Loading...
PC MINS 20070522 Approved June 12 2007 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 22, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Karp led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Karp, Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Vice Chairman Perestam, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: Commissioner Tetreault was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Fox, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2 and five items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 3. Director Rojas reported that at the May 15, 2007 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a Zone Change Initiation Request to move the location of an Open Space Hazard Line on a residential property. The City Council also approved a Tract amendment to relocate the BGR Line in a tract as recommended by the Planning Commission, and denied the proposed Nantasket project with direction that the zoning be limited to CR, RS-2 or RS-3. Commissioner Lewis reported that he had met with a neighbor in regards to Agenda Item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit, Variance, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2006-00522): 3444 Gulfcrest Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the history of the project and the scope of the revised application. She explained that since the new proposed project does not address staff's original concerns in regards to the additional grading beyond the pool deck, staff's recommendation has not changed and is still recommending denial of the project. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Tim Wahl 3444 Gulfcrest Drive (applicant) explained that his intention was to add on to his home while taking advantage of the view, mitigate the impact to the neighborhood, and remain respectful of the natural terrain on the property. He explained that it was difficult to add on to other areas of the house, as it would create view issues to many of the neighbors. He stated that going doing and behind the house is not the cheapest option, however it is the option that makes the most people happy. Chris Gunderson (architect) summarized the changes made to the plans that were originally before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Gunderson what the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances are that apply to this property that are not applicable to the surrounding properties. Mr. Gunderson answered that the Variance applies to the 30 square feet that are proposed to be built over an extreme slope. He explained that when the grading is ultimately completed the area of the structure that is over the extreme slope will actually become 12 to 15 feet off of the pad area and into the slope. He referred to exhibits P-3 and P-5 in the staff report to illustrate how the extreme slope essentially disappears once the cuts have been made for the building. He also stated that the extreme slopes are man made, as they were generated when the tract was built. Gary Randall 3512 Heroic Drive explained that he is generally in favor of the project, however he wanted to make sure that the slopes are carefully looked at before any approvals are given, as he did not want problems with the slope in the future. Mr. Gunderson (in rebuttal) explained that the project has been very carefully analyzed by his geologist and soils engineer and there are no concerns about instability or creating a hazardous situation. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2007 Page 2 Director Rojas explained that staff's issue with the application was that staff could not make the findings to support the Variance application. Vice Chairman Perestam asked staff if they had an estimate as to how much grading would be required for the area over the extreme slope. Assistant Planner Kim answered that she had a total export amount of 1,245 cubic yards, however she did not have a breakdown on what portion of that amount is related to the Variance application. Chairman Gerstner re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Gunderson stated that the grading at the extreme slope is approximately 120 cubic yards of cut. He added that with the children's play area the grading will be 623 cubic yards, which is a reduction from the original plans submitted. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he favored this project when originally, before the Planning Commission, and nothing has been said at this meeting that wasn't said at the first hearing. He therefore still favors approval of the project. Commissioner Karp agreed, adding that the Planning Commission is allowed to use a little more discretion than staff. He felt the project makes sense and has little impact to the neighborhood. Commissioner Knight agreed with the findings in the staff report, noting there has not been much of a change from the original hearing. He stated that he could not make the necessary findings to approve the play area and the addition over the extreme slope. Commissioner Lewis did not feel there were any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to allow him to approve the proposed Variance. Commissioner Perestam stated that he generally likes the project, as the design goes out of its way to protect the views and privacy of the neighbors. Regarding the play area, he did not think there were any safety issues with re-contouring the slope. He felt that this area may even be more stable than it is currently. He felt that there needs to be an alternative to the exporting of the 120 cubic yards of dirt in the area of the extreme slope. Chairman Gerstner stated that he was able to make the findings for the Variance in regards to the house, as once the area is re-graded the slope will not longer be at 35 percent. He felt that when trying to build an addition that will not block any neighbor's views, a sliver on one side cutting into the slope does not have a significant impact on the quality and character of the topography. