Loading...
PC MINS 20110524 Approved June 2 2 1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 24, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Tetreault led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Knight, Leon, Lewis, Vice Chairman Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, and Deputy Director Mihranian. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Knight stated that he would like item No. 1 removed from the Consent Calendar, as he had questions regarding the item. With that change, the agenda was unanimously approved as modified. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their May 17th meeting the City Council continued the proposed code amendment related to the banner sign program to July 19th, upheld the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Special Use Permit application to allow continued use of temporary modular buildings at Green Hills and approved the Special Use Permit for an additional 30 months, and denied the appeal submitted by the owner of the Golden Cove shopping center objecting to a requirement imposed by the Planning Commission to have a six foot high wall along the south property line thereby affirming the need for the six foot wall. Director Rojas distributed one letter in regards to agenda Item No. 1, two letters in regards to agenda item No. 2, eight letters for agenda item No. 4, and a table related to the General Plan update. Commissioner Knight reported a telephone conversation he had with a resident in regards to the General Plan mapping. Commissioner Lewis reported a conversation with Lois Karp regarding the Marymount item, noting nothing was discussed that was not disclosed in her subsequent email to the Commission. He also disclosed he was sent a letter from Marymount regarding election costs. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he also received the Marymount letter. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) annual review & General Plan Consistency Finding (Case No. ZON2011-00103) Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining the City Council approves a Capital Improvement Plan annually, however before they approve the plan there is a procedural step which requires the Planning Commission to make a determination that the plan is consistent with the General Plan. He stated that staff believes all of the projects identified in the CIP are consistent with the General Plan, and noted that adding or deleting items from the CIP is not within the purview of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Knight referred to correspondence from Linee Bilski in which she stated that the CIP makes the Coastal Vision Plan goals look like the General Plan goals. He asked the Director to comment. Director Rojas thought Ms. Bilski's concern was taking projects from the Coastal Vision Plan and putting them into the CIP. He explained that this was a decision the City Council made in 2009 with the first CIP, and staff has followed through with this direction. He added that Coastal Vision Plan goals are completely separate from the General Plan goals. Commissioner Knight noted Ms. Bilski's comments regarding the traffic light at Lower Point Vicente and the fact that it is not addressed in the General Plan, not in the Annenberg EIR, and no hearing regarding the traffic light has been scheduled. Director Rojas explained it is not just the traffic light, but the general safety of the intersection. He stated that the Traffic Safety Commission has voted to evaluate the safety of that intersection and therefore Public Works added a project to the CIP that deals with potential safety improvements to that entrance. He stated there is no issue with this being consistent with the General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 2 Commissioner Knight noted Ms. Bilski's comment that the Ladera Linda facility needs renovations to comply with the safety element of the General Plan, and asked staff to comment. Director Rojas stated there are clearly issues with the Ladera Linda facility, and those issues are still being evaluated. He stated that when the City has determined what improvements will be proposed, they can be added to the CIP. Commissioner Knight asked if the Planning Commission is considering the CIP to be consistent with the current General Plan, and not the updated General Plan that is currently being developed. Director Rojas answered that consistency will be determined with the current General Plan. Commissioner Knight referred to the lower Hesse Park improvements, and asked if any portion of the park is zoned as Open Space Hazard. Director Rojas stated that lower Hesse Park is all zoned Open Space Recreation. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff for a bit of background on the southern entrance road access improvement at Ryan Park, as well as some information on the California Coastal Trail. Deputy Director Mihranian explained that, in regards to the California Coastal Trail, there are currently portions of the trail that are in place and the proposal is to improve these sections, finish the sections of the trail that are not in place, and add landscaping and signage. In regards to the Ryan Park entrance, Director Rojas explained this is not a Community Development project however his understanding was that the project is to realign the driveway and entrance for easier access. Commissioner Knight referred to page 14 of the staff report, and asked if the discussion on Green Building standards is in the current General Plan. Director Rojas did not think the current General Plan has a discussion on green buildings, but does discuss sustainability. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight moved to approve staff recommendation and the five year Capital Improvement Plan is consistent with the General Plan, and adopt PC Resolution 2011-22, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 3 2. Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00083): 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Deputy Director Mihranian presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the proposed project and the various components of the request. He noted that, although the code does not require a silhouette to be erected for this type of project, staff requested that one be installed to assist in the view analysis and the college complied with the request. He also noted that the code requires notices be sent to adjacent property owners, however staff sent additional notices to property owners within a 500 foot radius and to listserve subscribers. He explained the two Municipal Code required findings that must be made in order to approve a Site Plan Review application for non- residential roof mounted equipment. He stated there were no comments from the public in regards to view impairment and staff was able to determine that would be no significant view impairment as a result of this proposal. He stated, however, that with the silhouette in place staff was able to look at it from an aesthetic standpoint to see if the proposed equipment is visible from neighboring properties. Because staff felt that the equipment may result in an industrial appearance in the neighborhood, staff has conditioned the equipment be encased to resemble a chimney stack to mesh better with the existing building. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if it was fair to say that Marymount College's payment or non payment of election fees is completely irrelevant to the application before the Commission. Deputy Director Mihranian answered that the election fee issue is irrelevant to this application. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if Marymount College is bound by a Conditional Use Permit, if they are currently in compliance with the CUP, and if not can the Planning Commission approve this project if they are not in compliance with their CUP. Director Rojas answered that there is a Conditional Use Permit in place for the College. He explained that some members of the public have raised issues about Marymount's non-compliance with the CUP the City Council approved last year. In looking into these issues, staff discovered that some conditions in the CUP apply to the operations of the college as it is and some conditions are written with the assumption that there are new buildings. However, Marymount College has not submitted any plans for new buildings to the Building Department. This raises the issue of the status of the approval. In speaking with the City Attorney, it was determined that this issue needs to go before the City Council for clarification as to which conditions are applicable now and what conditions are applicable at a later date, and this is scheduled before the City Council in July. With that, staff is not considering the property in violation until clarified by the City Council. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if Marymount College is in compliance with the old conditions that existed before Marymount came before the City to expand their campus. Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 4 Deputy Director Mihranian stated that would be Revision C to the CUP, and he felt the college is in compliance with those conditions. Commissioner Lewis stated that at the end of staff's report staff concluded that this project is a temporary project because it is inconsistent with the expansion project. He asked staff if their recommendation of approval be the same if there were no expansion project on the table. Deputy Director Mihranian answered that based on the code staff would have the same recommendation. Commissioner Knight asked if the conditions placed on Marymount that are associated with the college's expansion are only applicable if the college goes forth with the proposed expansion project. Director Rojas explained that there is a real question of when some conditions of approval go into effect, because some conditions assume new construction and expansion. That is the question and issue that will be before the City Council in July. He also noted there is no distinction in the current conditions as to what conditions apply to daily operations versus what conditions are tied to the construction activities. Commissioner Knight noted that the expansion plans did not allow any roof mounted equipment, and asked if that is not applicable in this case since Marymount is not yet going forward with the expansion plans. He felt there was a discrepancy with the equipment on the roof in this application versus what was approved with the expansion plan. Deputy Director Mihranian clarified that according to the conditions of approval for the expansion project roof mounted mechanical equipment is not prohibited, provided that a Site Plan Review application is approved. Commissioner Knight stated there has been a discussion about ground mounting this equipment rather than roof mounting, and asked staff if they have had this discussion with the applicant. Deputy Director Mihranian answered that he has discussed this with the applicant's architect and he has indicated that from an engineering standpoint the wall cannot support cutting into it for the required duct work. Further, the noise from the condenser units will adversely impact the classrooms above the labs, which don't have air conditioning and rely on open windows for ventilation. Commissioner Knight asked if it would be possible to condition the hours of operation of the unit. Director Rojas stated that was an option for the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 5 Chairman Tomblin asked staff to clarify their position on Marymount's compliance with their CUP. Director Rojas clarified that staff's position, after consultation with the City Attorney, is that given some ambiguity as to what conditions apply now and what conditions apply later, staff stopped short of making a determination as to whether Marymount is in compliance or not. Therefore, staff is taking the position they are not in violation and this application can be acted upon. However, the Planning Commission can, and may, take a different position and determine that Marymount is in violation of its CUP and thus not act on the application. On the other hand, the Planning Commission could wait for the City Council to act on the CUP issue on July 19th. However, to do this the Commission must either ask for a continuation to after July 19th or, if Marymount chooses not to grant an extension per the Permit Streamling Act, the Commission would have to deny the application. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if Marymount has done anything to move forward with the expansion project. Deputy Director Mihranian answered that Marymount has not submitted plans to Building and Safety to move forward with the construction of the Council adopted expansion project. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Jim Reeves (Vice President, Marymount College) felt staff did a good job in describing the project, noting it is fairly straightforward in that the intent is that it is necessary for the improvement of the labs for the students and the curriculum. He stated that he is not here to discuss whether or not Marymount is in compliance with their CUP as this is not a subject he is qualified to comment on. He explained the need to improve the ventilation in the biology and chemistry labs and briefly described the type of work done in these labs. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Reeves if there is currently a danger posed to the students or staff by the existing equipment. Mr. Reeves answered there is a danger if they were to attempt to do everything they would do in fume hoods fully ventilated. He stated that faculty has taken precautions not to do some of those activities or to do them in a small area where they can ventilate appropriately. He stated that they do not have the demonstration or instructional space to provide these types of activities under their current configuration in a safe environment. Commissioner Lewis asked if the school has done any reports or had any reports prepared to quantify any danger or safety concerns that are presented by the equipment as it currently exists. Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 6 Mr. Reeves explained that the college initiated this project with a feasibility study recognizing that there are challenges with old equipment and the ability to have a number of students be effective participants in the curriculum. He stated the feasibility study suggested the ventilation and appropriate pressure in the room needed to be addressed as they moved forward with replacing the hoods with current code requirements. He noted that this feasibility study was shared with city staff. Todd Balicki (R2A Architecture) began by stating the fume hoods that protrude over the equipment screens will be two feet-four inches. He stated the installation of the equipment and the exhaust stacks will be consistent with current laws, codes, and national standards. He stated his main goal is to ensure the safety of the students and the staff. He stated that at the City's request he investigated enclosing the exhaust stacks because of their industrial appearance, and felt that it could be done. Commissioner Gerstner asked how big the stack enclosures would have to be. Mr. Balicki answered the enclosures would be approximately 8'6" x 8'6" x 10 feet in height, explaining the unit has to exhaust at least 10 feet above the roof line and they are installing a one foot tall curb to meet and maintain roofing manufacturer's warranties. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Balicki if there was any reason these units could not be put on the ground. Mr. Balicki explained that according to his structural engineer, proposing to put these on the east side of the building and cutting an opening in the existing concrete sheer wall would be very detrimental to the integrity of that wall. The other option would be to run the duct work up the outside of the building, across the roof, and down into the spaces would require a much large tonnage for the unit which would be louder and use much more electricity. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Balicki if he felt AQMD would declare this application exempt. Mr. Balicki stated it was understanding that AQMD looks at diesel type engines that put off high emissions, based on Rule 119. He stated fume hoods are exempt from that. Based on research, he stated he is finding the hoods and exhaust stacks will be exempt from AQMD. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Balicki if he would be giving AQMD a list of chemicals that will be used in the lab to be checked with their list of toxic chemicals. Mr. Balicki answered that if AQMD requires such a list, it will be provided. Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 7 Solomon Baird (Mechanical Engineer) explained that the condenser units proposed are packaged units that will heat and cool the classrooms and provide the make-up air for the fume hoods. He briefly explained how the fume hoods work and how the air conditioning unit's size is dictated by the make-up air and the fume hood. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the fume hoods will run continuously or if they are operational only during certain activities. Mr. Baird explained that the fume hoods will only run when certain experiments are being done in the lab and the rest of the time the unit works as a heating/air conditioning unit. Lucien Runge (R2A Architecture) added that there are basically four types of hoods, this being the normal chemical hood that would be found at a high school. He also explained that they don't use ductless systems, as ductless systems can only be used where there is dust or noxious odors and ductless systems in and of themselves are not qualified for this type of application. He explained that the systems will be placed in a well on the roof and hidden by a screen. They are designed to react to the control systems and temperature systems within the building. In regards to running the ducts up the side and up, he explained that for efficiency and safety of the systems the best way to handle the duct stacks is straight up from the top of the hoods. He stated that the existing lack of stacks is called existing non-conforming, as it may have met the code in 1963 but is no longer considered the proper way to do it for colleges and high schools. Commissioner Gerstner asked how much of the building will be conditioned with these package units. Mr. Baird answered that it will be the two lab rooms and the work room in between the two labs, as well as a small work room and an office. Commissioner Gerstner asked if those rooms are currently air conditioned, and if not, why was the decision made to add an air conditioning component to this proposal. Mr. Baird answered they are not currently air conditioned. He explained the air conditioning component is almost necessary in terms of the climate. Commissioner Gerstner questioned the ability to cut a hole in the concrete sheer wall and why the hole couldn't be reinforced. Mr. Runge explained that he had a structural engineer do an extensive study on the wall, and agreed that the hole could be reinforced. He explained the problem was more that this hole would be more than 10 percent of the wall and would therefore trigger an entire seismic upgrade. Commissioner Knight asked if the fume hood will have a filter. Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 8 Mr. Baird answered that fume hoods typically do not have filters. Commissioner Knight asked if that is something the AQMD may or may not require depending on the chemicals being used. Mr. Baird explained that the AQMD typically looks at products of combustion while the Fire Department will look at the chemicals being used. He stated that AQMD will be notified of the chemical use as a courtesy, but the governing agency in terms of chemicals is the Fire Department. He added that the Fire Department will look at the list of chemicals as well as the quantities. Commissioner Knight asked how much louder this new air conditioning will be than the fan that is currently in place. Mr. Runge explained they are putting in two fume hoods, two blowers, and a secondary blower in the stack itself and with the new technology, they are very quiet. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked Mr. Runge if he had looked at other technology and solutions to this problem other than what was submitted to the City. Mr. Runge stated he looks at every possibility. Lois Karp did not feel Marymount could be operating under the old CUP because that CUP said they can only operate a two year college, and they are now operating a four year college. Therefore they must be under the new CUP, and if they are not under the new CUP then they are operating without a CUP and should be closed down. She felt that without the City Council's decision on the CUP the Planning Commission cannot make a decision on this project. She pointed out that all of this equipment and apparatus is on the roof of the building that is the first to be demolished under the approved plan. She stated there is an approved EIR for this property and that EIR prohibits handling or emission of hazardous materials or substances within a quarter mile of this campus, and asked if the EIR will be revised. She noted that three fourths of the residents in this area have their view over Marymount to the ocean and therefore look down on this roof and the equipment will be very visible and ugly. She was very concerned that there was no mention in the staff report of the types of chemicals being used and what type of chemicals will be emitted from the stacks into the neighborhood. She wanted some assurances that these chemicals are safe and would not emit an odor into the neighborhood. She did not think it was sufficient to make a project safe by conditioning its approval, as she did not feel Marymount has a good record in following past conditions of approval. Jim Gordon stated this project will be demolished by September 30, 2012, which is the drop dead of the completion of the approved phase 1 construction. He referred to page 4 of the materials he submitted, noting an error made in plans submitted to the City. He questioned whether or not the City has ever properly permitted these labs to begin with Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 9 or has ever investigated the current status of compliance with the building code that may be triggered. He did not think the plan itself was feasible nor are some of the proposed alternatives. George Zugsmith agreed with a comment made earlier in the evening that the Planning Commission should know whether or not any past non-compliance at the college is construction related. He stated the college is currently in non-compliance, as it was supposed to institute a driver's safety training program last Fall, which has not started yet. He stated that this requirement has nothing to do with the proposed construction on the campus or any phase of the project. Secondly, the college was supposed to institute a parking management program, which was conditioned upon a four year school. He noted the four year school is now in operation and there is no parking management program in place. Lastly, there was to be a neighborhood advisory commission that was to be in the Fall and Spring of each year which has never been instituted. He noted that these are three examples of how the College is in non- compliance with their CUP, all of which have nothing to do with the approved construction on the campus. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Zugsmith which CUP he was referring to. Mr. Zugsmith answered that these are conditions of approval on the current CUP that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Tom Redfield stated the neighbors were very pleased to learn the proposed project would be silhouetted, but were disappointed that the massive extension of the unit was not silhouetted. He stated that everything should have a silhouette, as he felt the equipment and project will be much larger than what the staff report indicates. He noted inconsistencies between the measurements given in the staff report in regards to the equipment and the measurements discussed by the applicants. He also questioned why this project was going to go ahead when in a year and half this equipment will have to be taken down. Jack Karp felt that Marymount is trying to piecemeal the EIR. He also noted the EIR is very clear in that they cannot put any equipment on the roof and there cannot be any toxic materials. He was concerned that the City and the neighbors do not know what will be emitted from the building and that this should be known before the project is approved. He did not think it would be difficult to cut a hole in the shear wall for the equipment and noted there are easy solutions to the problem. He also felt that if the project is approved the Planning Commission add a condition of approval that a maintenance contract be put in place for the equipment. He did not think the Commission should even vote on this issue until the City Council hears the issues in July. John Feyk stated his concern was the emissions of chemical and biological matter into the neighborhood. He felt that at the very least there should be a daily log of the material used in the labs. He too questioned why Marymount is spending this amount Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 10 of money for something that will only last fifteen months. He also agreed that Marymount should keep a log of the chemicals used in the labs. Lucien Runge (in rebuttal) stated a log of all chemicals used is required to be kept and the log is constantly updated, and this information is a matter of public record. In terms of the sheer wall, he agreed it can be cut and brace frames used around the hole, but it is very expensive. Regarding the comments concerning the fifteen month usage, he questioned why there would ever be a compromise in the safety of the students and safety of the students is the number one concern. He stated that in terms of safety, the Fire Department does periodic checks of the buildings, chemical lists, and chemical quantities. Commissioner Emenhiser asked what the budget is for this project. Mr. Reeves answered that the budget is approximately $600,000. Commissioner Lewis asked if there was anyone present from the college who would be prepared to answer the questions raised concerning the three conditions of approval Mr. Zugsmith stated are currently in non-compliance at the college. Mr. Reeves acknowledged the three conditions of approval and stated he would defer that to those on the campus responsible for that response. Commissioner Knight asked if any resident would be able to go to Marymount College and see an updated list of the chemicals being used in the labs. Mr. Runge clarified that the list will also be with the Fire Department and it may be more convenient to go to the local Fire Department, who will be doing periodic inspections of the labs. Commissioner Leon stated that the discussions have focused on the safety of the occupants in the classrooms. He also felt that the design of the hoods are such that it both keeps the students safe in the classrooms as well as diluting the chemicals as they go into the environment such that it is safe for the neighbors. However, this was not mentioned in the discussions. He asked the applicant to discuss the levels of chemicals that are put in the atmosphere. Mr. Baird explained how the vent and stack work and that the dilution rate is very, very high. He stated that if someone wants a calculation that can be done by a lab consultant based on the specific chemicals and quantities involved. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis suggested the Commission take a straw poll on the issue of CUP compliance, as there may be a consensus that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to act on this application until the City Council has made their Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 11 determination on the CUP. He added that when the College says they are limiting the number and types of experiments being performed for safety reasons, he takes them at their word. He therefore felt that this decision can be postponed until July when the City Council makes their determination as to what set of rules apply. Director Rojas clarified that staff can confirm that the three conditions of approval discussed by Mr. Zugsmith are not being met. However staff is seeking clarification and direction from the City Council as to what conditions of approval of the current CUP apply to the college at this particular time. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Lewis and his comments. He stated he is also concerned with the air quality issues and the implementation of the air quality permit process. However, the overriding issue for the Commission is obtaining guidance from the City Council in terms of whether or not the College is currently in compliance with their CUP. Commissioner Knight agreed, adding that he could not make a determination without knowing which CUP applies to this particular judgment. He questioned if approving this request would be modifying the "new" CUP by allowing mechanical equipment on the roof. Chairman Tomblin explained that after reading the staff report he was under the impression that this proposal was an upgrade to the existing equipment. However, after hearing the public testimony and with the problems with the CUP he realizes there is more to this. Commissioner Leon stated that the non-compliances discussed today, specifically the lack of a driver's safety program, a parking management program, and a neighborhood advisory commission, while he agreed that those should be instituted quickly, he did not think those three conditions should be used to hold a safety project hostage. He asked staff if there are other conditions that are not in compliance, which are pertinent to adding a safety system to this building. Director Rojas answered that this is the exercise staff is currently going through in preparation for the July 1gth City Council meeting. Vice Chairman Tetreault felt this is a very straight forward proposal by the college, and doesn't seem like anything too outrageous or out of the ordinary. He felt that the question of which CUP the college is currently operating under may be a fairly complex question. He would feel better if the college would state what their intentions are, whether it be to move forward with their expansion project in full, in a limited capacity, or not at all. He stated he was wary of adopting one CUP over another CUP. Commissioner Gerstner felt he could decide the project on its merits, however he may not necessarily be in favor of the proposed design. He explained that if the air handling units are to be put on the roof he would not require they be screened, noting that if you Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 12 look at the size of the units and the size of the screening you would be taking something that is relatively small and making it into something quite large. He added that he disagreed that the equipment needs to be on the roof at all, and felt that there were ways to put the equipment at the side of the building. With regards to the CUP, he was comfortable saying that this is conditional on a determination that they are in compliance with whatever CUP the City Council deems is in effect. He stated that he is deciding on the merits of the project not under some list of requirements of one CUP or another, but rather deciding the project on its merits. Chairman Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Gerstner in terms of his approach to the item. Commissioner Lewis disagreed. He stated that he disagrees with staffs conclusion that the Planning Commission has the ability to move forward on this project only because there is a lack of clarity. He felt the lack of clarity prevents the Planning Commission from moving forward. The Commission discussed their options, noting that they could approve the project, deny the project, or continue the public hearing. It was noted that in order to continue the public hearing a 90 day extension would be needed from Marymount College. Chairman Tomblin reopened the public hearing. Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Reeves if he had the authority to grant a one time, 90 day extension tonight, per the Permit Streamlining Act. Mr. Reeves stated he would have to defer to others on campus to make that decision. Ken Dyda felt that there is only one CUP in effect right now, which is the most current CUP that was approved and signed. He questioned if the City Council were to say the old CUP is in effect wouldn't that nullify the newer CUP. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis felt it would be a disservice to continue this item without first getting direction from the City Council. He stated that if there is no extension forthcoming from the applicant he would have no choice but to make a motion to deny the project. However, if there was an extension granted by the applicant his motion would be to continue the public hearing to a date after the July City Council meeting. He noted that included in the staff report was an email from him where he addressed this issue and Marymount chose not to send appropriate staff to this meeting who would be authorized to make these types of decisions. Commissioner Lewis moved to deny the application without prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 13 Commissioner Leon questioned why, rather than deny the request without prejudice, the Commission doesn't continue the public hearing to the June 14th Planning Commission meeting, at which time Marymount may then give their approval for a one time 90 day extension. Commissioner Gerstner stated that would also be his preference, as it might allow Marymount the time to address the design issues raised this evening. In June the problem may or may not be solved, at which time a continuance may be granted. Commissioner Knight agreed. He explained that he was a little uncomfortable with the current motion to deny the project, as he felt it would be a denial based on the City's inability to make an administrative decision. Commissioner Lewis withdrew his motion. Commissioner Leon moved to continue the public hearing to the June 14th meeting to allow the applicant time to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Chairman Tomblin stated that he agrees with the motion, however he also very strongly agrees with the comments made by Commissioner Lewis in terms of the lack of authority of the presenters for Marymount College. He felt that there were a number of things that could have forced the Commission to make a decision to outright deny the project. He requested that at the next meeting Marymount have people available who are authorized to make decisions and that there be much better answers going forward. Commissioner Lewis stated that he very much agrees with Commissioner Gerstner's comments regarding the design of the project, as did Chairman Tomblin. Director Rojas clarified that there is no question as to which CUP applies at this time, the question is the timing of some of the conditions of approval and what to do if Marymount does not move forward and submit their plans into plan check with Building and Safety. He noted that staff does not want to revert back to the old CUP but would rather keep the operational conditions of the current CUP. The motion to continue the public hearing to June 14, 2011 was approved, (6-1) With Commissioner Lewis dissenting. 3. Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2010-00293) Chairman Tomblin excused himself from the remainder of the meeting. Commissioner Lewis stated he was abstaining from agenda item No. 3 and recusing himself from agenda item No. 4, and left the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 14 Vice Chairman Tetreault noted staff s recommendation for the code amendment was to continue the public hearing to June 14, 2011. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing to June 14tH 4. General Plan update — review proposed changes to the existing Land Use Map Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining the proposed changes to the Land Use Map that are before the Commission. He noted a new land use district being placed on the map, the Open Space Preserve land use district. He explained that the Open Space Preserve is being placed on all City owned properties, and no private properties will be affected. He displayed the different maps and explained the changes. He discussed the hazard designations and explaining that staffs intention is to make the hazard areas on the General Plan Land Use Map consistent with the Open Space Hazard lines on the adopted Zoning Map to clear up any ambiguities. He explained that by not including any parcel lines on the General Plan Land Use Map, staff will have to rely on the Zoning Map for the location of the hazard boundary lines, which is staff's current procedure. He added that the General Plan Land Use Map would not be used in determining land use on a piece of property. He emphasized that there is no proposed changes to the Zoning Map. Commissioner Knight asked if there is language in the General Plan that clarifies that the Zoning Map is the controlling map in terms of determining land use on a property. Deputy Director Pfost answered that at the moment there is not such language, but the language will be added to the updated General Plan. In addition the Zoning Code includes a process to move the boundary line on a property up to 30 feet, and staff is looking at moving that requirement to 100 feet. Deputy Director Pfost noted that the Director had handed out a Table with the late correspondence, explaining there was a comment from Sunshine asking about the most recent updates to the General Plan. He explained the Table is the most up to date list of all of the General Plan updates that have occurred since the General Plan was adopted. Commissioner Knight asked if all of the maps will include the updates. Deputy Director Pfost stated that staff has ensured that all of the General Plan updates are implemented into the General Plan. Commissioner Knight noted some of the maps include areas along the coastal area and asked staff about the relationship between what is currently being done with the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan. Deputy Director Pfost stated that staff will be presented the coastal areas to the Commission at the next meeting. He explained that the Coastal Specific Plan is the Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 15 most up to date document in terms of land use, therefore staff is making sure the General Plan Land Use Map is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan. Vice Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Ken Dyda suggested that when staff sends out the next public notice it would be helpful include the existing Zoning Map as well as the proposed General Plan Land Use Map. He felt this would help people understand how their property would be affected. He said in looking at areas S and T there are areas that don't agree with the proposed Land Use Map without parcels included. He suggested that when sending a notice it would be helpful to include a legend of colors and letters. Lastly, he stated that the proposed Land Use Map should be very clearly labeled illustrative only. Tom Redfield stated that when the notice came out it confused many people in his neighborhood. He pointed out areas in Mediterranea that were labeled Residential that are now labeled Hazard, and areas below Mediterranea that were labeled Hazard that are now labeled Residential, and how the staff report said there is no impact to the public. He questioned how this has no impact on the public. He stated when going to a Hazard designation he is worried about his property values and insurance rates. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked staff to clarify how what staff is proposing will have no impact to the public. Deputy Director Pfost referred to a map of the Mediterranea area, showing how the existing Zoning Map already has an Open Space Hazard designation that affects properties in the Mediterranea subdivision. The properties in the Open Space Hazard area have had an Open Space Hazard designation on them since 1978 and that is not being changed by the City. Staff is only recommending that the General Plan Land Use Map match what is already in place. Robert Fisher stated he lives on Roan Drive and discussed how residents can apply to move the Open Space Hazard Line on their property, but in doing so it will not move the line on the official City map. He noted that on the existing Zoning Map his entire house, the two houses on both sides, and four houses down the canyon completely in the Open Space Hazard area, yet all of the houses were approved to be built. He felt the City is adopting a map that we know is wrong and is 50 years out of date. Deputy Director Pfost agreed that it appears a majority or all of Mr. Fisher's property is in the Open Space Hazard area, however the current process is only to update the current General Plan map and staff has not been directed by the City Council to go back and change the boundary of the Open Space Hazard. Commissioner Gerstner asked if it was reasonable to assume that once these new maps are in place, and they will be electronic maps, that those types of changes will be much easier to make and document. Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 16 Deputy Director Pfost replied that existing maps are not electronic and not easy to amend. Both the Zoning Map and the General Plan Map will be GIS capable and whenever they need changes staff will be able to make changes relatively easily. Commissioner Leon noted that this process has brought many residents before the Planning Commission talking about errors and omissions associated with Open Space Hazard and the Zoning Map, and a general plea by the residents to update that map so that there are lines based more on science rather than being arbitrary and capricious. He felt this was a message that needs to get to the City Council. Barbara Huffman agreed with Mr. Fisher's comments. She stated her property abuts the Miraleste Parks District land and questioned how the City can just change something that was deeded parkland to OH. She felt that her insurance and property values will be affected just because of a political term being used to describe her property. She objected to the $2,255 fee to apply to change the line. Commissioner Leon asked staff to clarify the concerns about changing the zoning of the Miraleste Parks District land. Director Rojas clarified that under the current zoning on the Zoning Map some of the park land is zoned OH, which allows for park land trails. He agreed that this may be something to look at, but from staff's perspective, staff is waiting for the Miraleste Parks District to come forward and seek the possible change. Deputy Director Pfost added that change request would require a zone change to change the OH to whatever the requested land use would be. Eva Cicoria stated she is speaking for herself and on behalf of her mother. She too expressed her concerns on the public notice that was sent out and how difficult it was to understand. She felt this item should be renoticed with clearer information so that residents who did not understand the impacts would have an opportunity to attend the meeting. She questioned why staff is suggesting updating the General Plan Land Use Map to be out of date. She did not think either of the old maps were done properly back when the City was first formed. She referenced her mother's property on the Land Use Map, noting that according to the map half of her property is covered by a Hazard zone. She noted that her mother's property is near the end of a glen at a very gradual down slope. She also noted there are three permanent structures on the property that have shown no signs of slipping or cracking, and the structures have been in placed since the mid 1960s. She asked the Planning Commission to reconsider and ask staff to take a hard look at what they are putting on these maps and why. John Wessel also did not like the idea of updating the General Plan map with an outdated and incorrect Zoning Map. He explained when he bought the property he hired a geologist and the geologist determined the property was in no danger. Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 17 Brett Walker appreciated the discussion between staff and the Planning Commission regarding this item, and felt it clarified many issues. He also thought that changing the zoning lines from 30 feet to 100 feet would be very beneficial. Alan Whiteman stated he attended this meeting to get information and thanked the Commission and staff. He stated that what is not shown on the map is the meaning of the colors, but assumed the colors related to the residential zoning. However, in looking at the map he did not think that what is reflected on the map does not match or correspond to what is actually on the ground. He explained that this translates to a zoning that reflects a maximum density which eventually gets down to the Residential Development Standards in Table 2 where one is limited, based on zones, to lot coverage areas that do not reflect reality. He asked if there was any thought or long term plan to look at the zoning and the Land Use Map as it applies to what is actually in the City. Vice Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff to comment on Mr. Whiteman's questions. Director Rojas understood the concerns and questions, noting that changes to the Zoning Map are not an item before the Planning Commission at this time. He felt that allowing more flexibility for the residents to adjust the lines will be helpful. He explained there has been reluctance by the City to adjust the Zoning Map and change the densities, however staff has found that if you try to change the zoning to match the smaller lot sizes it opens up more areas for subdivisions. Commissioner Leon moved to approve staffs recommendation for the proposed land use changes to the General Plan Land Use Map, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was approved without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of April 12, 2011 Commissioner Emenhiser noted a typo in the communications section of the minutes. Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 6. Minutes of April 26, 2011 Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Knight abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 18 7. Minutes of May 10, 2011 Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (3-0-2) with Commissioners Emenhiser and Lewis abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-agenda for the meeting on June 14, 2011 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 19