Loading...
PC MINS 20080909 Approved October 3 8 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:10 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: Commissioner Gerstner was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Principal Planner Mihranian, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as modified to hear items 1, 2, 4, 3, and 5. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the September 2, 2008 City Council meeting the Council approved the Coastal Vision Plan and authorized the Annenberg Foundation to submit the appropriate application for the proposal for lower Point Vicente. He noted that this application will likely not come before the Planning Commission for at least a year. Director Rojas distributed 8 letters regarding Agenda Item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Green Building Program (Case No. ZON2007-00598) Director Rojas explained that at the August 26th meeting the Planning Commission reviewed staff's proposed code amendments regarding the Green Building Program and directed staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution, which is now before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-30 and P.C. Resolution 2008-31 thereby recommending the City Council.certify a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and approve the voluntary Green Building Program and the mandatory green practices and development standards for all proposed construction, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Site Plan Review & Variance Permit (Case No. ZON2008-00303): 4008 Miraleste Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Variance and Site Plan Review. She explained staff's determination that the Variance request is warranted, and that staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight noted that staff had indicated in the staff report that parking in the driveway will not be a public safety hazard, and asked staff how they made that conclusion. Assistant Planner Kim explained that staff made that conclusion based on the existing homes with the same driveway area, noting that there appears adequate space for the driveway approach and driveway on all of the other homes. Commissioner Knight questioned why the City would approve a Variance to allow the use of public property. Assistant Planner Kim explained that all of the other homes in the neighborhood have the same basic condition as the subject home, and therefore staff did not feel that it would be warranted to deny the Variance. Director Rojas added that this was also a way to acknowledge that the Miraleste community is unique in the way it was developed, and that there is a buffer between the street and the homes which does not create a situation where something is imposing on the roadway. Commissioner Knight was concerned that granting a Variance might set a precedent, noting that there is a vacant lot in the immediate neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2008 Page 2 Director Rojas stated that future developments in the area will be looked at on an individual basis, but noted that a good case can be made for a Variance on this lot in order for the proposal to be consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. He also noted that the proposal was not to use the public right-of-way, but rather to build closer to the right-of-way. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Frank Politeo (architect) stated that most of the homes in this neighborhood were built before the City incorporated. He explained that when the owner builds a new garage he would like to be in line with the other garages in the neighborhood and not have something different that will stand out. He added that the art jury has approved the plan and that he and the owners agree with the staff report. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked if the new courtyard proposed would be considered lot coverage. Assistant Planner Kim answered the courtyard would be considered lot coverage. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-32 thereby approving the Site Plan Review and Variance as presented by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (6-0). Commissioner Knight stated that he supported the project, noting however that he did not completely agree with the findings made by Staff. However, he could make the findings based upon the fact that there is a 15 foot setback which would allow for off- street car parking. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of July 22, 2008 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Knight abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Marymount College facilities expansion project (Case No. ZON2005-00395): 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioner Ruttenberg recused himself from the public hearing as he had made public comments on the project before he became a Planning Commissioner and did Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2008 Page 3 not want any appearance of impropriety if he were to sit on the matter. He tfieri left the dais. Chairman Perestam also recused himself from the hearing, as he lives in the neighborhood. He too left the dais. Principal Planner Mihranian presented the staff report, explaining the purpose of this meeting was to provide the Planning Commission and public information on the project, specifically on the current design being considered. He explained that there are three items staff is recommending the Planning Commission consider in tonight's discussion: 1) An overview of the project plans, including the updated plans submitted by the applicant since the release of the draft EIR; 2) Staff's request