Loading...
PC MINS 20080513 App oved June 10, 08 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 13, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:12 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, City Attorney Lynch, Associate Planner Fox, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to remove Agenda Item No. 1 from the Consent Calendar and to hear Agenda Item No. 3 ahead of Agenda Item No. 2. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed a revised Resolution and related correspondence for Agenda Item No. 1; one letter and revised plans for Agenda Item No. 3; and one letter related to Agenda Item No. 4. .Commissioners Knight, Ruttenberg, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam disclosed that they performed a site visit for Agenda Item No. 3. Vice Chairman Lewis reported that he was contacted by a resident regarding Agenda Item No. 1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Appeal of City Staff's determination that the FLS summer program violates Condition No. 9 of Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision C City Attorney Lynch presented a brief staff report, explaining that staff had prepared a Resolution for the Planning Commission's consideration, but had received revisions from both Commissioner Ruttenberg and the attorney for Marymount College. Therefore, the revised Resolution presented to the Commission contains revisions from both. She stated that the Planning Commission should decide which Resolution or additional comments most accurately reflect the factors upon which the Planning Commission based its decision in reversing the staff's determination and upholding the appeal. Director Rojas noted that there are public speakers for this item, and that although the public hearing was closed, the public can speak on the item as long as comments are limited to the Resolution and the issue of whether or not the Resolution accurately reflects the Planning Commission's decision. Joe Burn (representing Marymount College) stated that Marymount College is satisfied with the revised Resolution and he was available to answer any questions that might arise. Jim Gordon felt that the revised Resolution accurately reflects his concerns and focuses on the reasons the Planning Commission made its decision. Commissioner Knight did not recall that the definition of commercial use was included in the motion, and asked staff to clarify, as he had some issues with using the actual land use definition of commercial use. City Attorney Lynch explained that the definition was not put in the motion, however she recalled a discussion where the Planning Commission felt this use was not commercial but more educational. Commissioner Knight asked if there were errors in the original draft Resolution, which was the reason for the revised Resolution. City Attorney Lynch answered that the concern was that staff was too focused on stating some of the history and focusing on the distinction that staff had made about the whether or not this was a separate entity on the campus. She stated that the Planning Commission's focus was more on whether this was an educational type of use that is consistent with Condition No. 9. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt the modified Resolution as presented by staff, thereby overturning staff's determination and upholding the appellant's appeal by determining that the summer FLS International program is not a commercial use nor a sub-lease use of the college campus and is therefore not in Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2008 Page 2 violation of Condition No. 9 of the Conditional Use Permit No. 9, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner Commissioner Tetreault stated that he still has some concerns with the Resolution, particularly with Section 1. He explained that his concern was that the Resolution was going further than needed, noting that in Section 1 there is a statement referring to surfing and cinema as educational. He did not think that making a finding that surfing and cinema are educational should be included and would like to see that taken out of the Resolution. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that since the testimony at the last meeting was that the surfing was not held in this City, he agreed that it was not necessary to include surfing in the Resolution. However, he preferred to leave cinema in, as the classes were held within this city. He therefore modified his motion to exclude surfing. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he did not have a definite pro or con on the subject, but wanted to point out that both of the high schools in the City offer surfing as an activity and offer courses in cinema and television production. Commissioner Tetreault also noted in Section 1 a statement that the program introduces students to various activities, all of which are educational in nature. He felt the statement "all of which" was too broad, and did not feel it needed to be included in the Resolution. City Attorney Lynch suggested a modification that read "The evidence in the record demonstrates the program, which includes ESL instruction and instruction in other activities such as cinema, are educational in nature." Commissioner Ruttenberg was satisfied with staff's revised language. Vice Chairman Lewis felt that the statement should be more direct and simply state that the program is educational in nature. City Attorney Lynch felt it was important to say which components are educational, as it is required to state the basis of the decision being made. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to amend his motion to modify Section 1 to include the language suggested by the City Attorney, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Knight commented on Section 2, stating that he did not feel the land use definition of commercial use applied in this case. Commissioner Gerstner asked Commissioner Knight what definition of commercial use was more appropriate than the one found in the Municipal Code. Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2008 Page 3 Commissioner Knight explained that it was not the content of the definition being used, but the context in which it was being used that he objected to. He explained that in this particular condition No. 9 his understanding was that the context was the facilities at Marymount would be used by an independent contractor who would hire their own teachers and provide their own educational material, using Marymount facilities in coordination with Marymount College. He stated the primary separation would be that the usage is not generated by Marymount College and their own registration. He felt what was being addressed this evening is the content. Commissioner Tetreault explained that he will be satisfied if this motion passes, however he was going to vote no on the motion. He explained that he did not want the vote to be unanimous because he wanted the City Council to see there is a concern about the vagueness of the Conditional Use Permit. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-17 as modified was approved, (5-2) with Commissioners Knight and Tetreault dissenting. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 68796, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Variance, Site Plan Review & Environmental Assessment (Case Nos. SUB2007-0003 & ZON2007-00072): 28220 Highridge Road Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, noting that a corrected set of plans have been distributed, and noting the changes made to these plans. He explained that at the previous hearing, the Planning Commission had requested additional information from the applicant and staff. He stated that, while much of the information has been provided, there are some items that remain outstanding and staff needs additional time to review these materials. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue this matter after receiving additional information that is available at this time. He briefly reviewed the items that were discussed at the close of the last meeting and the current status of those items, as discussed in the staff report. Vice Chairman Lewis asked staff if the Via la Cima homes considered adjacent properties, even though they are across the street. Associate Planner Fox responded that the definition of adjacent includes properties located across the street. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked about the Planning Commission's authority under the Conditional Use Permit. He noted that the information in the staff report was now a significant change from what was presented to the Planning Commission at the last meeting. Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2008 Page 4 City Attorney Lynch explained that staff posed the question and she researched the uses permitted as a matter of right that do not require a Conditional Use Permit as well as uses permitted that require a Conditional Use Permit, which requires certain findings be made. She stated that for a condominium project there is discretion and the Planning Commission is required to make the findings regarding eliminating, to the extent possible, any adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if in making that finding if the Planning Commission is allowed to consider height and bulk and mass. City Attorney Lynch answered that the Planning Commission should consider height and bulk and mass. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the 36-foot "by right" height limit was still valid. City Attorney Lynch explained that since this is a condominium project the Code requires the Planning Commission to make the finding regarding eliminating any adverse impacts on adjacent properties, and therefore they have the ability to make adjustments for bulk, mass, and adverse impacts. She noted that there is no by-right height limit for a condominium project. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Zaffar Hassanally (applicant) stated that he has lived in, and has been a part of this community for many years. He also stated that he wants to be a good neighbor and has made many changes to the plans since the last hearing. Dan Withee (architect) began by explaining he increased the amount of trees and shrubs in the landscaping in the front of the project, and if the project goes forward he will have a landscape architect design the landscaping for the project. He discussed the permeable paving, explaining that there won't be a problem using it around the pool area, however there may be problems in other areas such as the parking area. He discussed traffic, noting that the city's traffic engineer did not feel there will be an impact to certain intersections in the City. In discussing roof equipment, he noted that he had wanted to use photovoltaic equipment which will have flat panels on the roofs. He discussed the view issue, and explained that he looked at lowering the building. He noted that the biggest problem with lowering the building would be that he could no longer surface drain the water from the property to the street. He also explained that the ramp to the garage would have to be longer, which would push the garage and building farther back and into views. He stated that he went to units 6, 7, and 9 on Via la Cima and he felt that lowering the buildings would not do anything to enhance the views from these units, noting that the city light view will be lost no matter what is built and it is only the far mountain view the he considered. He explained that this project was started well over a year ago and designed with the understanding that their building could be 36 feet high by right, as explained by staff. He didn't feel it was fair to change the rules at this late stage. Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2008 Page 5 Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he visited unit 7 on Via la Cima and was very concerned with the view impact from that unit. He felt that this proposed project has been designed to get the most views from the new units as possible and that the consideration was view and cost rather than there might be another way to configure the building in order to reduce the view impacts to adjoining neighbors. He questioned how the development down the street, which has approximately 250 units, can be built low and this project can't. Mr. Withee explained that the lot is a different configuration and the adjacent project has more room to do more with the grading. He stated that he has dropped this proposed building down as far as he feels he can to still maintain drainage. He also explained that the configuration is the way it is because of fire department issues and subterranean issues. He stated that he looked at other configurations, but these configurations were not feasible. D.W. Hagenburger 6 Via la Cima thanked the Commissioners for coming to the different units to see how the views will be impacted by this proposed project. He explained that the primary viewing area from the homes on Via la Cima is not the deck where staff and the applicant took pictures, but inside the home. He questioned why the developer has to have 27 units and can't redesign the building with a lesser number of units. He stated that he knows a building will be built at this site and that residents on Via la Cima will lose a portion of their view, however they are not prepared to lose the large area of view under this current proposal. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Hagenburger what he felt would be fair in terms of the type of building built versus the views from Via la Cima. Mr. Hagenburger felt that if the third floor were removed, some restitution of the city light and mountain view was provided, and the building was possibly lowered by additional grading then the residents on Via la Cima would feel more comfortable. He added that their objective was not to stop the project, but rather would like to see a building that does not block the resident's views. Commissioner Knight noted that to do additional grading to lower the height of the building, additional truck traffic and work will result and he asked Mr. Hagenburger if that was something that the community would be willing to accept. Mr. Hagenburger answered that would be acceptable. Karen Hagenburger 6 Via la Cima, discussed how this proposed project will take away her view of the sunrise which she enjoys every morning. Mike Conner 10 Via la Cima mentioned the view impairment, excess bulk and mass, and increase traffic and congestion this project will cause. He was hopeful that now that Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2008 Page 6 this project does not have to be 36 feet in height by-right, that there will be some leeway and compromise in the design. Nina Ito 4 Via la Cima stated that the reason she bought her home was for the view and would be very unhappy if she lost it. She noted that the proposed project would block the view she currently has of Long Beach. She asked that the Planning Commission do what is discretionarily allowed to reduce the size, bulk, and mass of the proposed project to help protect the views of the residents on Via la Cima. Shimpei Ito 4 Via la Cima stated that he has a panoramic view from Long Beach to Malibu and that the proposed plan will completely block his view of Long Beach. He asked the Planning Commission to take the views, which are very important to the residents, into consideration when making their decision. Mery Resinq 7 Via la Cima felt that his home will be the most impacted by this proposed project. He stated that he had personally knocked on at least sixteen doors and not one of the residents had received a notice for this proposed project. He stated that he and several other neighbors are not only concerned with the view issue, but also parking. He questioned where the construction vehicles will park during construction. Nancy Bradley 2 Via la Cima stated that her view is not impacted, but her neighbor's views are. She felt that the proposed structure is too large, too tall, and did not show enough landscaping to be pleasing. She felt this building looks more like a hotel than a high-scale condominium project. Dick Baker expressed his concern over the loss of view and the bulk and mass of the proposed project. Carl He"na 1 Via la Cima stated that his view is not impacted, but he is speaking in support of his neighbors. He asked that the Planning Commission take his neighbors views into consideration when looking at this project. Barry Smith 5 Via la Cima stated that his concern was view impairment, noting that the proposed project was much too tall and should be lowered. He questioned why the City can't measure the 36 foot height of the new building be measured from the lowest point on the property. He was concerned with traffic impacts, noting that there is already a high density of cars using Highridge Road throughout the day. Marlene Resinq 7 Via la Cima brought pictures taken from her residence of the view on a clear day. She invited the Planning Commissioners to call her any time to see the view from her residence during the day and at night with the city lights. She questioned if the architect has explored all of the options to lower the building and noted that the Highridge Apartments has underground parking and no problem with the Fire Department access or drainage. She felt that this project could be redesigned to lessen the impacts to the neighbor's views. Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2008 Page 7 Barbara Sloan Smith 5 Via la Cima stated that the loss of view and impact to the Via la Cima neighborhood because of this proposed project has significant adverse affects. She stated that she will lose her view of Mt. Baldy and a significant amount of the city light view. Helen Banos 17 Via Sevilla stated that she shares the concerns of the other speakers. She was very concerned with the traffic and the potential increase, noting that there are quite a few children that walk on the street during school hours. Claudia Smith 3 Via la Cima stated that her view will not be impacted, but she felt her property value will go down because of the development. She understood what the architect was trying to design but felt that it could still be achieved by lowering the height of the buildings. Jacob Chanq stated he was representing the Rolling Hills Seventh Day Adventist Church. He explained that the church was concerned that the contractors would be using the church parking lot and church property to park their vehicles and store some of the construction materials. He also noted that the increased traffic would make it difficult to exit the church parking lot. Zaffar Hassanally (in rebuttal) explained that before he bought the property he checked with the City and was told that by right he could have a building up to 36 feet in height and the property is zoned for twenty seven units. He stated that today is the first time he has heard that these parameters have changed. He understood the neighbors' concerns and stated that he will continue to work with the neighbors to address their concerns. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Hassanally how many of the top third floor units will have a view. Mr. Hassanally answered that there are three third floor units, and two of the three will have views. Commissioner Knight discussed the construction traffic and safety issues, and asked staff who will monitor the safety issues in terms of construction traffic along Highridge Road. Associate Planner Fox answered that it will be a combination of the Building Official and the Public Works Department. He added that in response Mr. Chang's concern that the church parking lot would be used by the contractors for parking, he explained that the contractors could not use any portion of private property for any reason without the express permission of the property owner. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff how the number of needed parking spaces is determined for the project. Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2008 Page 8 Associate Planner Fox explained that parking requirements are based on bedroom count. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there was a way that the required fire road access could be put in the setback area on the boundary of the property line. Associate Planner Fox stated that he knew of projects within the City that have fire lanes around the perimeter of the property, however he did not think he was qualified to state whether or not this would be permissible for this project. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff how the applicant could have been told there was a thirty-six foot by right height limit for building on this property and only tonight he learns that it may be something different. Director Rojas explained that there is a thirty-six by right foot height limit in this zone, which was conveyed to the applicant, and the applicant designed the building to meet this height limit. However, at the last Planning Commission meeting a number of residents expressed concerns regarding views, which raised the question as to whether or not the building can be lowered. It was determined by staff and the City Attorney that there is a Conditional Use Permit finding that would allow the building to be lowered, and that determination was relayed to the applicant last week. Commissioner Knight stated that after reading the letter from Dan Bolton regarding the permeable pavement and his concerns regarding geologic issues, he was satisfied to leave the issue to the discretion of staff to see what permeable paving could be installed. Regarding placement of mechanical equipment on the roof, he felt that the placement of photovoltaic equipment should be allowed. Regarding the 36 foot by right height limit, he felt that the Planning Commission does have discretion under the Conditional Use Permit to limit the height of the project, and felt that currently the height, bulk, and mass are all issues with regards to the view impacts to the neighbors at Via la Cima. Vice Chairman Lewis was sympathetic to the applicant in that they may have been misled by staff as to the 36 foot by right height limit, however he did not think the Planning Commission had the discretion to consider that when making their findings and decisions, and he was not going to consider what the applicant had been told by the City for the past year when making his decision. He was looking forward to staff's report regarding the view issues, noting however that 6 and 7 Via la Cima have significant view impacts from their homes and unless something significantly different happens he will not be able to support the project as proposed. Commissioner Tetreault was also sympathetic to the applicant regarding the 36 foot by right height limit, but stated that he cannot ignore the Development Code and regulations regarding the evaluation of a Conditional Use Permit. He stated that he cannot waive the rights of the rest of the community based upon some misinformation that was given to an applicant. He was concerned that one of the design parameters Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2008 Page 9 used by the applicant seems to have been how many units can fit onto this square footage of land. He felt that the project was designed to use the most allowable lot coverage and to be as high as high as possible to fit the most number of units onto the lot. He felt that this project will most likely have to be scaled back to reduce the view impacts to the neighbors. Commissioner Tomblin was troubled with the City Attorney's opinion regarding the 36- foot by right height limit. He felt that if it was represented to the applicants when they bought this land that they could build something up to 36 feet in height, that they should be allowed to do so. He felt there were too many inconsistencies and questions that need to be clarified regarding the height limit. However, he explained that he has problems with the design of the project, and agreed with Commissioner Tetreault that it looks like it was designed to fit as much square footage onto the lot as possible. He explained that he can support 27 units on the property, but cannot support the amount of square footage currently proposed which contributes to the view impact to the neighboring residents. He stated that he would like to see the penthouse units, or possibly the entire third floor eliminated and the area redesigned. He added that he would also like to see the fire access and parking redesigned. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that the City Attorney has said the Planning Commission now has discretion regarding the height of this building, and he plans on using that discretion. He felt that he might be able to support a project that is lowered out of the view of the neighbors, but was unable to say how much he thought the project should be lowered. Commissioner Gerstner was also sympathetic to the applicant. He felt that, given the height of the project, it did not appear that the Planning Commission would be able to approve the project as currently designed. He explained that in order to reduce the significant view impact to the neighbors, a majority of the building would have to be less than three stories in height. He stated that to do this, there needs to be some significant design changes to the structure. He noted that this will most likely increase the lot coverage and that some of these design changes may not be agreeable to the neighbors. He asked that everyone try to work together to reach a compromise in this situation. Chairman Perestam generally agreed with the comments made by the Commissioners. .He asked staff, that when doing their view analysis, they include to the best of their ability, the height at which there is a view impact to the different residents. He also explained that he will not support the currently proposed median cut for the left turn, as he felt it created a dangerous situation. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to the June 10, 2008 to allow staff and the applicant the chance to address issues that have been brought up by the speakers and the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2008 Page 10 Associate Planner Fox noted that because of the scope of changes, staff and the applicant agree that June 10th may not give them enough time, especially if the Planning Commission would like the project re-silhouetted. He therefore suggested that the public hearing be continued to the June 24th meeting, or to a meeting from that date. Commissioner Knight modified the motion to continue the public hearing to June 24, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). 2. Residential Development Standards code amendment & zone change Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, reporting on the additional research staff had done in regards to subdivision potential under the suggested change in the RS-4 zoning to the RS-5 zoning in the Eastview area. Commissioner Tetreault moved to accept staff's recommendations, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Chairman Perestam recalled from the last meeting that the Planning Commission had discussed not approving the proposed zone change because the proposed overlay district would give the flexibility they were looking for. Associate Planner Fox recalled there was discussion about that at the previous meeting, however he did not recall that being the consensus. He pointed out that the overlay district would only give the flexibility in the actual areas covered by the overlay and not the entire RS-4 zoning district. The motion to accept staff's recommendation for the RS-4 zoning district was approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox explained that at the last meeting there was a question regarding the flag lots and why Councilman Gardner had asked the Planning Commission to look at the issue. He explained that staff had looked at the video of the City Council meeting and also provided the definitions of"driveway" and "private street", and explained staff's recommendation as written in the staff report. Commissioner Knight was concerned about the use of the term "reciprocal easement" as used in staff's recommendation and didn't feel it should be used in this circumstance. Associate Planner Fox referred to page 12 of the staff report, which is the language staff is recommending, and suggested striking the word "reciprocal" and simply say "an access easement". Commissioner Tetreault moved to approved staff's recommendation (alternative No. 2) with the deletion of the word "reciprocal", seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2008 Page 11 Associate Planner Fox reported on the next topic, which was the minimum driveway area and explained the recommendations made by the Committee. Commissioner Gerstner asked what the intent of this revision was. Chairman Perestam recalled the intent was to help provide parking outside of the garage, but off the street. Commissioner Knight questioned the phrase "adjacent to the garage" and asked staff if they would be lenient enough to allow parking adjacent to the house. Director Rojas stated that if the Planning Commission would like to maintain the flexibility to allow the Director to look at cases where there may be some unique circumstances and have residents not have to apply for a Variance, then he would suggest taking out the phrase "adjacent to the garage". Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt the Committee's recommendation (alternative No. 1) as modified by striking the phrase "adjacent to the garage" in each instance it occurs, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (7- 0). Associate Planner Fox reported the next topic was driveway landscape buffers, and explained the Committee recommendations. He explained that staff supports the recommendation, but suggested some additional language as seen in the staff report. Commissioner Knight was concerned that there are some houses in the City where there is a very narrow driveway that leads back to a rear garage. He explained that in some of these houses they wouldn't be able to meet this proposed requirement without possibly doing some type of additional foundation work to the house or applying for a Variance. Associate Planner Fox agreed, and suggested additional language that stated this was in effect provided there is adequate width between the property line and the foundation of any existing primary or accessory structure. Commissioner Knight moved to approve alternative No. 2 as amended by staff, seconded by Chairman Perestam. