Loading...
PC MINS 20110308 Approved April 11 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 8, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Lewis, and Chairman Tomblin. Commissioner Gerstner arrived during the discussion of agenda item No. 1. Absent: Vice Chairman Tetreault was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Associate Planner Fox. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their February 28th meeting the City Council approved a Special Use Permit for the PV Marathon. He also reported that at the March 15th meeting the City Council will consider the Planning Commission's recommendations on the Floor Area Ratio proposal, as well as the code amendments related to the Housing Element. Director Rojas distributed two items of correspondence for agenda item No. 1; a revised Resolution, tenant list, and letter for agenda item No. 2; and a revised Resolution and plan for agenda item No. 3. Commissioner Knight reported that he attended the opening of the City's Mirandela affordable housing project. Chairman Tomblin reported that he attended the Mayor's Breakfast. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): Sunshine stated she was still concerned that the General Plan is becoming a large document as opposed to being cut down to the bare bones. She felt that much of what is being added will not be relevant in ten years and therefore not needed in the General Plan. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal of Director's approval for an Extreme Slope Permit and Site Plan Review(Case No. ZON2009-00108): 21 Cayuse Lane Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, briefly explaining the scope of the project and the two main points of the appeal. She noted that the appeal was based on the Director's decision that the property is a sloping lot as opposed to a pad lot, which allows for a taller height for the residence and on the foliage analysis that was conducted. She stated that staff believes the findings and criterion to warrant the approval of the Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit that were made with the Director's decision are approvable and as a result the appeal should be overturned and the Director's decision upheld. Commissioner Knight noted that the appeal raises the issue of foliage, but asked staff if that issue has since been resolved. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the tree in question has been removed from the applicant's property, and the foliage issue is no longer applicable. Commissioner Knight asked if the remaining issue is whether this is a pad or a slope lot. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that was correct. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify why this lot is not considered a pad lot. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the definition of a pad lot and a slope lot, and noted that on this property there are two separate pad elevations and in between these two pads there is a hill which has more than a five percent slope on which the existing home is constructed. Therefore, it is not considered a contiguous level pad as defined in the Code, and the existing residence is currently constructed as a hillside home. Commissioner Lewis noted that in order to uphold the Director's decision the Planning Commission must make certain findings. He asked if the Commission is allowed to consider the economic impact the proposed addition may have to the appellant's home in making their decision. Director Rojas answered that economic impact is not a review criteria. Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 2 Commissioner Leon asked, with respect to building on a sloping lot, is there any requirement that the basic house has to follow the hillside. Director Rojas stated that there is no requirement that the house outline follow topography as the code defines an allowable building envelope from the highest point on the hillside at 16 feet down the slope to 30 feet. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Steve Wohm (appellant's attorney) explained that not only is neighborhood compatibility an issue, but that it is their contention that there is clear physical evidence that there is a building pad and this should be considered a pad lot. Further, because of this clear evidence of a building pad, the proposed addition should have been considered through a height variation application with the appropriate review. He felt the application was an end-run around the more stringent requirements of the height variation. He stated that there are numerous numerical miscalculations, noting that he felt lot coverage is inaccurately stated, that certain portions of the decks that have been added but not taken into consideration when totaling up the additional square footage, and certain other areas where calculations have been made where square footage has been extracted from improper categories. He summarized that it is their contention that a height variation permit, with all of the required findings, must be submitted and approved for this project. Regarding the foliage, he agreed that a portion of the foliage has been removed however he did not think that issue has been entirely solved. In addition to the foliage he noted the bulk and mass of the proposed addition will significantly reduce the view from at least two different rooms, the kitchen area and living room, in his client's home. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Wohm if the kitchen area and living room are contiguous rooms and if the windows are right next to each other. Mr. Wohm answered that at 17 Cayuse the rooms are contiguous, separated by a wall. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Wohm what additional information would be brought before the Commission if the Commission were to opt to continue the public hearing. Mr. Wohm explained that the critical determination is whether or not the unilateral determination that this is a sloping lot and not a pad lot is the correct determination. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Wohm if he wanted the additional thirty days to continue to argue whether his interpretation of the Ordinance is correct, or did he want the extra thirty days to bring the Commission additional evidence in terms of inaccuracies. Mr. Wohm answered that the best use of the time would be to identify the numerical contentions they have made. He noted that he felt the impact to his clients is so significant that it justifies some additional time in order for them to complete the analysis and increase the strength of the argument that a height variation permit is required. Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 3 Chairman Tomblin asked if the issues in terms of neighborhood compatibility and the findings were being driven by the view impacts to the appellants. Mr. Wohm felt that was true, adding that it is the contention of the appellants that this is a three story residence in a primarily single story neighborhood, which is not compatible. He stated that common sense and logic dictates that a building of that bulk and size is not compatible with the area, and he promotes that argument. Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Wohm which room in the house would have the greatest view impact from this proposed addition. Mr. Wohm answered that the greatest view impact would be from the kitchen area and the living room area. Chairman Tomblin asked what view feature would be blocked by the proposed addition. Mr. Wohm explained that a portion of the addition would block most of the view of the ocean as well as a portion of the mountain view past LAX. Sunshine objected to the ability of the Director to make a unilateral decision on cases such as this where there is some contention, rather than bringing the case to the Planning Commission where this body can make the decision. Russ Barto stated he is the architect representing the applicants. He explained that his first step in dealing with the project was to approach staff for their determination as to what could be done on this lot, based on their interpretation of what this lot was. Even before he started any design work, staff determined this was a sloping lot and anything he designed would be required to fit in the 16 / 30 height envelope. He felt that if an architect or applicant can't rely on staff's basic interpretation on something such as this, it makes every applicant's position very tenuous. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Barto if he had any comments on the appellants claim that the lot coverage and square footage calculations are inaccurate. Mr. Barto stated he has gone over all of the calculations with staff repeatedly and in great detail, and he is comfortable in the numbers as they are presented. Mark Vidzalm (applicant) explained he has worked for many years with his architect in reaching a design he felt was within the city codes. He was concerned that an issue regarding pad lot versus slope lot would put his entire project, with all of the time and money invested, in jeopardy. Steve Wohm (in rebuttal) acknowledged the applicant has put in a lot of time on this project, however the city codes and processes are in place for a reason. He noted that there have been numerous revisions to the project over time and therefore it was never Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 4 an easy process. He felt the issue of the very broad discretion of the Director has been properly raised. He stated that when something as substantial as this is happening, even though the staff has obviously done a very extensive job on this matter, it should be put before the Planning Commission for a review because that is why there is a Planning Commission. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon asked staff to review the neighborhood compatibility analysis performed in terms of coming up with the appropriateness of the bulk and mass and square footage. Associate Planner Mikhail explained staff's analysis, noting that staff determined the home would be within the size range when compared with the twenty closest homes. In addition, staff felt the project is heavily articulated with multiple roof lines and multiple facades. The house has a single story fagade from the front and has quite large setbacks from the adjacent properties, including the rear property line. The house is set down approximately thirty feet from the street and can barely be seen from the street. She noted the existing residence is a two-story home and there are other multi-story homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Leon asked staff to address the comment that the proposed residence is a three-story home. Associate Planner Mikhail explained there is a lower level to the property, a mid level, and an upper level, which is common for homes developed on hillside properties. Commissioner Knight asked if there were other three-story homes in the neighborhood. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff did not look to see if there were any other three-story homes in the neighborhood for the purpose of defining what is or isn't a hillside lot due to the fact that the property owner is permitted to construct a home within the permitted hillside lot building envelope. Commissioner Knight stated that he was initially confused about the definition of a pad lot versus a sloping lot, however after reading the staff report and listening to testimony he felt confident that staff has correctly categorized this lot as a sloping lot which puts the building in the sixteen /thirty foot building envelope, which would allow this residence as proposed, by right. He noted that this new residence does create a view impact to the neighboring property, however he was not convinced that it was a significant view impact. Commissioner Knight moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision, thereby