for direction from the Planning Commission in regards to processing schedule for the application; and 3) Staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing to October 28, 2008. He reiterated to the public that staff is not prepared at this time to get into any discussions on the merits of the project, and that discussion is not before the Planning Commission at this time. With that in mind, he gave a brief overview of the three components of the proposed project as well as the updated project plans. He discussed the proposed processing schedule, noting that staff is suggesting a revision to the schedule to allow for the concurrent processing of the environmental document, as well as the project application. He stated that there is no provision in CEQA that requires CEQA occur as a separate process before the planning applications. He explained that the CEQA does state that a decision be made on the environmental component prior to taking action on the project applications. Therefore, staff's modified draft schedule suggests that at the next meeting the final EIR be discussed, at the November 25th meeting the discussion be centered on the project applications and final EIR, and the January meeting have a Commission decision on the final EIR and project applications. Commissioner Knight noted that the comment period for the draft EIR ended in January 2008, and that since that time the project has been modified. He asked how the comments submitted after the January deadline will be addressed in the EIR. Director Rojas explained that the circulated draft EIR has a finite comment period and all comments received prior to the deadline will be responded to in the final EIR. However, once the comment period ended, there have been continual comments received from the public. He stated that those comments cannot be added to the final EIR, but will be addressed by staff in the staff report. Also, changes to the project that occurred after the comment period ended will be addressed by CEQA through an analysis in the Final EIR. At that point, any public comments on the EIR can be made to the Planning Commission and if the Planning Commission feels there are legitimate new issues that were not addressed in the EIR, the Planning Commission can request modifications to the EIR to address these further comments. Dr. Brophy (applicant) explained that Marymount College felt that it was in the best interest of everyone involved that the current proposed revisions be made before the final hearing on the Conditional Use Permit, and added that a good number of the Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2008 Page 4 revisions made were done to address the comments and concerns of the community. He explained that in reviewing the plans for the library and athletic facility, it was determined that the design did not meet the current and future needs of the faculty and staff, and therefore were redesigned to better meet those needs. He felt that many proposed changes will not be visible from the exterior and consequently have no measureable impact. He also explained the need for the proposed temporary modular spaces so that the school can continue to function year round. He anticipated the need for the modulars for a period of no more than two years. He briefly discussed modifications to the Conditional Use Permit as well as the success of the summer program on campus. Scott Boyoston (architect) displayed a plan showing the proposed changes to the campus, including the parking and demolition plans. He discussed the three phases of the project and the need for and the location of the proposed modulars. He discussed the modulars, where they would be located and what they would look like. He also discussed and showed several pictures of the current landscaping as opposed to the proposed landscaping and screening proposed with the project. Don Davis (representing Marymount College) stressed that the college is not increasing enrollment, and understood the community's concern that with the new facilities the campus will grow. He stated that it is time to start considering the Conditional Use Permit in terms of putting numeric limitations on programs, rather than being program specific. He noted that the current enrollment cap applies only to the Fall and Spring semesters and that there is also a Winter and Summer program on the campus which do not have enrollment limitations. He also noted several other programs that take place on the campus. He briefly outlined the college's proposal to limit the total student enrollment on the campus. With respect to community organizations, he noted that these are not the college's projects and the City should decide how the use should be regulated. He discussed traffic and the studies done and noted that the recent study in the neighborhood which showed that the project would not increase the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of street traffic. He stated that for the first time the City has stated that the way traffic and parking was calculated was in anticipation of public use of the campus. He felt this was important because the environmental document clearly includes community use of the campus, which is not part of the project. This use raises traffic numbers and those numbers in terms raises potential impact which requires mitigation. Therefore, if public use of the campus is being included in the traffic numbers, he felt that the City owes an obligation to contribute to the mitigation measures. Shaida Kafe (representing Marymount) gave a brief overview of the parking, beginning with what is currently in place and explaining what is being proposed. She