be made. In discussing the Site Plan Review, however, he noted that the proposed stair tower will significantly encroach upon views of the San Gabriel and Santa Monica Mountains above the 36 foot by-right height limit from homes on Via La Cima. Therefore, staff was recommending denial of this portion of the application. He discussed letters received as a result of the public notice, which included issues of view impact, the mass of the building, decreased property values, and traffic. In conclusion, he stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission receive the presentation from the applicant and comments from the public, and continue the matter to give staff time to respond to the comments on the mitigated negative declaration prior to its certification. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the only need for the General Plan Amendment was for the annexation of a small portion of land from Rolling Hills Estates. Associate Planner Fox answered that was correct. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they knew what the original elevation of this lot was, and if there is any evidence that dirt had been dumped on this lot in the past to raise the elevation. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff had no evidence one way or the other. Commissioner Knight asked staff how they were going to respond to the City of Rolling Hills Estates request that green house gases be addressed in the Negative Declaration. He noted that the City form does not include green house gases. Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2008 Page 3 Director Rojas answered that the State is currently working on guidelines and thresholds for cities to use in assessing certain emissions when doing their CEQA analysis. Therefore, at this time there is no requirement to perform such an analysis as part of a project's CEQA review. The City Attorney agrees that until there are guidelines and thresholds established by the State, the City is not legally bound to include this in their CEQA analysis. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the cumulative traffic issue, and asked staff if there are any other projects in this area that are being contemplated. Associate Planner Fox answered that there are a number of mixed use projects in the Peninsula Center area in Rolling Hills Estates that have been approved or are in the process of being reviewed. In the City of Rancho Palos Verdes there is another application for the Crestridge property, as well as the Marymount College expansion, the additional homes to be built at Trump, and the Terranea project. Commissioner Tetreault acknowledged that twenty seven units will most likely not have a big impact on traffic, however he was concerned that all of these projects are being looked at, in terms of traffic, on an individual basis and was very concerned that approval of all of these projects will cause significant traffic problems on the Peninsula. He asked that some type of traffic analysis be done which includes all of the recently approved and known future projects in the area. Chairman Perestam discussed the proposed left turn area, and felt that creating a new cut in the median would impact the traffic in the area, as there are two other existing cuts in the very near vicinity. He asked staff to have the traffic engineer review this situation. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Zafar Hassanally (applicant) stated that his architect and engineer are both present if the Planning Commission has any questions for them. Dan Withee (architect) explained that he has been working with staff for almost a year in designing the proposed project before the Planning Commission, and that the concept for the project has always been to create a very high-end luxury condominium project. He stated that he has tried to minimize the amount of mass and bulk and lowered the building down as low as he could. He discussed the grading, explaining that he has tried to step the building down, and stated that there are no large roof elements, and all the vertical planes have been broken. He explained that the stair tower is a requirement by the L.A. County Fire Department, but thought he could remove the stair roof which will lower it to the height of the parapet. He stated that he had worked very hard to create a design that would be an asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Withee to comment on the memo from Rolling Hills Estates regarding their concerns over the amount of export from the site. Planning commission Minutes April 8,2008 Page 4 Mr. Withee agreed with their estimate that approximately 1,000 truck loads of export would leave the site, and noted that he will be required to produce a haul route for the trucks. Commissioner Tomblin discussed the landscape plan proposed for the guest parking area, the public area, and the parkway area in front. He felt it was sparse and lacked a high-end type of design. He felt it looked more like landscaping for an apartment complex. Mr. Withee responded that landscaping in front may be sparse because they tried to include as much surface guest parking as possible. Commissioner Knight noted that an area of mitigation in the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to add drought tolerant landscaping, and asked Mr. Withee if he had any issue with that. Mr. Withee answered that he had no issue with that, adding he was hoping to be able to construct a "green" building. Dan Bolton (Bolton Engineer) explained that he has estimated there will be approximately 825 truck loads of dirt exported from this site during the grading stage of the project. He explained that the haul route will be straight down Hawthorne Boulevard, and felt that because of the location of this proposed project, it will have much less of an impact on residential neighborhoods. He discussed the left-turn situation, noting that the proposed design was done partially with input from the City's traffic engineer, and he felt this was a good design in so far as this was a better option than a U-turn made further down the street. Commissioner Knight noted in the staff report there is an area identified by the