Loading...
PC MINS 20100427 Approved May 25, 010 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 27, 2010 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 Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: Commissioner Lewis was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Trester and Associate Planner Mikhail APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the last City Council meeting there were two items on the agenda at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Long that could involve the Planning Commission in the future if pursued by the City Council. One item dealt with a potential amendment to the height variation findings and the other involved a proposal to adopt an FAR Standard for residential projects. Both items were continued to May 18tH Director Rojas distributed five items of correspondence for agenda item No. 2. Commissioner Emenhiser congratulated staff and the Planning Commission on the opening of Trader Joes. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Time extension for Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2008-00266): 29 Oceanaire Drive The Consent Calendar was approved without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Appeal of City Tree Review Permit (Case No. VRP2008-00031): Via Cambron, Via Collado & Berry Hill Drive Associate Planner Trester presented the staff report, explaining the trees involved and the basis for the appeal. She gave a brief background of the permit process for this application, explaining the Director's decision for removal and trimming of certain City owned Canary Island pines. She also showed the view from the applicant's residence on Berry Hill Drive and how the trees impact their view. She gave a summary of the appeal letter statements, noting that the appellants did not feel any trees should be removed but rather laced and/or trimmed to satisfy the view restoration requirement. She explained that staff considered this request, however felt that the only option that would eliminate the significant view impairment from the applicants' viewing areas would be a combination of removal and trimming. Given that staff has not received any new information that would change the revised recommendations, and staff believes the Planning Commission can agree with the Director's revised final recommendation, staff believes the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution included in the staff report. Commissioner Tetreault referred to the arborist's report, noting that the arborist has recommended pruning of tree No. 6, however staff has recommended removal of tree No. 6, and asked why. Associate Planner Trester explained that staff took into consideration the arborist's recommendations as well as where the trees were located in the view, noting that staff looked at how the trees are grouped horizontally as well as layered within the view. Taking all of this into consideration, staff felt that to best eliminate the significant view impairment while still allowing trees to be trimmed and adopted, it would be best to remove tree No. 6. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked if there was a way to trim and thin some of the trees so that removal of the other trees would not be necessary. Associate Planner Trester explained that trimming the trees down will expose the Catalina Island view for one of the applicants, however the trees also need to be trimmed up to expose the view for the other applicant. Therefore, staff felt there would be very little foliage left on these trees, as it is almost opposing solutions in regards to these trees. Planning Commission Minutes April 27,2010 Page 2 Commissioner Emenhiser asked if there has been any correspondence or recommendations from the HOA for this area. Associate Planner Trester referred to the letter from the HOA included in the staff report. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if anyone has expressed an interest in adopting tree Nos. 5, 7, and 10. Associate Planner Trester answered that several residents on the street have expressed interest in adopting the trees. Vice Chairman Tomblin referred to a picture submitted showing the tract when it was first developed and showing no trees. He asked if this picture has any bearing on this decision. Director Rojas explained that the issue of when the trees were planted has no bearing on this case. The issue would exist for view restoration cases but not for this permit. There is only one finding that needs to be made for this case, which is that the trees significantly impair a view. Commissioner Knight noted that there some limitations and restrictions on the Director's decision, and asked if the Planning Commission is bound by those restrictions. Director Rojas explained that unlike the view restoration process which has guidelines, in this situation there is an ordinance that is specific and everyone is bound by this ordinance. The one area where the Commission does have discretion is the issue of significant view impairment and whether any of the trees are eligible for and qualify for adoption. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Marjorie Carter (appellant) felt that the trees in question are part of her view and her neighborhood's view. She considers these trees to be a crucial part of the neighborhood's every day living and wellbeing. She stated they are a haven for birds and other wildlife and these mature trees also provide shade to the residents. She did not feel that replacement trees would be an acceptable substitute for these mature trees. She was willing to accept the effect of a significant trimming to the trees in order to save the trees from destruction. She stated that if the City has jurisdiction over the trees, then why hasn't the City properly maintained these trees over the years. She felt that street tree maintenance is part of her property taxes, and as tax paying residents they have every reason to expect that the City would have taken responsibility for their maintenance. She stated that the neighbors will propose an alternate plan that will be a win-win-win plan, as the views will be restored, the trees will be saved, and the residents will be happy. Planning Commission Minutes April 27,2010 Page 3 Commissioner Knight noted that tree Nos. 9 and 10 are in front of Ms. Carter's home and asked if she would be willing to adopt both of these trees. Ms. Carter answered that she would consider adopting the trees. Nancy Parsons (appellant) stated that she has been told by staff that in view restoration layered trees are not permitted due to their appearing "more dense". She felt that this term is a relative one and is a function of how the trees are trimmed. She noted that this restriction is not in the Municipal