noted that more students have started using the shuttle to get to campus and that the on street parking has been significantly reduced. Lois Karp (Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion — CCCME) stated that Marymount is surrounded by single family residences, and these homes were existing Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2008 Page 5 before Marymount came to the campus. She reviewed Policy Number 6 of the General Plan, and felt that the proposed residence hall and athletic facility are not compatible with the residential houses that surround the campus. She stated that the neighborhood has always been very concerned about the geology in the area, and noted that the location of the proposed residence hall does not meet the 1.5 factor of safety. She stated that CCCME has always been in favor of modernization of the present campus and the addition of a library. She stated that since the beginning of this project in 2000 CCCME developed an alternate plan which was submitted to the City to be studied. She explained this plan was for Marymount to build their residence halls and athletic facilities on the land they own in San Pedro. She stated there is no two year college west of the Mississippi that has residence dorms on their campus. She felt the proposed alternative was the only win-win situation in the project, as it will not impact the neighborhood and Marymount can have the dorms and athletic facility. She did not think the residents on San Ramon should not have cars parked right up against their back walls with no setbacks, as proposed in the new parking plan. She discussed the potential noise from the residence halls and the congregation areas around the residence halls. She stated that there is no mitigation available for this because of the topography of the area. She questioned how Marymount can promise to take all of the cars off of the street, as the numbers in the EIR say the parking is inadequate. She noted that there is a provision in the Code which allows the Planning Commission to request more parking than is required by the Code, and asked the Planning Commission to enact this section of the Code. She stated that an objection by CCCME is that the building heights are too high and out of scale with the neighborhood. She stated that, because of the dorms, this is considered a change in land use. She felt that allowing the 24/7 use of the campus was a horrendous impact for the neighbors to shoulder. She questioned the need for an eight year phased project and the burden that would place on the surrounding homeowners. She stated that the August 5, 2008 City Council staff report revealed changes to the project that the neighborhood had never seen, and the major objection was the change on the concurrent running of the completion of the EIR and the start of the application process, as there are too many unanswered questions connected to the EIR. She addressed the 14,000 square feet of temporary buildings being proposed, stating that these are not temporary buildings. She stated that the Fire Code and Building Code state these are permanent buildings. She stated that the moving of the staging area moves it from the street to somebody's backyard. She concluded by asking the Planning Commission to consider the proposal of CCCME to locate the housing and athletic facility in San Pedro and modernizing the existing campus. Jim Gordon referred to a Marymount claims and rebuttal section, which was a package presented to the Chamber of Commerce, however the rebuttal section never reached the Chamber of Commerce. Therefore the Chamber of Commerce voted without the rebuttal section. He also noted that of the nine members of the body that voted in favor of the project, only two are local residents. He then referred to Marymount College Modernization Plan, various applications dated November 1, 2007. He felt that there are some false claims and significant omissions in the document. Finally, he pointed out that the college is more and more referring to its religious as well as educational Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2008 Page 6 mission. He felt that, although the college has a very distinguished religious tradition, it is an educational institution, not a religious institution. Jack Karp stated that he is opposed to the proposed consecutive processing, as it is unfair to the Planning Commission and the City to begin making decisions without all of the information. He also questioned why this process would be started if the EIR is not certified. He felt that there is too much new information being presented by the college and that a draft EIR with the new information needs to be circulated and public comments addressed. Dr. Sue Soldoff stated that she is a resident on Coolheights Drive and has also served on the Marymount College Board of Trustees. She felt that Marymount College is an asset to the neighborhood and community as a whole. She felt that mitigation measures can be applied to the neighborhood's satisfaction, referencing mitigation measures that will limit the number of cars allowed to students living on campus, available food on campus, and limited access to the campus during certain hours of the night. She stated that the buildings and facilities on campus are old and modernization is needed in order to continue to serve the academic and intellectual needs of the students, faculty, and community for many years to come. She discussed the benefits of having students living on campus, including making the students more readily available to be hired by neighbors. She stated that the students are young and strong and would be an incredible asset to