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2007 Page 3 Commissioner Knight asked staff if there is access to the pool area from the side of the house. Assistant Planner Kim answered that there is access to the pool area. Vice Chairman Perestam moved to approve the project as amended to remove the proposed stairs on the slope at the north side of the project, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Commissioner Knight asked the Planning Commissioners to articulate the findings they made to support approval of the project. Vice Chairman Perestam felt the project takes into consideration the major factors addressed in building a one story residence versus a two story residence. He felt this project has less impact on the slope than a two-story project and that the slope will be improved with the proposed grading. He also felt that this is a unique property. Chairman Gerstner felt that, regarding the finding of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, this is a property where it would be perfectly acceptable for the applicant to build on the north side of the property, however it would cause view impairments to the neighbors. He felt that the applicant was asking to build over this small area of extreme slope to allow the neighbors to maintain their ocean views, which he felt is a unique circumstance. Commissioner Knight felt that there are other areas within the flat area where a small amount of square footage can be added, rather than over the extreme slope area. Therefore, since he has the area available to him, he could not find extraordinary circumstances. The motion to approve the project as amended was approved, (4-2) with Commissioners Knight and Lewis dissenting. Director Rojas explained that staff will present a Resolution at the next meeting for approval on the Consent Calendar. 2. Coastal Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Variance (Case No. ZON2006- 00465): 6600 '/z Seacove Drive Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, giving a history and scope of the project. He explained that representatives from the Sanitation Districts and Terranea have met and have agreed on a revised proposal that both parties find acceptable, and explained the revised proposal. He stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the project as amended and conditioned in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2007 Page 4 Commissioner Knight asked if there was a possibility of screening on the gate, such as green mesh screening. Associate Planner Fox answered that such screening is a possibility. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Todd Marcher (representing Terranea) explained that it was important to Terranea to incorporate fencing and native vegetation into this plan that is consistent with what is being used at the resort. He stated that moving the trail from the west side to the east side was, also very important to Terranea. He felt that the plan before the Planning Commission is a good happy medium between Terranea's and the Sanitation District's objectives and was very pleased with the outcome. Commissioner Lewis asked who would be responsible for the upkeep of the structure and the fence. Mr. Majcher answered that is an ongoing negotiation with the Sanitation District, noting that Terranea will be responsible for maintaining the vegetation and the trail, He noted that it is in the best interest of Terranea that the fence and building be maintained. Steve Highter (LA County Sanitation District) stated that he agrees with everything discussed by Mr. Majcher and feels the plan best serves both parties and the general public. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify if the planting on Terranea property should be included in the conditions of approval for this project, and referred to condition 15. Director Rojas answered that foliage on Terranea property is required to screen the Sanitation District's facility, and therefore a distinction should be made that the foliage on the Terranea property must be planted through an agreement with Terranea. Commissioner Knight moved to accept staff recommendations as amended to clarify that the LA Sanitation District is responsible for planting vegetation, including the vegetation on Terranea, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned why there should be a reference as to what Terranea is doing, since this is an application for the Sanitation District, and it's in Terranea's interest to plant the vegetation. Director Rojas explained that if the Commission wants to see the area screened the City needs to have some mechanism to make sure the area is screened, and the only way to do that is through a condition of approval that compels the applicant to take such an action, since Terranea is not the applicant. He referred to the language in condition 12 Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2007 Page 5 regarding the trail, and suggested adding similar language to address the planting of the vegetation. Commissioner Knight moved to amend his motion to include language regarding the planting on Terranea land, as suggested by Director Rojas. Seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Vice Chairman Perestam explained that previous requests have been made by the Sanitation District to allow the generator to be made operational, and questioned if this should now be allowed. Chairman Gerstner felt that there have been good faith efforts made by the Sanitation District, however before agreeing that the generator can be made operational he would like to see some type of time frame as to when this will be.built. Commissioner Lewis suggested language that would allow the generator to become operational and the project must be completed in 9 months. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing to ask Terranea and the Sanitation District what time frame they were anticipating to finish the project. Todd Maicher explained that this relates directly to Terranea's construction schedule and will have to go to public bid. He stated that this is a complicated process and will take at least a year to get something going at the site. Commissioner Lewis suggested that the project not necessarily be done in 9 months, but in 9 months show that good faith and effort have been made to move forward on the project. Mr. Majcher agreed that could be done. He felt that the generator should be plugged in as soon as possible. Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Highter to return and explain why the Sanitation District feels they need the generator plugged in and working as soon as possible. Steve Highter explained that the Sanitation District is under an EPA order and was committed to have this generator operational last October. Therefore, the Sanitation is already in violation of the EPA order. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Highter if the Sanitation District will be able to meet the sound requirements of 65 decibels if allowed to plug in right away. Mr. Highter answered that the equipment will not be louder than 65 decibels. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2007 Page 6 Commissioner Perestam moved to amend the motion to allow the Sanitation District to be operational, as long as no appeal is filed and the progress of construction is reviewed in 9 months. Seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Commissioner Ruttenberg added that he did not think the Sanitation District should have to come back to the Planning Commission in 9 months, as the permit is good for a specified amount of time, and there are complications in regards to time. Commissioner Lewis noted that Mr. Majcher has already indicated that there are many complications involved in the project, and-he felt the project could drag on quite awhile. He therefore thought it was a good idea to put a 9 month review into the conditions of approval. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to amend the motion to delete the language regarding the 9 month review. Commissioner Knight accepted the amendment to his original motion. Associate Planner Fox clarified that the motion now reads to accept staff's recommendations as amended to clarify maintenance responsibility for the foliage in Condition 15, to make it clear in Condition 12 that the trail easement be dedicated to the City, and to allow the Sanitation Districts to connect the generator once the appeal period has expired. The motion passed (4-2) with Commissioner Lewis and Chairman Gerstner dissenting. 3. Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review (Case ZON2006-00491): 6913 Maycroft Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She stated that, even though staff felt the proposed project does not cause significant view impacts and meets most of the requirements for the Height Variation and Site Plan Review criteria, staff was recommending denial based on bulk and mass issues as seen from the rear yard at 28017 Indian Rock Drive. She noted, however, that staff felt that if the bulk and mass were to be reduced by reducing the plate height on each floor to reduce the overall structure height, staff may then be able to support the project. She noted that doing so may also lessen any ocean view impairments from Ambergate Drive. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they were recommending lowering the plate height as well as adding some articulation to the one side of the proposed addition. Assistant Planner Kim answered that articulation could be an alternative, however staff felt that if the project is reduced by an overall height of four feet that should reduce the bulk and mass issue. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2007 Page 7 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked why, when staff does their comparison of the twenty closest homes, they include the size of the homes that were grandfathered in at incorporation. He felt that by including these homes the City was acknowledging something that they may not approve under today's Code. Assistant Planner Kim clarified that the grandfathered structures referred to by Commissioner Ruttenberg were all height variations that were approved through the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Director Rojas added that when doing neighborhood compatibility, staff compares the project with existing homes in the neighborhood, acknowledging that some of these homes and subsequent additions may have been built under the County using different codes than today. He explained that weight is given to what homes are actually there in a neighborhood as opposed to what homes were approved by the City. He noted that the Ordinance does not say to look at only City approved projects, but rather to compare a proposed project to what is existing in the neighborhood. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt this was possibly giving substantial weight to projects that the City would not have approved, and subsequently approving projects based on this. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Mike Shull 6913 Maycroft (applicant) explained that he was very reluctant to come before the Planning Commission until he had mitigate as many of the concerns of the neighbors as possible, which he felt he has done. He stated that he is very concerned about his neighbors' views and has modified the plans many times to try to address their concerns. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Shull if he had any comments on the reasons staff was recommending denial of the project. Mr. Shull answered that he felt he had addressed all of the concerns raised by staff, noting that he thought the bulk and mass issues were addressed by moving the bulk of the second story back 20 feet. He felt that the bulk and mass issue was now in regards to the height, and he was open to suggestions on how to mitigate the bulk and mass concerns. Peter DeMaria (architect) explained that he and the owners have tried very hard to create a design that is compatible with the neighborhood and has the least amount of impact on the neighbors. He noted that the house is set back from the street quite a bit farther than the majority of homes in the neighborhood. He felt that he has complied with all of the rules and regulations of the City while being sensitive to the neighbors and their concerns. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. DeMaria what was planned for the existing trees on the property, and if he felt they needed to be removed. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2007 Page 8 Mr. DeMaria answered that the trees help to camouflage the building and cut down on appearance of the scale of the building. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. DeMaria if he had considered lowering the level of the lot to help reduce the overall height of the residence. Mr. DeMaria answered that lowering the lot height would create shoring issues in the back and side yards of the lot. David Agnew 28011 Indian Rock Drive stated he is vehemently against the proposed project. He also disagreed with the staff's statement that the view impairment is insignificant. He explained that one of the reasons he bought his home was because he could see the ocean from three different vantage points on the property. He noted that the way the project is currently designed he will be looking directly into the bedrooms and they will be looking into his bedrooms. He stated that the applicant is tearing a ranch style home down and creating a new home that the neighbors will be looking directly at. He objected to his loss of view, the loss of privacy, and the devaluation of the properties in the neighborhood because of this addition. Midori Kamei 28011 Indian Rock Drive stated that not only does the tree on the property block her ocean view, but now this proposed addition will completely block her view of Santa Barbara Island. She felt that this addition will lower the price of her home. Haeiung Shin 6912 Loftygrove Drive also objected to the addition because of the loss of her privacy. She stated that from the second story they will be able to look directly into her living areas. Terri Straub 28017 Indian Rock Drive disagreed with the finding regarding cumulative view impact, as she felt that from 27944 Indian Rock Drive there will most definitely be a cumulative view impact. She also felt there was a significant view impact from this proposed addition from 27944 Indian Rock Drive. She stated that the same situation could be seen from 28035 Ambergate Drive and 28027 Ambergate Drive. She felt that the view should be protected from the residence at 28011 Indian Rock Drive. She felt that from this residence the horizon line is right at the 16 foot level, and added that if a taller person had taken the picture from the residence it would have made a difference in view impact. She did not agree with the finding that the view from 28019 Ambergate is not significant, and stressed that the Commissioners should go to that property to see the view, as the picture does not do the view justice. She was also not happy with the privacy issues from her privacy, and noted that the mitigation for her privacy concerns is only trees. She did not feel that all of the issues regarding view, cumulative view, and privacy have been adequately resolved, and in fairness to the staff, she felt that was partly due to the lack of clear days to observe the views carefully from all of the properties. She felt that more time to investigate the concerns would be appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2007 Page 9 Esther Kim 28019 Ambergate Drive felt that her ocean view will be significantly blocked by this proposed addition and offered what she felt was a better picture to the Planning Commission to view. Commissioner Lewis asked where on the property the picture was taken from. Ms. Kim answered that the picture was taken from her backyard. Michelle Seaton 27944 Indian Rock Drive did not feel the proposed project would be compatible with the neighborhood, as it is out of scale with the neighborhood. She felt the view impact to her home is substantial, and that there is also the possibility of cumulative view impact. She felt that if the owner and architect were truly trying to be sensitive to the concerns of the neighborhood there would not be a room full of residents opposed to the project. Tom Salder stated that he was opposed to the project and that it is incompatible with the neighborhood. Ann Stone 28125 Ambergate Drive stated that this neighborhood was laid out in the early 1960's to maximize the views from each lot. She noted that most of these homes were single story homes, but as the years went on many two-story additions were added to make quite a hodge podge of homes in the neighborhood. She disagreed that any view above the horizon line should be considered insignificant. Shirley Giltzow stated that all of these neighbors are present because they are concerned with the indiscriminate planning of a building they consider incompatible with the neighborhood. She felt it will become negative to the community. She felt that the loss of any view is significant, and could not understand how it could be considered insignificant. Commissioner Knight asked Ms. Giltzow if she felt any two-story addition proposed would be incompatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Giltzow answered that she was opposed to two-story buildings that take the views and privacy from other homes to achieve their second story. Richard Kawasaki 27932 Indian Rock Drive felt that neighborhood compatibility should include the consideration of lot coverage and floor area. He asked that the FAR be compared with the others in the neighborhood. He also felt that this proposed addition has an impact on the neighbor's privacy, which should be looked at carefully. Joe Anderson 6903 Beechfield discussed the trend in the neighborhood of wanting two- story homes, and noted not long ago a two-story home was denied on Abbottswood Drive and a single story was approved instead. He noted there are several other silhouettes going up in the neighborhood where residents are requesting two-story additions. He asked that the Planning Commission look at the precedence they are Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2007 Page 10 setting in approving the two-story homes and to look to the future and how the neighborhood will look. Karen Terada 28015 Ambergate Drive did not think the pictures do justice to the view from her home or her neighbors homes. She disagreed with staff, as she felt the view impairment from her home will be significant. She stated that she agrees with everything the neighbors have said about the project. Mike Shull (in rebuttal) stated that he has no desire to cut down any of the trees in his yard, as they provide privacy for both his.home and his neighbors' homes. He noted that he has allowed gardeners to trim the trees when the neighbors have requested it be done. He agreed that lowering the ridge height of the home will alleviate most of the neighbors concerns, and stated that he would be willing to do so. He stated that he was very willing to continue working with the neighbors to help mitigate their concerns with his proposed addition. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight discussed the condition of approval that certain foliage on the property remain at 26 feet in height. He questioned how this would come in to play if, in years to come, a resident felt this foliage blocked a view and wished to file a View Restoration Permit with the City, and if this condition can then be overturned. Director Rojas understood Commissioner Knight's concern and suggested modifying the language to read that the tree shall be maintained at its current height unless it is found to be impairing a view in the future through the view restoration process, at which time the height of the tree can be reduced. Commissioner Knight asked staff to review the windows proposed on the second story and which ones caused a privacy concern and how those windows would be modified to mitigate the privacy concerns. Assistant Planner Kim reviewed the different windows on the proposed plan. Commissioner Lewis stated that he could not support the project, as he did not think that foliage would address the privacy concerns of the abutting neighbors. He did not agree with staff in regards to view impacts, as he felt the view impact from 28019 Ambergate is significant and there are most likely cumulative view impact issues there also. He also objected to the project in terms of bulk and mass. He also noted that the two two-story homes that exist in the neighborhood do not abut backyards in the manner that this proposed building will. Commissioner Knight agreed with Commissioner Lewis, noting that he also felt there would be significant view impact from 28019 Ambergate Drive. He didn't feel it was necessary to have 10 foot plates, and that 8 foot plates would most likely reduce the Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2007 Page 11 view impacts and other issues relating to bulk and mass. He stated that he agrees with the staff recommendation to deny the project. Commissioner Karp agreed that there may be a significant view impact to 28019 Ambergate Drive. He did not like the idea of an addition being built that so directly impacts others backyards. He did not think he could support the current project as proposed, however he felt something could be designed to allow this resident the opportunity to expand their residence. Commissioner Lewis moved to deny the proposed project due to privacy, view impact, (neighborhood compatibility, and bulk and mass issues. Seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Ruttenberg also felt the project is too big and there are some view issues. However he did feel that modifications may be made to scale down the project may resolve view and bulk and mass issues. Therefore, he felt that a motion to deny the project may be unfair to the applicant, who may want to attempt to take into consideration the comments made by the Planning Commission and modify the project. Vice Chair Perestam also could not support the motion to deny the project. He explained that this proposed project is square in the backyards of two abutting neighbors, which he felt creates a privacy concern. He was unsure if there is a view issue, however he was quite sure there is a tree problem and urged the community to use the view restoration process to help restore some of the views the he felt have been blocked by the many trees in the neighborhood. Chairman Gerstner felt there is some view impact and cumulative view impact caused by this proposed structure. He was also very concerned about neighborhood compatibility. He felt that this is primarily a single story neighborhood and that this large of an addition is much too bulky and massive for the neighborhood. However, he also felt that it might be possible to scale down the project to attempt to mitigate the view, privacy, and compatibility issues. Commissioner Lewis withdrew his motion to deny the project. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant time to redesign the project, taking into consideration the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Chairman Gerstner re-opened the public hearing. Chairman Gerstner asked the applicant if they will be willing to grant a 90 day extension to the Permit Streamling Act to allow time to redesign the project. Mr. Shull stated he would grant the extension. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2007 Page 12 Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Director Rojas suggested that the public hearing be continued to July 24, 2007. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion to continue the public hearing to July 24, 2007, seconded by Commissioner Knight. The motion to continue the public hearing to July 24, 2007 was approved, (6-0). 4. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00007): 6408 Seabryn Drive Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the height variation. He stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and was therefore recommending approval of the height variation as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Mr. Parsa 6408 Seabryn Drive (applicant) acknowledged that his existing home is not in any way compatible with the homes in the neighborhood, however he was only asking to add a small addition to the second floor and keep the existing architectural style in doing so. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Perestam moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-39 thereby approving the requested height variation as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). 5. Lot Line Adjustment and Variance (Case Nos. SUB2007-00001 & ZON2007- 00047): 6405 & 6409 Via Canada Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the need for the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the Lot Line Adjustment and could make the findings necessary to support the Variance. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Lou Roupoli (applicant) explained that he has no plans to enlarge the properties in question, and noted that he is ready to have his building and grading permits issued for the proposed project. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2007 Page 13 Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-40 thereby approving the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance as presented to staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Perestam. Approved, (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of April 24, 2007 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Karp abstaining since he was excused from that meeting and Vice Chairman Perestam noting that he was recused on the Green Hills item. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of June 12, 2007 The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2007 Page 14