Loading...
PC MINS 20090609 Approved July 28, 20 OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 9, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lewis at 7:12 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Ruttenberg led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Lewis. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Principal Planner MIranian, and Assistant City Attorney Snow. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the June 2, 2009 meeting the City Council upheld an appeal of the Commission's approval of a Variance on Seacove Drive, thereby denying the Variance on a 4-0 vote. The Director also noted that at the upcoming June 16th City Council meeting, the Council will consider the proposed zone change of the Valero property. Director Rojas distributed 35 items of correspondence for agenda item No. 6. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding n2p,:aAenda It sew None CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Ruttenberg requested item No. 2 be removed from the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved toe prove item os® 1, 3, and 4 on the Consent Calendar, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). 1 Height Variation & GradingPermit extension reguq§IJCase No. ZON2008- 001L31 5338 Bayridge Road Extension granted per staff recommendation. 3. General Plan Consistency Finding (Case No. Z N 43 Cherry Hill Lane PC Resolution 2009-23 was adopted thereby finding the City's purchase of the property at 43 Cherry Hill Lane was consistent with the General Plan 4. General Plan Consistency Finding Case No. 2 17 )fl Assessor's Parcel No. 7573-002-011 PC Resolution 2009-24 was adopted thereby finding the City's purchase of the properly at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. was consistent with the General Plan. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2e Site Plan vie i n Per it (Case No. 2 - 13 k28125 Peacock Ridge Road The Commissioner unanimously agreed to waive the staff report. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that in reading the staff report he saw no discussion as to why the applicant felt a six-foot sign was needed. Director Rojas explained that the requested sign meets the criteria for a Sign Permit without the need for a Variance or other type of permit. Commissioner Ruttenberg expressed his concern that this large sign will be placed within the visibility triangle. Director Rojas responded that the Public Works Department and City Engineer have reviewed the request and found that the proposed sign poses no traffic visibility issues. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that the first finding he must make is that the sign is necessary. He questioned if a six-foot sign is necessary and could find nothing in the staff report to justify the six-foot sign. Director Rojas explained that the finding is focused on visibility, which is why staff did not feel the height of the sign was an issue. Planning Commission Minutes June 9,2009 Page 2 Commissioner Knight noted there are plants and vegetation proposed around the sign and asked if a condition should be added to restrict the height of the plants so they do not grow into the visibility triangle. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the Sign Permit and Site Plan Review as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Commissioner Knight suggested an amendment to the motion that a condition be added that any vegetation planted around the sign cannot grow to a height of more than 30 inches in the visibility triangle. Commissioner Tetreault accepted the proposed amendment. The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2009-25 was approved as amended, (6-1) with Commissioner Ruttenberg dissenting. 5. Density Bonus Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2009-00126). City Director Rojas briefly explained that the City currently has an existing density bonus ordinance and this proposed amendment is to make the Ordinance consistent'with recent changes in the state law. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the requested amendments. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked if the proposed changes are limited to the changes made in the state law. Director Rojas answered that the proposed amendment is consistent with the changes made in the state law and no other amendments have been proposed. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the language presented was drafted by staff or the City Attorney's office, or if it was taken from other municipalities that have already adopted the same type of amendments to their Ordinance. Assistant City Attorney Snow answered that the language was crafted with input from the City Attorney's office. He explained there is certain latitude in some of the provisions and this language was drafted to preserve the latitude that had already been incorporated into the City's existing ordinances. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing, and there being nos eakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2009-26 recommending the City Council approve a code amendment that revises the Municipal Code sections as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes June 9,2009 Page 3 CONTINUED BUSINESS 6® MaMmount College facilities expansion_project (Case No. 3- 3171 Conditional Use Permit No. 9 — Revision 'E', GradipAPer mit & Variance: 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioners Ruttenberg, Tetreault, and Perestarn recused themselves from this item for the reasons previously stated. Many members of the audience noted to the Chairman that they are unable to hear all of the Commissioners and suggested that the meeting be continued so that the microphones could be fixed. Efforts were underway to attempt to fix the technical difficulties. Chairman Lewis asked Dave Snow to explain why he thought the Planning Commission would need to hear this item again in two weeks. Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that as part of the CEQA requirement there is a obligation to send written notice to commenting public agencies that submitted written comments on the draft EIR which needs to be completed at least 10 days before certification of the EIR. Staff was under the impression that this had been completed, however was unable to get verification from the consultant that this technical requirement had been met. Therefore, at the end of this meeting staff's recommendation would have been to continue the matter for two weeks to ensure that technical requirement could be met. In light of that, Chairman Lewis moved, because of the technical difficulties being encountered with the microphones and because of the CEQA notification requirements, to continue the public hearing to June 23, 2009, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. At this point the technical difficulties appeared to be repaired and Chairman Lewis withdrew his motion. Director Rojas began by stating that staff has received comments from the public and there seems to be concern and frustration from the public that there is no response from staff to these comments. He reiterated a statement that he had made early in this process, that this hearing is before the Planning Commission and staff forwards all comments to the Commission. If the Commission has issues with comments the public has raised the Commission should direct staff to look at those issues. He noted there have been a number of comments received of late that raise issues of inaccuracies or omissions. If the Planning Commission feels there are inaccuracies or omissions, they should direct staff to look at these specific issues. He noted that staff's position is that the EIR is in a state to be certified and the recommendations being made to the Commission are captured in the Resolutions. Therefore, from staff's point of view, there are no outstanding issues to be addressed. Planning Commission Minutes June 9,2009 Page 4 Principal Planner Mihranian then presented the staff report by explaining the three items the Commission is being asked to look at during this meeting. He began with the remedial grading, noting a revised grading plan has been submitted, which includes the proposed remedial grading. He explained that staff has made the required findings, which are outlined in the staff report. The remaining two items have to do with the Resolution, based on the Commission's direction at the May 26th meeting. Staff has prepared the Resolutions both certifying the CEQA document including the mitigation measures, as well as the planning applications which include the conditions of approval. He briefly summarized the project that is now before the Commission, based on the 26th revisions proposed by the college that were accepted by the Commission at its May 26 meeting. He discussed the proposed remedial grading and the need for the remedial grading. He noted that the City Geologist has agreed, based on the analysis in the reports prepared by the applicant's geologist, that the proposed remedial grading is warranted for enhancing slope stability and addressing any on site geologic hazards. He stated that staff was able to make the required grading findings and is supporting the proposed remedial grading. He also discussed the conditions added that are related to landscaping and recommended tree and vegetation removal. He discussed the proposed construction phasing, explaining the draft EIR analyzed construction phasing over a period of eight years. He explained that in the third phase there are two buildings that are proposed to be constructed during phase 3; the addition to the Administration building and the addition to the Fine Arts building. He reviewed the additional conditions of approval that have been added, as well as the comments that were submitted by the college, and a summary of comments submitted by CCC/ME. Commissioner Knight stated that in reading through the description for the athletic field, it seems to be characterized as a soccer or football field. He asked if the EIR analyzed other possible uses of the field, such as baseball or golf. He wanted to be sure that the proposed net is adequate for all possible uses of the field. Principal Planner Mihranian explained that the field is designed for soccer activities, however the EIR analysis looked at general ball use on the field. Therefore the mitigation measure was written that anytime there is use of a field ball on the field the net must be in place. Commissioner Knight referred to condition No. 67 and asked, if there is no export shouldn't there be a condition which discusses the placement of the bentonite on the property in the event that bentonite is discovered. He was concerned that a record should be kept that shows where bentonite has been placed on the property to ensure it is placed in non-construction areas. Principal Planner Mihranian stated that such language can be added to condition No. 67. Commissioner Knight noted that Mr. Gordon has been quite vocal and articulate during the public hearings and has pointed out what he feels are errors and miscalculations in terms of the parking. He asked if the consultants have looked at Mr. Gordon's comments and feel the EIR is still correct in terms of the parking. Planning Commission Minutes June 9,2009 Page 5 Principal Planner Mihranian explained that the EIR consultant responded to Mr. Gordon's comments and that Mr. Gordon's comments are not applicable because his analysis is based on different data and not from comparable tables, which is why the conclusions are not matching. Vice Chairman Gerstner referred to a letter from the college requesting an additional overriding consideration in regards to the remedial grading, and asked staff if their comments are supported as true or not true by the geotechnical consultants. Principal Planner Mihranian answered that the City Geologist agreed with the statement. In regards to the insurance, Vice Chairman Gerstner asked if the City is requesting the insurance to be something other than what is customary. Assistant City Attorney Snow answered that, based on the policy limits articulated in the Marymount letter, the City Attorney's office is comfortable with the requested revision to condition No. 45-C. Chairman Lewis noted that he had to immediately leave the meeting due to a family emergency, and with that there will no longer be a quorum. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to June 23, 2009, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Unanimously approved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. Minutes of March 31, 2 09 The minutes were automatically continued due to the lack of a quorum. 8. Minutes of April 14, 2009 The minutes were automatically continued due to the lack of a quorum. 9® Minutesof.ADril 28, 2009 The minutes were automatically continued due to the lack of a quorum. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 10. Pre®Agerg da.for the meeting of June 23, 2009 No discussion on the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Minutes June 9,2009 Page 6 The meeting was adjourned at 3;30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 9,2009 Page 7