the Community Emergency Response Team. She felt that the neighbors and community should be proud to have this institution in their neighborhood. Dorian Dunlavey stated that she preferred to have the EIR finished before hearing the various applications. She questioned the new proposal for temporary modular buildings as well as the access road, noting that both directly affect her and her neighbors. She was also concerned about the amount of grading and the overall work and how it may affect the stability of land. She questioned what this development will do to the peaceful neighborhoods they live in and what it will do to their property values. Gregory Lash stated he is a member of CCCME and supports the two campus proposal of the CCCME. He stated that currently the weekdays in the area seem to belong to the college and the students, however the evenings and weekends belong to the residents in the neighborhoods. He felt that if the proposed expansion were allowed, that there would be no time that belonged to the neighborhood residents. Mike DeNardo stated that he is not in favor of the concurrent process suggested by Marymount. He was concerned that the revisions have been made to the plans without public comment. He discussed drainage, noting that it appears there is drainage coming from the project down onto his property and his neighbor's property. He also discussed the use of "temporary" in regards to staging areas and buildings, noting that in this case "temporary" means years. He was concerned with the staging area being located so close to his property and the subsequent noise and dust that will create. Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2008 Page 7 Overall, he felt that residence halls will cause serious harm to his neighborhood and change the very nature of the neighborhood. Joan Barry stated she is opposed to the concurrent process, and was concerned with the possibility of Marymount going forward with the application process before the EIR is completed. She stated that she was specifically concerned with the noise study in the EIR. Pat Mathiesen (representing the EI Prado Estates HOA) agreed with the points brought up and also that the applications should not be considered before approval of the EIR. He stated that the main concerns are the traffic and parking. Petra Schneider(representing the Mira Catalina HOA) stated that the HOA is opposed to the concurrent process proposed and also agreed with the comments and concerns of the others who had spoken. She was very concerned with the noise and the quality of life issues if his project is approved. George Zu sq mith stated he is a member of CCCME and opposes the concurrent plan which staff has recommended to the Planning Commission. He felt the City is getting incorrect information from both the administrative EIR and the draft EIR. As an example, he noted that the draft EIR suggested as a mitigation for noise that the windows in the dorms not be openable. He stated that the Fire Code states that windows in rooms used for sleeping must be openable in a room below a 4t" floor. He too felt that significant changes have been proposed by Marymount since the public comment period closed in January. He referred to the temporary structures proposed by Marymount, and stated that the Los Angeles County Fire Department states that any structure standing for a year or more is a permanent structure. He was also concerned with the amount of grading and the traffic and parking. Dennis McLeod stated he is opposed to the concurrent processing of the EIR and the planning applications. He felt that the EIR should be clear and all the facts in place before moving on with the applications. He was very concerned with the noise impact from the residential facilities and the athletic fields. He felt what was being proposed would transform a two year college which operates during the day to a much larger scale facility with residence halls. He stated that Marymount deserves to upgrade and modernize their campus, but not at the expense of the neighborhood. Karen Thordarson stated she is in support of the concurrent plan. She felt this process has become excessively long and concurrent hearings will provide an efficient process. She stated that she is not alone in this feeling, and to save the Planning Commission time, she asked those in the audience who are in favor of the concurrent plan to simply raise their hand. Bob Kollar stated he is opposed to concurrent processing, as you need to have the facts before moving to the next step. He stated he is opposed to the proposed expansion. He discussed other projects in the City that he felt began as small projects and morphed Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2008 Page 8 into larger, unsightly projects. He felt that the motivation for this proposed college expansion is monetary. He felt that the expansion of the college is promoting the improvement of the cash flow of a private two-year college. He stated this expansion will cost him the tranquility from where he lives and his tax dollars paying for infra- structure. He discussed the student body on the campus and suggested that Marymount was not providing a solid education to the students. Don Davis (in rebuttal) felt that tonight's hearing demonstrated that if you have nine or ten months of delays in processing something you will hear many of the same things over and over again, which does not benefit anyone. He stated that this meeting was supposed to be about new information, and ninety percent of what was heard did not address the new issues. He explained that the processing delays are creating significant financial impacts to the