conditionally approving the project, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 5 Commissioner Lewis stated he was able to make all of the findings, but noted he is sympathetic to the appellant as he felt there most likely will be an economic impact caused by the construction of this residence. However, he noted this cannot be considered under the city's code. Because he was able to make the necessary findings, he stated he would vote in favor of the motion. Commissioner Leon stated that to uphold the appeal, the Planning Commission must find that this residence is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and he did not feel the Commission was given the data usually provided to make a determination whether this house is compatible with the neighborhood. Director Rojas noted the neighborhood compatibility analysis that was in the Director's report, which was included in the Commission's staff report. Commissioner Lewis stated that this home is similar to others the Commission has approved in regards to the fact that the house is tucked onto the lot and not visible from the street. Chairman Tomblin also sympathized with the appellant, however he agreed with Commissioners Knight and Lewis in that he can make the required findings to approve the house. In reference to the view, he acknowledged there will be an impact to the appellant's view but he did not think it would be a significant impact. He also agreed with the Director's decision that this is a sloping lot rather than a pad lot. With that, he also was able to uphold the Director's decision. The motion to deny the appeal and thereby uphold the Director's decision and conditionally approve the project as recommended by staff, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2011-12 was approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining. 2. Six month review and Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No ZON2010- 00402): Golden Cove Center Chairman Tomblin stated that he will only be staying for a portion of this item and then he would recuse himself from the remainder of the meeting. Therefore, Commissioner Gerstner stepped in as acting Chairman. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit and its revision. She referred to finding No. 6, explaining staff would modify the original condition of approval to allow the requested trellises to have a solid roof and to allow additional dining area under two of the trellises. She also explained that the applicant requested staff couple this particular request with the six-month review of the Trader Joe's project. She noted there is a revised Resolution included with the late correspondence where staff has added a condition of approval that requires the applicant to provide the necessary required parking spaces prior to the final of the building permit for the Admiral Risty improvement and prior to Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 6 issuance of the building permits for the covered patios and dining area. In response to the public notice for the six month review, neighbors from the neighboring Villa Capri development have submitted letters to staff regarding a wall that was constructed along the south property line. She explained the conditions of approval required a wall be built up to six feet in height, and with that the owner lowered the wall to 3 '/feet in height. In order to address the concerns of the neighbors, staff has provided three options in the staff report to address this particular issue. She noted that in researching the issue of the wall staff found reference in a staff report that the wall, which was to be a privacy wall, was intended to be built to six feet in height however was not stated as such in the condition of approval. Finally, she noted in the late correspondence an added condition that requires the applicant to provide the City with an updated tenant list every time a new tenant is added to the site or a tenant leaves the site. Commissioner Lewis discussed the proposed new dining area, noting that currently one can walk freely around the dining area at the rear of these businesses. He asked if the applicant was proposing to allow walled off sections between the businesses so that each area will be exclusive. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that in speaking with the applicant it was her understanding that was not the intention of the applicant to section off the dining areas, however the conditions would not prohibit that from happening. Commissioner Lewis asked if there is a sufficient nexus between what is before the Commission and the wall issue. Associate Planner Mikhail answered there is a sufficient nexus in that part of the item before the Commission is the six-month review of the Trader Joe's approval, and the conditions of approval for Trader Joe's addresses the wall. Chairman Tomblin asked if there was a continuous six month review or if this will be the only review. Associate Planner Mikhail answered this is the only review, however the Commission can add another review if they feel it's necessary. Commissioner Emenhiser discussed what he felt was a dangerous situation in attempting to turn left out of Golden Cove onto Palos Verdes Drive West. He asked staff if there was anything staff or the Commission could do regarding that situation. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the Planning Commission could request that an updated traffic study be conducted now that the use is in place. Director Rojas added that these types of issues are usually the purview of the Public Works Department or the Traffic Safety Commission. Therefore the Planning Commission could make a recommendation that staff get input and a recommendation from the Public Works Department regarding the situation. Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 7 Commissioner Knight agreed with Commissioner Emenhiser's concerns. He also noted that the trellises are already built and asked staff for clarification. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that the trellises are already built, however the original condition of approval requires open air, and therefore the applicant is applying to modify that condition to allow for a solid covered structure and adding a dining area. Commissioner Knight had a concern with the walkway and stairs at the side of Asaka and how that access be affected by this proposal. Director Rojas stated that as part of the building permit review staff will have to look into the access issue to ensure compliance with code required accessibility. Commissioner Gerstner opened the public hearing. Christian Golfin (representing the applicant) explained the 385 square feet of dining area actually exists and they are asking to accommodate that area by covering it to protect it from the sun and rain. In regards to the existing access areas, he explained that would not change. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Golfin if he would object to the Commission adding a condition that said if any area were to be walled off or if the areas were to be made exclusive areas then the applicant would have to come before the Planning Commission to amend the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Golfin stated he would not have any issue with such a condition. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Golfin if he had any comments on the six foot/three foot wall. Mr. Golfin explained that when the Admiral Risty did their recent improvements they lowered the wall in accordance with the conditions of approval which state that the wall could be up to six feet in height. He noted that the wall at the current height allows for a view of the ocean from a potential tenant space, and he would like to request that the height of the wall remain as is. He explained that all of the other walls along the property are privacy walls, however this wall is not. Philip Browning stated he is a resident of Villa Capri. He hoped the Planning Commission would adopt staffs recommendation No. 1 in the staff report in regards to the current 3 '/z foot wall. He explained that this 3 '/2 foot wall impacts the residents of Villa Capri, particularly the residents who live directly across from the last building at Golden Cove. He was concerned that this lower wall could reduce their property values. He felt that this wall was only a symbol to try to appease home owners at Villa Capri with no regards to their privacy concerns. Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 8 Commissioner Leon asked the speaker, to address the Villa Capri privacy concerns specifically, if the wall's height would need to be increased all of the way to the Admiral Risty or could it stop short at some point. Mr. Browning answered that he hoped the wall would be brought up to the same height along the entire wall length. He noted that people sit on this lower wall and when cars drive by their headlights shine into the Villa Capri development. Mary Lou Xenos stated that Mr. Zarrabian, the owner of Golden Cove, is her neighbor and she wished they could get along better, however she felt that she and the Homeowners Association were constantly being bullied by Mr. Zarrabian and constantly did things on the property with no concern for the neighbors. She noted that the current 3 '/foot tall wall was six feet tall up until a few months ago when Mr. Zarrabian decided he wanted to lower it. She stated that the applicant is requesting a permit to put up solid trellises, but noted that the work has already been done. She was concerned that in order to get more parking, that Mr. Zarrabian was going to construct a multi-level parking structure at the back of the property close to the Villa Capri homes. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Ms. Xenos to elaborate on her claim that Mr. Zarrabian has bullied her and the HOA. Ms. Xenos explained how Mr. Zarrabian used construction materials to block the gate between their properties and when she moved the materials to use the gate Mr. Zarrabian videoed her and put the video on youtube. Chairman Tomblin stated that before leaving he would like to suggest the Commission consider another six-month review of the Golden Cove Center in their deliberations. The Chairman then left the meeting. Claire Ealy stated she is a resident of Villa Capri, and explained that until 2007 Villa Capri and Golden Cove had a harmonious, good neighbor relationship. However, since Mr. Zarrabian purchased Golden Cove there has been a never ending barrage of baseless complaints and demands that have required Villa Capri to spend considerable funds on attorney fees. She stated that lowering this once six foot tall wall has resulted in less privacy, more noise, more lights, and safety concerns for the Villa Capri residents, especially those living on lower Via Capri. She stated that, despite the language in the staff report, the parking lot lighting does spill over onto the Villa Capri property since the wall was lowered. She also felt there was a liability issue, as it would be easy for someone to fall over this wall and into the animal hospital property below. She also noted that even though the staff report says there are enough parking spaces, Mr. Zarrabian wants Villa Capri to give him part of their property so he can build a two- story parking structure in the rear of the shopping center. She added her concerns over the way the fire lanes and rear gate are blocked at Golden Cove, noting the Fire Department has warned Mr. Zarrabian repeatedly regarding this issue. She felt that Mr. Zarrabian's actions and failure to comply with City requirements and restrictions are having a detrimental affect on Villa Capri property values and the moral of the residents. Planning commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 9 She urged the Planning Commission to enforce the restrictions set on Golden Cove and to protect the interests of