Loading...
PC MINS 20070814 Approved September 11, 007 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 14, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Knight at 7:04 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Ruttenberg led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Karp, Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, and Tetreault. Chairman Gerstner arrived after Agenda Item No. 4. Absent: Vice Chairman Perestarn Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, City Attorney Lynch, Senior Planner Alvarez, Associate Planner Fox, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved to hear Agenda Item No. 4 after Agenda Item No. 1. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 4. He also reported that at the last City Council meeting the City Council introduced the Cargo Container Ordinance, explaining it will be on their next Agenda for a second reading and will go into affect 30 days after that. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal of Interpretation Procedure (Case No ZON2007-00263) Director Rojas explained there is a request by the applicant to continue this public hearing an unspecified date. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the appeal to an unspecified date, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (5-0). 4. View Restoration Permit (Case No ZON2007-00019): 5335 Rolling Ridge Road Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, giving the background of the case and explaining the request. He explained that the view from the applicant's residence was taken from the living room, family room, and master bedroom. He explained that staff was able to make the necessary findings in order to approve a View Restoration Permit application and was recommending a combination of tree crowning and tree reduction for 10 of the trees on the foliage owner's property. He showed several photographs showing the trees on the foliage owner's property and the view from the applicant's property. He also explained that tree Nos. 1 and 2, while they may block a view, were determined by staff to be view impairing trees in 1965 which was when staff determined the lot was created. He showed an aerial photograph taken in 1;961 which shows tree Nos. 1 and 2. He explained that a statement was made by the applicant that all the trees were planted some time between 1953 and 1955. He also explained the growth rates of Aleppo pines. He stated that staff was able to reasonably determine that tree Nos. 1 and 2 were view impairing trees at the time the lot was created, and tree Nos. 3 through 12 were not view impairing trees as they were planted further down the slope and had not grown into the view in 1965. Staff polled the Planning Commissioners, and all Commissioners present had visited both the applicant and foliage owner's properties. City Attorney Lynch noted that Chairman Gerstner lives within 500 feet of the subject property and is therefore recusing himself from this hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked the City Attorney if there is a lot in 1948 with several trees on it, does that entitle a person with certain view rights and, by simply dividing the property in 1965, does that person then lose those rights. .City Attorney Lynch explained that the City is taking the position that any time a lot is divided one loses the integrity of the original lot by creating two new lots. She further explained that the argument being made was that the original lot was created in 1948, and the applicant is making his view claim based on the 1948 lot, though the lot was split in 1965. She stated that she could find no basis in the law for that interpretation. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed that this property was divided in 1965. He asked the City Attorney to explain why the year the lot was sold would not be a better year to determine the height of the trees, since those were the conditions the two parties were operating under in regards to the height of the trees. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2007 Page 2 City Attorney Lynch explained that the Ordinance specifies that the foliage that is significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the Planning Commission would be allowed to consider what the buyer and sellers intent was in 1969 in regards to how high the trees should be. City Attorney Lynch answered that this should not be considered, explaining that the parties could always enforce their private agreement in civil court, and it is not within the purview of the Planning Commission or City Council to make a determination about an agreement. Commissioner Lewis noted that the applicant is planning to add a major addition to his home and asked if that should be relevant to the Planning Commission's analysis. He also asked what consequences the Planning Commission's decision will have in regards to future view analysis from this property and which location on the newly built house the view analysis would be done. City Attorney Lynch explained that the Ordinance states that once a view analysis is done, the viewing area is established. In this situation, where a major addition and remodel will take place, any future view analysis will have to be done from essentially the same location. She noted, however, that the City has.not yet had the situation come up where a viewing area is established in a case and subsequently the house is significantly remodeled and a new view case comes before the City where a viewing area needs to be established. She stated that the plans for the future addition and remodel are irrelevant to the decision that the Planning Commission is to make regarding this case. Commissioner Karp asked if the Planning Commission should take into account the extreme fire hazard created by the trees. City Attorney Lynch answered that is not one of the findings to be made, unless there are diseased or dead trees which would be addressed through code enforcement. .Commissioner Knight opened the public hearing. Dr. Ralph Allman (applicant) gave a brief history of the two lots and when the trees were planted on these lots. He displayed the aerial photograph and explained that he showed this picture to an aerial photograph expert who felt that length of the dark area on the photograph in front of the house in the north/south direction is not representative of a single tree, but rather two or three trees. He did not think that staff could make an accurate