project geologist as having a potential for earthquake induced landslides, and asked Mr. Bolton if he was familiar with this area. Mr. Bolton answered that there is an area off-site that was identified by the project soils engineer in his report. He explained that the City's soils and geology consultant has reviewed the report and have concurred with the project experts that the site can be developed in a safe and stable manner. Mike Connor questioned if the grading can be lowered even more on the site to help preserve he views from Via la Cima. He did not think the photographs presented by staff truly showed the loss of view the residents will have, and felt that the Commissioners would have a better understanding if they visited the homes on Via la Cima. He understood that the owner of the property has the right to develop his property, he was just hoping for a bit of compromise so that the neighborhood views can be preserved, as well as the property values of the homes. He also questioned the height of the proposed roof mounted equipment. Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2008 Page 5 Nancy Bradley stated she was concerned about the property values in her neighborhood, the proposed left-turn into the project, and the view loss for her neighbors. Nina Ito explained that this project will block a portion of their city view, and would appreciate anything that can be done to preserve as much of the view for the community as possible. Marlene Resing, 7 Via la Cima, stated that utilities have always been on the subject land and it was everyone's understanding that there would never be anything on the property but utilities. She also felt that the pictures do not show what the views being lost and that none of the pictures shown were taken from inside her residence. She asked the Commissioners to come to her house to see the true view impact to her residence, as she will be looking at a solid wall. She questioned how the City can preserve views by cutting trees, but could not preserve views by allowing a solid structure to be constructed directly into her view. She felt that the developer has all the rights, and questioned what rights the residents on Via la Cima have, and questioned why their views can't be grandfathered in, since they have had the view for over 25 years. D.W. Hagenburger, 6 Via la Cima, stated that, while the residents on Via la Cima have spoken tonight, there is a greater interest in other neighborhoods as well. He explained that the residents have not had the time and have not been well enough organized to gain everyone's interest and attention. He noted that there will be another hearing on this matter in May, and asked if they will again have the chance to speak and voice concerns, and if they will be able to bring more people who are concerned with this project. He also agreed that the picture displayed by the applicant is very misleading and invited the Planning Commissioners to view the area from their homes to get a true picture of what is being proposed and how it affects their views. He was also concerned with the proposed lef- turn into the project, noting that there are numerous children on this street who walk to school or the park. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Hagenburger, if the project could be brought down to a lower height, would he have any other objections to the project. Mr. Hagenburger answered that if that happened it would be a more acceptable project. Commissioner Gerstner noted that in order to lower the project, a significantly larger amount of grading will take place, and asked Mr. Hagenburger if that is also something he would support. Mr. Hagenburger answered that he would support the additional grading. Claudia Smith, 3 Via la Cima, stated that this project will not impact her view but will impact her driving, noting the very difficult corner involved on Highridge. She was Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2008 Page 6 concerned that the proposed height of the project will financially impact the value of the properties on Via la Cima. Dan Withee (in rebuttal) stated there will be no roof mounted equipment associated with the project. He explained that he did not intend to misrepresent any views in the photos submitted, and that it's the best and most accurate photo digitally available. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Withee how much he estimated he would have to grade down in order to lower the buildings so that they would be below the tree line shown in the photograph. Mr. Withee estimated he would have to lower the building five to six feet before it would be below the tree line in the photograph. He noted that grading down further will cause the construction of some very large retaining walls. Commissioner Knight asked about the drainage on the property if the grade is lowered. Mr. Withee answered that the grade may be able to be lowered approximately two feet before drainage becomes a concern. He felt that the lot could be graded down a couple of feet lower and remove the top of the tower to help lower the overall height of the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to clarify if the thirty six foot height limit staff discussed in the staff report and if is analogous to the sixteen foot by right height limit in residential zoning districts. Associate Planner Fox explained that the height limit established for a multi-family zoning district is treated the same in the Development Code as the height limit established in single family districts. Therefore, in keeping consistent with how the City treats the 16 foot height limit as a "by-right" height limit, in this district impairment below 36 feet in height is considered not protected, and impairment above that level is subject to analysis of significance. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff to clarify where that 36 foot measurement would be taken from. Associate Planner Fox explained that the measurement would be taken from any point within the building footprint that is either the lower of existing or finished grade. Because this project is proposing lowering the level of the lot, the measurement would be taken from finished grade. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if the developer will be asked to landscape the median on Highridge Road as part of the project. Associate Planner Fox answered that there is no obligation on the part of the developer to landscape this median. Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2008 Page 7 Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if there is a maximum percentage of lot coverage requirement for this project. Associate Planner Fox explained that there is a maximum lot coverage allowed in multi- family zoned districts, however the calculation is different from that for a lot in single- family district. Commissioner Tetreault asked if it was possible, with all of the hardscape proposed, to have a more permeable surface for this-hardscape so there is not quite so much runoff from the property. Associate Planner Fox felt that there may well be a way to reduce the runoff, especially in the pool deck area. He noted there may be issues with the emergency access turnaround in terms of the types of surface treatments the Fire Department will require or accept. However he felt that the developer could look at more permeable surfaces in other areas. Commissioner Knight stated that it would be useful if staff would extrapolate out all of the mitigation measures from the Mitigated Negative Declaration in the form of a list of recommended conditions for the Planning Commission to review. Associate Planner Fox explained that staff will supply that when this item is at the point where staff feels the Planning Commission is ready to make a decision. He explained that there will be a Resolution with the standard conditions of approval. He stated that any Mitigated Negative Declaration that does get certified will include a mitigation monitoring program that will call out all of the mitigation measures and who is responsible for making sure they take place and when. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to clarify what their purview is in a case like this and in what ways the Planning Commission can condition the project. Director Rojas explained that although this project is residential, the Code requires that this project be approved through a Conditional Use Permit. While there are not neighborhood compatibility findings and significant view impact findings to be made, the Conditional Use Permit has its own set of findings that are quite broad. He referred to Finding No. 6 on page 10 of the staff report, and explained that this finding will allow the Planning Commission to impose whatever conditions are necessary to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted, however, that a neighborhood compatibility analysis will not be done with this type of project, nor will bulk and mass be looked at. He felt this limits the Planning Commission, as his first concerns were that this seems to be a large project for the acreage, yet that is something he cannot consider. Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2008 Page 8 Director Rojas referred to Finding No. 3 of the Conditional Use Permit, which says that in approving the subject use in the specific location there will be no significant adverse affect on adjacent properties. He stated that this broad finding of the Conditional Use Permit can be use for whatever significant adverse affects the Planning Commission identifies. He stated that staff's discussion of view impacts are under this finding. He explained that staff's approach to this application has been to be consistent with the way other applications are handled. While the City Council clarified the by-right height limit, that discussion was specific to the 16-foot height limit. He explained that for consistency, staff is applying the findings for the 16-foot height limit to this project. He stated that he will have to check with the Oty Attorney to verify how much discretion the Planning Commission has on this issue given the CUP application that is required. Chairman Perestam summarized the concerns raised by the Planning Commission as: decreasing the height of the stair tower; the value of the left hand turn cut in the median as opposed to the convenience of having the cut in place; the landscaping plan and possible upgrade of the landscaping; the possibility of decreasing the overall height of the building area through additional grading; and guidance from the City Attorney and staff on the limits and bounds the Planning Commission has in regards to the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Knight added that he would like to see a condition that no roof mounted equipment be allowed, that the drainage and different types of permeable surfaces be looked at to reduce the amount of runoff from the site, and a mitigated pest management plan to reduce and control the amount of pesticides used on the property. Commissioner Tetreault added that he would like to see something from the City Attorney in regards to the letter from Rolling Hills Estates regarding their concerns with cumulative traffic impacts. Chairman Perestam asked staff to provide the Planning Commission with contact numbers of residents on Via la Cima so that, if desired, Commissioners can make arrangements to visit their residences. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of May 13, 2008 so staff and the applicant can address issues raised by the Planning Commission and the public speakers, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. Residential Development Standards Code Amendment & Zone Change (Case No. ZON2007-00377) Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining that at a previous meeting the Planning Commission had voiced concern regarding possible conflicts of interest. He stated that there is a lengthy section in the staff report prepared by the City Attorney Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2008 Page 9 addressing this issue. He briefly explained that the City Attorney did not feel the Planning Commissioners should have to abstain from any decisions about any proposed amendments to the Development Code, even if they do affect a unique circumstance on their own property. However, the City Attorney does recommend that if a Commissioner has a concern that there will be a material affect to the value of the property, that concern should be stated for the record and the Commissioner should recuse themselves from making a decision. He then discussed the recommendations as presented to the Planning Commission at the February 12th and March 11th meetings, and explained that staff was looking for direction from the Planning Commission. He began with the proposed rear-yard and =side-yard setback changes, briefly describing the Committee's proposed modification to the code. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that this change only applies to lots created prior to incorporation, and asked why this modification is necessary, as he felt there are other tools in the code that can allow the Planning Commission and staff to address this issue. Associate Planner Fox explained that is true if there is an application that requires a neighborhood compatibility analysis. However a smaller scope project that, for whatever reason does not require the neighborhood compatibility analysis, then staff and the Planning Commission does not have that leverage. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if any consideration was given to the possibility that changing the setback may encourage applicants to build up since they may not have the room on the lot to expand out. Associate Planner Fox felt that since the smallest of the lots that this affects is at least a half acre, and it is only a five foot change, he did not think that this will be an issue. Commissioner Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg's concern, adding that he did not see what the City would be gaining on the positive side, as the proposed amendment seems to be limiting flexibility and potentially driving the City towards areas that the City is trying not to encourage. He also noted that while many of these lots may be large, many have slopes that are not buildable. Commissioner Knight felt that there was the benefit to the City of increasing the rear yard setback which will create more open space. Commissioner Knight moved to accept the committee's recommendation in regards to increasing the rear yard setback (alternative No. 1), seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Gerstner moved to amend the motion to accept the committee's recommendation in regards to RS-A5 and RS-1 zoning districts, seconded by Chairman Perestam. The motion failed (3-3-1) with Commissioners Knight, Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2008 Page 10 Ruttenberg and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting, and Commissioner Tetreault abstaining. The motion to accept the committee's recommendation (alternative No. 1) failed, (3-4) with Commissioners Gerstner, Ruttenberg, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to reject the committee's recommendation in regards to increasing the rear yard setback (alternative No. 2), seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. Associate Planner Fox stated that the next topic before the Planning Commission is the side-yard setback, explaining the Committee recommendation was to enact a 15-foot aggregate side-yard setback for all lots in all zoning districts that were created before City incorporation. Commissioner Tetreault moved to accept the committee's recommendation in regards to increasing the side yard setback, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox stated the next topic is the Eastview re-zoning. He explained that the committee recommended changing all of the RS-4 zoned areas in Eastview to RS-5. Commissioner Tetreault stated that applications on lots in Eastview have come to the Planning Commission, and these are looked at as legal nonconforming lots. He questioned why a zone change was necessary, and why they couldn't remain legal nonconforming lots. He felt that changing the zoning opens up the opportunity for subdividing some of the lots and he didn't want that opportunity opened up. Other than correcting the non-conformities, he asked what other positive thing is being done by changing the zoning in that area. Chairman Perestam asked staff if this recommendation is in any way tied into the recommendation for the overlay district. Associate Planner Fox answered that the overlay proposal deals more directly with the issue of existing non-conforming issues, as that one tract has many structures in it that don't meet setback requirements, have inadequate off-street parking, and other deficiencies that were identified by the committee. Chairman Perestam asked staff if the area proposed for the zone change from RS-4 to RS-5 is the same geographic location as the proposed Mira Vista Overlay Control District. Associate Planner Fox answered that they are one in the same. Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2008 Page 11 Chairman Perestam asked staff if there are any other ties that would prevent approving the Overlay District if the City did not change the zoning in the area from RS-4 to RS-5. Associate Planner Fox explained that the overlay by its nature is creating specialized standards that aren't addressed in the standards for the tract. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to reject the recommendation of the committee regarding the proposed zone change from RS-4 to RS-5 (alternative No. 2), seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Ruttenberg understood that the committee had participation from the community when making these recommendations, and asked if the community was generally in favor of this proposed change. Chairman Perestam answered that the community was generally in favor of the proposed changed, however he felt that if the overlay district assured a fifty two percent lot coverage, this would accommodate the community's concern. Commissioner Tetreault expressed his concern that the zone change would allow some of the lots to be subdivided. Associate Planner Fox stated that staff can report back to the Planning Commission as to how many lots in Eastview are over 16,000 square feet and therefore could potentially be subdivided if the zoning changed. Vice Chairman Lewis withdrew his motion. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the discussion regarding changing the zoning in the area from RS-4 to RS-5 to a future meeting, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Ruttenberg dissenting. Associate Planner Fox stated that the next topic is the committee's suggestion of a proposed overlay control district, noting in the staff report the suggested regulations that would apply in the overlay control district. Chairman Perestam added that the recommendations by the Committee were made after extensive neighborhood input from the residents. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt alternative No. 1 of the staff report, with the modification that the lot coverage be changed to fifty two percent lot coverage, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox explained the next item, which was to strike language regarding courtyard area lot coverage, and noted in the staff report the language being discussed. Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2008 Page 12 Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt alternative No. 1, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Commissioner Knight asked if this includes covered courtyards. Associate Planner Fox clarified that this includes only courtyards that are open above to the sky. The motion to adopt alternative No. 1 regarding striking the language in the code regarding courtyard area lot coverage,was approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox stated that the next topic was the discussion of private street easements and how that relates to lot coverage, explaining that the committee suggested revising the Development Code so that neighborhoods with private streets would be treated the same as neighborhoods with public streets in terms of lot coverage. He showed a diagram on how lot coverage is currently calculated on a private street and how the committee has proposed to calculate lot coverage: He explained that staff was recommending alternative No. 2 in the staff report. Commissioner Knight stated that at the previous meeting he had some concerns, however after doing some calculations he realized that this proposal will be advantageous to the property owners living on private streets. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he favors this recommendation, however he felt that clarification was still needed on the differences between private streets and driveways. Associate Planner Fox explained that the definitions of private street and driveway were included with the previous Planning Commission packet, but not with this current package. Commissioner Knight moved to support alternative No. 2 as presented in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox explained that the last item was not actually a recommendation from the Steering Committee, but rather there was a discussion at the Committee level about whether to exclude the pole portion of flag lots from calculation of lot coverage and open space, and it was the determination of the Committee not to exclude this portion and to continue to include the pole portion in the calculation. However, when the City Council received the recommendations from the Committee, there was a question raised by a City Council member and it was asked that the Planning Commission revisit this topic. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that this recommendation is inconsistent with the decision just made regarding private streets. Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2008 Page 13 Associate Planner Fox felt that it might be helpful for the Planning Commission to have the definitions of private street and driveway, which were not included in the Planning Commission packets for this meeting. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they recalled in reason or rationale for Councilman Gardner asking that the Planning Commission revisit this issue. Associate Planner Fox and Director Rojas could not recall any specifics of the request, and it was not reflected in the City Council minutes. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to accept alternative No. 1 in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Knight stated that he was uncomfortable with the motion, not knowing what City Councilman Gardner's concerns were. Chairman Perestam was also reluctant to support the motion, as he needed more clarification on the definitions of"driveway" and "private street". The motion failed, (3-4)with Commissioners Tomblin, Knight, Ruttenberg, and Chairman Perestam dissenting. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the discussion regarding the issue of the pole portion of the flag lot to the May 13, 2008 meeting to allow staff the opportunity to provide clarification to the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Ruttenberg and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue this item to the May 13, 2008 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont) 6. Affordable Housing code amendment (Case No. ZON2008-00161) Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining the three components of the .proposed amendment, and explained that these changes are proposed to implement City Council policy, to implement state law, and to incorporate minor changes to the affordable housing requirements for non-residential projects. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2008-14, thereby recommending that the City Council certify a Negative Declaration for the project; and Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2008-15 recommending that the City Council approve a Code Amendment that revises Municipal Code Chapter 17.11, "Affordable Housing", and Chapter 17.96, "Definitions", seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2008 Page 14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. Minutes of March 25, 2008 The minutes were unanimously continued to the meeting of April 22, 2008. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-agenda for the meetinq of April 22, 2008 The Pre-Agenda was approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:37 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2008 Page 15