the residents at Villa Capri. She noted the many Villa Capri residents in the audience who share her concerns. Kevan Bunting stated his is one of the main homes affected by the lowering of the wall at Golden Cove. He explained that he has lived in his home at Villa Capri for one year, and it has been one of the most tumultuous years he has ever spent in a home. He felt this was mainly because of Mr. Zarrabian. He explained that before he could sit out on his deck and have no noise or light nuisances, however once this wall was lowered he can now hear workers taking out the trash, see and hear vehicles going down the driveway, and see and hear Domino's Pizza delivery vehicles coming and going. He also requested that the gate that was installed for Dr. Jones and the Animal Hospital be considered this evening and not put on a six-month review. In addition to the request to cover the trellises and increase the seating capacity, he noted that Mr. Zarrabian has already built a new covered trellis area across from the Admiral Risty, which has increased the seating capacity of the area. He hoped the Planning Commission would take into consideration that as the Golden Cove business increases the Villa Capri property values decrease. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the covered patio area next to the Zask Gallery has been permitted by staff. Director Rojas stated that the covered patio area was an over-the-counter approval. He clarified that the issue that needs Planning Commission approval is the additional dining area under the covered patio area, as new dining areas create additional parking demand. He explained that while there are permits to build covered patios, there are no approvals to convert the area to dining areas, and this is one of the reasons for the condition of approval that establishes a process to ensure all future tenants are reviewed by staff to make sure the parking demand of the entire center doesn't increase over the demand identified by the previous parking study. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there was a permit for demolition of the six-foot tall wall. Director Rojas explained that because the condition of approval was written to require the wall to be up to six feet in height, staff could not legally compel the property owner to keep the wall at six feet. However, because of safety reasons, staff required that the wall not be lowered to a height of less than forty-two inches. Commissioner Gerstner recalled the Planning Commission discussion of the wall at the time it was approved and the Commission's intention was that the wall be six feet in height. He asked if the Commission can reaffirm that intention and require the wall be brought back up to six feet. Director Rojas agreed and noted the Commission can require the wall to be brought back up to six feet if they so desire. Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 10 Christian Golfin (in rebuttal) understood the speakers concerns and if the wall needs to be six feet in height it will be done. He noted that Mr. Zarrabian wants to be a good neighbor and work with the residents. He noted that the gate dispute is a separate issue from what is before the Commission. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Golfin he would object if the Commission asked that, once the vet office closes, that the existing gate in the wall be converted to a solid wall so there is no more access through to the neighboring property. Mr. Golifn stated that would make sense and he would have no objections. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the applicant will have to come back before the Commission with an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit if he decides to build a parking structure. Director Rojas answered that was correct and added that no application for a parking structure has been submitted to the City. Commissioner Lewis moved the following: 1) To approve the conversion of the open-air trellises to solid roof covered patios and allow the requested outdoor dining activities; 2) To add an additional condition that if the dining areas are to be walled off and made exclusive or impede pedestrian access that the resolution be clear that an additional amendment to the Conditional Use Permit be required; 3) Modify condition No. 38 as recommended by staff to explicitly require a six-foot privacy wall; 4) Refer to the Public Works Department, and if Public Works deems it appropriate, to the Traffic Safety Commission to study the issue of the left turn and the parking visibility issue when leaving the Golden Cove Center onto Palos Verdes Drive West; 4) In the event that the animal hospital ceases operation and Vacates the premises that the owner be given sixty days to return the existing gate portion in the wall to a solid wall; and 5) That the operations at Golden Cove Center be reviewed in one year. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Knight felt that a mistake was made in the original Conditional Use Permit whereby the Villa Capri owners expressed concerns to the Planning Commission and requested a six-foot tall wall and somehow that did not get translated accurately into the Conditional Use Permit. He felt that the motion will correct that mistake and establish what was originally intended. He agreed with all of the conditions set forth in the motion. The motion was approved, and PC Resolution 2011-13 was thereby adopted, (5-0). 3. Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2010-00433)• 5640 Crestridge Road Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 11 Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the property and the various approvals that have been given. He explained the current proposal before the Commission. He noted that staff has analyzed the additional parking supply and demand for the church, and although the existing the conversion of the existing lower level of the building into assembly and office uses increases the overall parking demand for the site, there is still a twelve space surplus. He noted that the Building Official has determined the church will have to provide one additional handicap parking space in the lower parking lot. He also noted that staff distributed in the late correspondence a revised resolution and revised sheets from the plan set to reflect the addition of air conditioning units at the site. He stated staff feels these units are consistent with the Conditional Use Permit findings and staff has modified findings 1(a) and 1(c) in the revised resolution and recommended additional conditions in regards to screening. He stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings for the requested conditional use permit revision can be made and the environmental impacts and effects of the project were adequately addressed by the previous mitigated negative declaration and therefore was recommending approval of the project as revised and conditioned in the revised resolution. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff how the noise around the 15 ton air conditioner unit will be handled. Associate Planner Fox answered that staff has currently stipulated that the noise level at the nearest residential property line cannot exceed 65 decibels. Staff is also recommending a six-month review once the renovation at the lower level is complete. Commissioner Lewis asked what happens at the six-month review in terms of measuring the sound and who would pay for the sound study. Associate Planner Fox answered that the condition has been written to obligate the church to demonstrate compliance. Commissioner Gerstner felt it might be cheaper and more efficient to build a wall around the units. Commissioner Knight noted that the original 1977 parking requirements required a Variance because the site was not adequate in size to accommodate the required use. He asked staff what has changed at the site which would not require a variance for this current parking request. Associate Planner Fox explained that as far as staff can tell the way the parking was calculated for the entire site in 1977 is not the way it would be calculated today in terms of the required number of parking spaces for the various buildings and their uses. He also noted that the parking that was approved appears to be adequate and working. Nagy Bakhoum (applicant) stated he has read and agrees with staff's conditions of approval. With respect to condition No. 13, the ADA parking, he explained that he has Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 12 looked at the area and feels he can still add the additional disabled parking space without losing a parking space, and therefore the net positive twelve parking spaces is correct. He briefly described the use for the proposed,multi-purpose room and how he was proposing to utilize the space already available without significantly impacting the neighbors or community. Regarding the air conditioning units, he estimated these units are approximately 300 feet away from the nearest home and the current units are much closer than the proposed new units. He noted that there have never been any complaints about the noise generated by the current units. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he likes Commissioner Gerstner's idea of building a wall around the air conditioning units, thereby eliminating the need for a decibel study in six months. Commissioner Knight agreed and felt it would be better to condition the approval to eliminate problems down the road. Commissioner Leon felt the City should establish a required noise level and let the applicant come up with a solution as opposed to the Commission finding the solution. Commissioner Lewis agreed. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendation in the revised Resolution that was distributed, thereby conditionally approving the project as presented, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Resolution 2011-014 was approved, (5-0). NEW BUSINESS 4. Annual report on the implementation of the General Plan Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the report not only delineates how the City's General Plan elements are consistent with seven state mandated elements, it also relays the recent developments, progress, and actions taken by the City. She stated that staff believes the goals and policies of the General Plan continue to be implemented through the recent actions and developments taken by the City while ensuring the needs and the best interests of the community continue to be met. Therefore staff recommends the Planning Commission direct staff, via minute order, to forward the 2010 annual report to the City Council. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the annual report on the implementation of the General Plan and forward the report to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved without objection. 5. Annual report on the implementation of the Housing Element Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 13 Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, stating staff believes the goals and policies of the Housing Element have been implemented, noting that because the Mirandela project has been completed the City met the needs for the RHNA count. Director Rojas pointed out that it is a rarity to having a Housing Element certified by the State and have a RHNA number that has been met. The Commissioner unanimously agreed to forward the annual report to the City Council. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of February 8, 2011 Commissioner Lewis noted that, in regards to the signage item, he had specifically asked staff to look at the "T" intersection and Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East, and he asked that be included in the minutes. Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-agenda for the meeting on March 22, 2011 The Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 14