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox discussed the last topic, tandem parking. He noted that tandem parking is not addressed in the Code and that the Director has made an interpretation that tandem parking spaces could be allowed, but only to provide for excess parking and not to provide the minimum necessary parking requirements for a single family residence. He explained the Committee had recommending allowing tandem parking, but noted that it has been staff's experience that tandem parking spaces are under utilized because they're inconvenient to use. Therefore, staff was recommending retaining the previous interpretation by the Director. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2008 Page 12 Commissioner Knight agreed with staff's recommendation. Chairman Perestam asked if this condition will be different in the proposed overlay district, noting that the original intent started with the need for some flexibility and relief for the smaller homes on the smaller lots. Associate Planner Fox stated that the distinction is not in the current language, but agreed that if there is any place in the City where tandem parking would be appropriate, it would be in that area. Chairman Perestam suggested looking at the approved language for the overlay district. Associate Planner Fox stated he could review the minutes and staff reports to see what the intent was, and report back at the next meeting. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the discussion regarding tandem parking to the next Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Green Building Program Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the request to amend Titles 15 and 17 of the Municipal Code to encourage green building construction. She discussed the proposed volunteer residential green building program, the incentives to participate in this type of program, and proposed city wide green building requirements. She stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission review the proposed voluntary green building program and proposed green related code amendments, provide staff with feedback, and continue the public hearing to June 10, 2008. Vice Chairman Lewis noted that impervious walkways and patios less than 500 square feet in area would be excluded from lot coverage calculations, and asked if that includes decks less than 500 square feet in area. Director Rojas explained that currently decks less than 30 inches in height are excluded from lot coverage calculations and no change is proposed. Commissioner Knight referred to the discussion on roof mounted photovoltaic panels and asked if that also included domestic hot water panels. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the current code amendment only includes photovoltaic panels, however the hot water solar panels could be included in this type of code amendment. Planning Commission Minutes May 13,2008 Page 13 Commissioner Ruttenberg was concerned about the limited incentives the City can offer for those who wish to follow this green program. He questioned what the City can offer and noted it is so limited compared to what the other benefits are in going green, and wondered how important it was for the City to become involved with this type of very detailed program that could turn into a type of bureaucracy in order to provide a little more incentive to people who want to do this. Commissioner Knight didn't know how cumbersome this will be on the City, as this program is based upon a third party rater. He explained that the City's responsibility will be to accept the application and to review the plans to ensure code compliance and that the project will be built according to the specifications and check list. He did not think the intent of the program was to create more bureaucracy, but to encourage residents and developers to consider and use this type of program. Commissioner Gerstner referred to the staff report and the artificial landscaping. He stated that he was not a fan of artificial landscaping and noted that underneath the landscaping is generally an impervious surface, which is contradictory to the previous discussion on limiting impervious hardscape. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt staff's recommendation and continue the public to the meeting of June 10, 2008, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. The motion was unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS 5. Status report on the Salvation Army trail easement issue Director Rojas reported that staff has met with the Salvation Army and the Equestrian Committee and a potential trail easement has been identified that would accommodate a trail. He stated that staff is waiting for the Salvation Army to contact them to discuss the proposed easement. Commissioner Tetreault moved to have another status report submitted to the Planning Commission in 90 days, seconded by Commissioner Knight. The motion was unanimously approved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of April 8, 2008 Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). 7. Minutes of April 22, 2008 Commissioner Knight noted a clarification to page 9 of the minutes. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2008 Page 14 Commissioner Knight moved to adopt the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of May 27, 2008 The Pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:43 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2008 Page 15