determination of how tall these trees were in 1965 from the 1961 aerial photograph. He explained that the new house being proposed on the lot will stay in the Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2007 Page 3 same pad area as the existing house. He stated that he is in agreement with staff's recommendation regarding trees 3 through 12. Leo Poxon 5375 Rolling Ridge Road stated that he moved to his home in 1957 and to the best of his recollection there were no trees in view on anybody's lot. He also stated that he can distinctly remember the original property owner borrowing his shovel to plant the trees in question, however he could not recall the exact year. Helen Graux stated that she and her husband were one of the original owners along Rolling Ridge Road, which they bought in,1947. She stated that at the time they bought there was only dry farming and wheat. She explained that Mr. Walker bought the property from her and divided the property, and then planted on the foliage owners property several small pine trees in milk cartons that they got from the fire department. She stated that the trees were approximately 4 to 6 inches in height at that time. Commissioner Knight asked Mrs. Graux what her address was. Mrs. Graux answered that she lived at 5317 Rolling Ridge Road. She noted that when she bought the property there were absolutely no trees or vegetation on the property and that she planted every tree on the property. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mrs. Graux if she recalled the year these trees were planted. Mrs. Graux answered that the trees were planted in approximately 1965 or 1966. Mrs. Trowbridge (foliage owner) explained that the trees on the property played a role in the design of the home. She stated that there is a view of a tree from every room in the home except three. She also showed pictures of how the trees provide shade to the property. She stated that the trees have been maintained and trimmed on a schedule over the many years she has lived in the home. She pointed out the report from her arborist who estimates the trees on her property to be 40 to 50 years old. She noted pictures showing there are several properties in the neighborhood with trees as tall as or taller than the trees on her property, and also noted that the trees provide a haven for wildlife in the area. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mrs. Trowbridge to comment on the height of the trees in 1965. Mrs. Trowbridge answered that there are photographs showing the trees when the house was under construction in the early 1970's. She noted that the trees on the lot were very tall in 1969 when she bought the lot, which was the motivation for buying the lot. She explained that all of the trees on her lot are part of the design of the house, noting that the tree at the end of the swimming pool is a focal point from the kitchen, family room, and guest bedroom. She stated that the trees to the west provide shade to the house from the afternoon sun. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2007 Page 4 Mr. Trowbridge stated that the trees are very important to him and his wife. Nevertheless, when Dr. Allman began the informal process of view restoration he quickly agreed to lace the trees and lower the crowns. He did not feel Dr. Allman was amenable to any compromise, as he asked that the trees be cut down or removed. He noted that staff has described the proposal for trimming the trees as somewhat aggressive, and he did not think this was a fair treatment of him and favored one party over another. He felt that the property will be ruined if the staff recommendations go through. He felt that he has fulfilled the burden of proof by showing that the trees have been in place prior to the lot being subdivided. Oliver Enders 5319 Bayridge Road explained that this property is just to the south of the applicant and foliage owners properties. He stated that the Allmans have been very generous in keeping their vegetation trimmed back out of his view and that the Trowbridges have not been very willing to keep their trees trimmed down. Mr. Allman (in rebuttal) stated that he was hoping the Planning Commission would allow the two largest view impairing trees, tree Nos. 1 and 2, to be included in the trimming. He felt that the trees on the Trowbridge property have grown to the point where they are economically impairing the view from his property, which is economically impairing the value of his lot. Mr. Trowbridge (in rebuttal) stated that of everyone in the room, he and his wife have the most to lose, and feel their property will be destroyed. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Trowbridge if he was in disagreement with all of staff's recommendations for tree Nos. 1 through 12, or just tree Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Trowbridge answered that tree Nos. 1 and 2 are protected under staff's analysis. He felt that the overall affect of staff s recommendation would be to cut all of the trees down to much less than what is safe, and they will die. He stated that replacement trees will not in any way replace the trees that are at the property now. Commissioner Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis asked staff, if the Planning Commission were to determine that .tree Nos. 1 and 2 did not block views at the time of the lot creation, would staff be prepared at this meeting to give an opinion as to what should happen to those two trees, or would further analysis be needed. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that staff is prepared to offer a recommendation for the two trees if the Planning Commission determines that they did not block a view at the time the lot was created, however there is no resolution drafted with this recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2007 Page 5 Commissioner Lewis asked staff if lacing trees as opposed to crown reduction or raising had been considered. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that staff recommends lacing the peripheral trees. He stated that lacing alone would not be effective for the view given he number of trees on the property. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that there has been testimony that the trees may have been planted later than thought, and asked staff if this would change their opinion on tree Nos. 1 and 2 and whether or not, given the later planting dates, they were view impairing trees when the lot was created. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that there is still the 1961 aerial photograph which suggests tree Nos. 1 and 2 were above the applicant's pad level of the lot, and given 4 more years of growth, the two trees would be at a view impairing height. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that staff is relying on the 1961 photo, and if he were to have trouble with that 1961 photo, and not want to rely on the photo but rather on the year of planting, then it might be close. Senior Planner Alvarez agreed and also felt that rapid growth rate of an Aleppo pine tree would also have to be figured in when calculating the height. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they took into consideration the view of the golf course when making their recommendations for certain.trees. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that the applicant was seeking a view of the ocean and shoreline and the staff's recommendations to trim certain trees were meant to open a view of the ocean and shoreline. Commissioner Lewis felt this was difficult, in that by granting relief to the applicant it could cause emotional, devastating harm to the neighborhood and will with great certainty affect the feel and value of the foliage owner's home. He felt that these trees do create shade and cool the foliage owner's home, however he did not think these things could be considered in reviewing this application. Therefore, he was able to make the necessary findings, and would go one step further, and based on the .testimony given at this hearing, could possibly determine that tree Nos. 1 and 2 did not block the views at the time the lot was created. Commissioner Ruttenberg was also convinced that the trees on the property are very important to the Trowbridges, however there are six criteria that must be considered when evaluating this application, and much of what the Trowbridges discussed are not within those six criteria. He also felt he is bound by the way the Ordinance is written with respect to foliage impairing a view or not implies a view at the time the lots were created. He stated that there has been direct testimony that the trees were planted in approximately 1957. Given that, he did not believe that tree Nos. 3 through 12, being Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2007 Page 6 down slope, would be to the level required to be view impairing in 1965. With regards to tree No. 2, he felt the photograph provided by the foliage owner shows the tree is very large and is at a sufficient size to be view impairing in 1965. He felt that tree No. 1 could go either way in regards to whether or not it was view impairing at the time the lot was created. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the burden of proof and did not feel that the applicant has met the burden of proof in showing how tall these trees were when the lot was created. He felt that the aerial photographs were very difficult to view, however the photographs provided by the foliage owner which showed the trees on the property during construction show some very large trees. He also felt that tree Nos. 6, 7, and 10 look to be approximately the same trunk diameter as tree Nos. 1 and 2 and he was not convinced that these three trees were also not view impairing trees at the time the lot was created. He stated that the foliage owner's home was designed, built, and maintained with respect to the foliage. He referred to the section in the View Restoration Guidelines which discusses the type of action the Commission can take and replacing foliage if certain criteria are met. He discussed these criteria and felt that in this case there is privacy, shade, and landscaping issues that must be considered. He stated that he would like to hear more information on the total impact to the property that removing or trimming these trees will have before making a decision. He suggested information from an arborist as to whether or not these remedial measures will kill the trees, what it will look like, what affect it will have on the home, what a 36 inch box tree looks like, and how long it would take a 36-inch box tree to grow into something functional. Commissioner Karp felt that view restoration decisions such as this are very difficult to make from a meeting room and was all in favor of having a meeting on the properties where the Planning Commissioners can see first hand what is being discussed and how a decision might affect the properties. City Attorney Lynch agreed that information from an arborist would be very helpful, and felt that an arborist may also be able to provide guidance on how quickly these trees may have grown from the time they were planted. Commissioner Knight agreed with staff in regards to the viewing area and that there is a view impact. He empathized with the foliage owners, agreeing that their home was designed with the trees incorporated into the design. He therefore wanted to offer a way that would minimize the impact to the trees and still restore the view. He stated that he could not determine with absolute certainty whether or not trees 1 and 2 were view impairing when the lot was created in 1965. He felt that staff's recommendations for tree Nos. 3 through 12 were reasonable, noting that there is always the option of tree replacement. He felt that there is a narrow view window area, and asked that staff carefully look at trimming options to see if there is any other way to minimize the impact to the foliage owner. He was therefore in favor of continuing the item to resolve the questions raised by the Planning Commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2007 Page 7 Commissioner Lewis moved that the Planning Commission make all of the necessary findings for tree Nos. 3 through 12, but continue the issue as to what relief the foliage owner is entitled to regarding these trees. Further, that an arborist be consulted to discuss alternative remedies to be given to the foliage owner as well as the aging of tree Nos. 1 and 2 and specifically look at the period from 1957 to 1965 to see if that makes a difference in the growth rate of the trees. Finally, that the Planning Commission meet at both the foliage owner and applicant's sites to better understand the situation on the two properties, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Ruttenberg was adamantly opposed to meeting at the site. He felt it was a horrible precedent to set, as other view restoration applicants and foliage owners will want the same consideration. He felt that the arborist should be at the next meeting, if possible, with all of the information the Commission has requested and that should be enough information for the Planning Commission to make an informed decision. Commissioner Tetreault agreed and expressed his concerns about setting precedence, however he felt that this particular case was very complex and that meeting at the site for this one case would be helpful to him. Commissioner Lewis did not think the site visit would any value to the determination that there is view impairment or that there was view impairment at the time the lot was created. He felt that the site visit would help in determining remedy for the situation. He stated that because of the unique situation of this property, he did not feel any precedence would be set. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion make all of the necessary findings for trees 3 through 12, but continue the issue as to what relief the foliage owner is entitled to regarding these trees. Further, that an arborist be consulted to discuss alternative remedies to be given to the foliage owner in terms of replacement and/or trimming as well as the aging of trees 1 and 2 and specifically look at the period from 1957 to 1965 to see if that makes a difference in the growth rate of the trees, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Ruttenberg dissenting. 2. Conditional Use Permit and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00533) 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. At this time Chairman Gerstner took his seat with the Planning Commission. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Conditional Use Permit and Grading Permit. She stated that all of the necessary findings could be made and staff was recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Grading Permit as discussed in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2007 Page 8 Commissioner Lewis noted several omissions in the Resolution, and staff stated the Resolution will be edited. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Ramon Salazar (representing Verizon Wireless) explained the scope of the project, noting that there is very little difference in looks other than the parapet wall will be extended three feet. Commissioner Knight noted that the application requests 10 additional antennas, however,it also states that there will be no additional coverage, and asked Mr. Salazar to clarify this. Mr. Salazar referred to a map provided by Verizon Wireless which shows the additional area of coverage this proposal will provide. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendations as presented and that a Resolution be presented to the Planning Commission at the next meeting which reflects the proper findings and includes the other omissions noted, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). 3. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2007-00134): 3324 Seaclaire Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings and was therefore recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. She noted that the applicant has made a modification to the design of the proposed residence, resulting in a slightly lower structure, and that the silhouette currently at the site does not reflect that change. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Lisa Vavic 3324 Seaclaire Drive (applicant) explained that the City Geologist has .determined that there is no reason for the Open Space Hazard Line to be placed in its current location, and explained that most likely when the City incorporated aerial maps were viewed and wherever very steep slopes were observed it was designated Open Hazard. She explained that the goal for the remodel was to open up the interior of the house so that the family can be together, as well as an office area for her husband who works from the home. She explained that the height of the house has been modified, as she did not want to create view or privacy issues for her neighbors. Commissioner Knight asked what the purpose of the loft would be and if it was essential to the home. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2007 Page 9 Mrs. Vavic answered that the purpose of the loft would be an office for her husband and she felt it is essential to the design of the house. Joanne Antall 31316 Eaglehaven Circle explained that the homes in this area were all built to preserve views for the neighboring homes. She stated that this proposed addition will have a privacy impact on her home from the proposed loft affecting her living room, dining room, master bedroom, and master bathroom. Commissioner Lewis asked Ms. Antall if,the elimination of the window that looks into her yard or the use of translucent glass would address her concerns. Ms. Antall answered that her concern is there is a certain integrity throughout the neighborhood and the loft itself represents a component of that, explaining that the homes were laid out so there was not a structure rising up into another's open space view area. Commissioner Knight asked Ms. Antall if she had a concern with view impairment, privacy, or both. Ms. Antall answered both, explaining that privacy is her main concern followed by view impairment. She was also concerned about what this addition will do to her property value. She also noted that this will set a precedent for other neighbors to propose two story additions on their properties. Commissioner Karp asked Ms. Antall how much this loft will block her view. Ms. Antall explained that she will still be able to see Catalina and the ocean, but it will impair her closer view of the shoreline. She noted that since Mrs. Vavic has stated that they have lowered the height, because the current silhouette does not reflect the lowered height, she has no way of determining how much of her view will be impaired. Karen Antall Idell (co-owner of 31316 Eaglehaven court) stated that once the view from the residence is altered it cannot be restored and is gone forever. She asked how this is weighed, and wants to make sure the value of the home is retained. .Lisa Vavic (in rebuttal) explained that it is the master bathroom that has the biggest view impairment, and that is not a protected view. She stated that she has worked very hard to minimize the impact to the neighborhood and felt that her proposed house will add value to the neighborhood. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mrs. Vavic if the existing silhouette shows the proposed height of the residence, or if there has been a revision since that silhouette was constructed. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2007 Page 10 Mrs. Vavic explained that the silhouette was erected at the originally proposed height, but after looking at the view from Mrs. Antall's residence, she asked her architect to lower the loft as much as possible. She stated that her architect has since lowered the height approximately 18 inches. Commissioner Knight asked if there were any other changes made that are not reflected in the current set of plans. Mrs. Vavic answered that there are none that she is aware of. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis referred to a photograph provided by staff and asked if the shaded area represents the view impairment based on the original plan before the height of the addition was reduced by 18 inches, as indicated by the applicant. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the shaded area represents view impairment based on the silhouette as constructed. She added that the revised plan submitted by the applicant shows a ridge height that has been lowered by approximately 8 inches. She explained that the applicant has stated that she has lowered the ridge height even more, approximately 18 inches, however that is not yet reflected on revised plans. Commissioner Knight noted that privacy is looked at from abutting neighbors only, and asked if the home at 31316 Eaglehaven Court is considered an abutting neighbor. Assistant Planner Kim answered that 31316 Eaglehaven Court is not considered an abutting neighbor. Commissioner Knight asked if staff was able to determine if any shoreline view would be impaired by this proposed addition. Assistant Planner Kim explained that staff was not able to see a shoreline or horizon view because of the foggy weather, and added that the pictures in the staff report represent an approximate horizon line. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendation regarding the zone .change and General Plan amendment only, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (6-0). Commissioner Lewis felt that the addition to the residence was modest and respectful of the neighborhood. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the Height Variation and Site Plan Review as recommended by staff. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2007 Page 11 Commissioner Tetreault found the proposed addition compatible with the neighborhood, however he questioned the view impact to the neighbor at 31316 Eaglehaven Court. He explained that he has not been to the Eaglehaven Court home to assess the view impact and felt that he should do so before making a decision on this addition. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed. He stated that he also had no problem with the design of the proposed addition or the proposed loft. His concern was the possible view impairment, but was confused as to the actual height of the proposed addition and how that related to the currently constructed silhouette. He felt that the loft portion of the silhouette should be redone to accurately reflect the height. He was also concerned that, because of the weather, there is not a true horizon line shown on the photographs, and that if the true horizon is lower it could make a difference as to what percentage of the view might be obstructed from this proposed addition. Commissioner Karp did not think the proposed addition was compatible with the neighborhood, specifically the dome. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to September 25, 2007 to allow the applicant the opportunity to re-silhouette the property to accurately show the height of the proposed addition so that view impairment can be more accurately accessed from 31316 Eaglehaven Court, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Lewis did not feel, based on the current.silhouette, that there is a significant view impact to the home at 31316 Eaglehaven Court. He added that it would behoove that property owner to make her home available to staff in order to take accurate pictures and assess the view from the rooms in the home. Commissioner Knight stated that the loft element of the design is not offensive to him, however he was concerned that there is no other element like it in the neighborhood. He agreed that there are enough issues with the view and the silhouette that the Planning Commission needs clarification before making a decision. He requested that at the September 25th meeting all proposed changes be shown on the plans. The motion to continue the public hearing to September 25, 2007 was approved, (6-0). 5. Extreme Slope Lot Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2007-00311) Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the proposed code amendment and that the purpose of the code amendment is to codify a practice and policy that has been in effect for many years. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2007 Page 12 Commissioner Knight felt it was somewhat inequitable if someone wanted to add 1,000 square feet to an existing home, which would be a discretionary decision, while a new home on the vacant lot next door can be built by right without the discretionary approval. Associate Planner Fox explained that existing homes built on extreme slope lots were most likely built before City incorporation and therefore built without the need for a Variance. He explained that the department policy has been to allow new homes being proposed on the same type of lot to also be approved without the need for a Variance. He noted that any new home proposal will staff have to go through the neighborhood compatibility process and meet other requirements of the City. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 200707-52, thereby forwarding a recommendation of approval of the proposed extreme slope lot code amendment to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (6- 0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of July 24, 2007 Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (4-0-2) with Commissioners Knight and Tetreault recused since they were not present at that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of August 28, 2007 The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the Pre-Agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:32 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 14,2007 Page 13