college. He stated that the way he understands the concurrent processing will be that the Planning Commission will start hearings on October 28 and the final EIR should have been finished and circulated to the public by that time. At that time the public will comment on the document for however many meetings it will take. He noted that if the EIR has not been circulated by that time the Planning Commission should at least begin hearing the entitlements. He also requested that once this is finished the Planning Commission can begin hearing and discussing the entitlements. He noted that no decision can be made on the entitlements until the final EIR is certified. He stated that he supports concurrent processing to allow for flexibility. He encouraged the Planning Commission to support a flexible concurrent processing which focuses on completing the EIR before moving onto the entitlement considerations. Dr. Brophy (in rebuttal) noted that most speakers support the modernization of the college campus, and what is separating the sides is what defines modernization. He felt that the college has been very patient while going through this process and with the many delays that have occurred. He noted that with every month that passes, it has been estimated that a quarter of a million dollars more is added to the project. Therefore he was extremely concerned about the timeline. Commissioner Knight stated that CEQA has a very specific purpose, which is disclosure of a project. He felt that it was important to have all of the information first before he could move forward with the application. Further, because of the changes proposed by Marymount that occurred after the comment period for the draft EIR closed, he felt that a full public hearing should be conducted before any discussions on entitlements. Commissioner Tetreault stated that whatever process is used, he wanted to make sure that the public and Planning Commission has all of the information needed to make the best and most informed decision. He did not know if that could be done concurrently or if it would be better to process it consecutively, and because he does not have the experience he is inclined to defer to staff for any input with respect to that question. Director Rojas began by explaining that staff agrees that the Planning Commission should take no action on the applications until the EIR is complete, and the next Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2008 Page 9 meeting on October 28th is scheduled to only discuss the EIR and not the Applications. Once this has taken place, staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission then begin the discussion of the applications at subsequent meetings. When the discussions are nearing a conclusion the EIR will then brought back to see how these discussions reconcile with the EIR before any final decisions on the applications are made. He also explained that as a result of the October 28th meeting there may be additional comments to the EIR that need response from the consultant and the question then becomes whether or not to wait for these revisions to the EIR before beginning to hear the applications for the project. He added that in the past the City has not certified the EIR before hearing the applications because the project may change and the EIR may need to be augmented before it is certified. Commissioner Tetreault felt that it was reasonable to go along with staff's recommendations at this time, noting that this is a very dynamic process and that things might change down the road. In this case the Planning Commission can reassess the process as they go along. Vice Chairman Lewis stated that he would be very hesitant to begin hearings on the applications until the Planning Commission is at the point where they are fully satisfied that all issues were addressed and resolved in the EIR. He felt that concurrent public hearings prior to that point may be confusing to the public and a waste of staff's resources. He agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comment that this is a dynamic issue and that this can be re-addressed at future meetings. He added that he is very uncomfortable having a project of this magnitude scheduled for a hearing the week of Thanksgiving, and was not in favor of discussing this project at the November 25th meeting. Commissioners Tomblin and Knight agreed with the Vice Chairman regarding the November 25th meeting. Commissioner Tetreault felt that it was important to get this issue resolved one way or the other, and suggested scheduling a special session of the Planning Commission to hear this item. Vice Chairman Lewis suggested putting this discussion on the October 28th Agenda. Director Rojas agreed, explaining that staff will check potential available dates and report back at the October 28th meeting. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to October 28, 2008 to discuss the final EIR, re-schedule the proposed public hearing on November 25th to December 9th with the understanding that the December 9th meeting is to continue the discussion of the final EIR if that discussion has not ended on October 28th, and then discuss the project applications, and to add to the October 28th agenda a discussion of possible special sessions to discuss the EIR or the applications, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (4-0) Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2008 Page 10 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-agenda for the meeting of September 23, 2008 The Planning Commission discussed and approved the pre-agenda for September 23, 2008. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2008 Page 11