Code or in the View Restoration Guidelines. She showed photographs of pine trees that are layered but have been trimmed and laced. In looking at photos taken from 7306 Berry Hill Drive she noted that tree Nos. 8, 9, and 10 are layered, and proposed heavily lacing tree Nos. 9 and 10 and topping tree No. 8 or, alternatively, trimmed it up above the view area. She felt that the other trees can be saved. She noted that tree Nos. 6 and 7 are the smallest trees in the grouping and very narrow, and can be heavily laced. In looking at photos taken from 7315 Berry Hill Drive she noted that tree Nos. 6 and 7 appear layered from this view but appear only as one tree, and therefore do not present as significant a view impairment. She felt these trees could be laced so that their density could be minimized. She felt that tree No. 4 could be saved by topping it down and removal of branches in the view or even by trimming up from the protected area. Ms. Parsons showed a photograph taken from 7306 Berry Hill and noted a significant amount of foliage in the lower view area, perhaps belonging to the applicant. She felt that most of the protected view from this address appears to be hypothetical and the view that is impaired by the trees is a small part of the total view. She felt that this other foliage should be removed first to assess the actual view impairment caused by the trees. She also felt that the City appears to be protecting the view of the sky, which is not protected under the Ordinance. Commissioner Tetreault asked Ms. Parsons what type of costs will be involved in trimming these trees if they are adopted. Ms. Parsons answered that, to the knowledge of the neighborhood residents, none of these City trees have been trimmed in the past. She felt that these trees should all be trimmed, at which point the applicants' properties could be re-evaluated. She stated that, per the City tree maintenance contract, the cost of removal of each tree is $300 per tree, the cost to plant a 24 inch box replacement tree is $200 per tree, for a total cost of $2,000. She explained the cost of tree trimming, noting a potential saving of$1,788. Mike O'Sullivan (appellant) felt it should be apparent to the Commission that when twenty neighbors sign a petition and contribute funds for the appeal, that removal of any of the street trees in the neighborhood does not advance the health, safety, and welfare of the community. He showed a photograph of a Canary Island pine which he felt demonstrates that this type of tree can be topped severely and still recover. He referred to tree Nos. 4 and 8 and explained that these are two of the most healthy and attractive trees in the neighborhood, yet they are designated for removal. He stated that the benefit of the street trees belongs to the entire community. He asked that all of the Planning Commission Minutes April 27,2010 Page 4 trees be designated for permanent adoption, with special attention given to tree Nos. 4 and 8. Barbara O'Sullivan felt the Commission has a heavy responsibility when ordering tree removal, as there is a certain finality involved. Therefore, if there is a way to save any of the trees and give them a chance, she asked that it be done. She added that if the Commission felt that they were too limited by the Code to do what is equitable, then the Commission should go to the City Council to ask for amendments. Rae Wyman stated that Palos Verdes Estates has the highest property values on the Peninsula and Palos Verdes Estates also has the most trees. She stated that Rancho Palos Verdes, when making view restoration decision, discriminates against a group of citizens who are old enough to have been able to grow their trees that are mature enough to be removed. She felt that options have been given to the Commission and that all of the trees do not have to be removed. Dale Levander felt that, in listening to staff, that they have lost room for good judgment. He didn't believe that. He noted that there are only 28 residents in this particular neighborhood and this application affects 12 trees. If four of these trees are removed, that will leave eight trees, and of these eight three more will be seriously trimmed. He asked the Commission to consider these numbers. Beth Bachet stated she does not live in this neighborhood but wanted to share that she recently had a street tree removed from in front of her home. She felt it was an outrage that perfectly healthy trees should be removed at the whim of someone's personal aesthetic. She asked why such a benign and subjective desire take precedence over a vital living organism that contributes to the health and ecological balance of the entire community. She objected to the fact that people can move into the community and then demand that others should comply, pay for, and alter their natural environment to fit one or two individuals. Michael Wiggins stated he lives next to the Marinovich residence and had petitioned the City because of the situation with the trees. He noted that situation has not changed in four years and that he supports staffs recommendation. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Wiggins his definition of significant view impairment and if it equals a tree-free view. Mr. Wiggins answered that his view is completely blocked by the subject trees, as his property is on a slightly lower lot. Penny Fooks stated that she finds the City to be rather disingenuous in the fact that these trees, which are on City property, are never maintained. She felt that to leave a tree unmaintained for years until they become an obstacle in someone's view, and then decide to remove the tree does not seem the appropriate way to go about this. She noted that she has Canary Island pines in her yard that she has severely trimmed on a Planning Commission Minutes April 27,2010 Page 5 regular basis, and they are very healthy trees. Therefore, she felt these City trees could be trimmed even more severely than recommended which will then provide a view for anyone who wants to look through them. She felt that the trees should be trimmed first and the view analyzed before ordering the trees be removed. Tina White stated that she lives on Berry Hill very close to the Marinovich family, and she was in support of staff's recommendations. She stated that when these trees were planted by the City fifty years ago, they were a poor choice and obviously not the right trees to plant. She did not think these were the appropriate trees to have planted 50 years ago, and noted there are many lush, beautiful trees that can replace these trees that have much slower growth rates. She agreed that there is not sufficient maintenance performed on the city trees. Regina O'Melveny stated she is speaking as a Rancho Palos Verdes resident who, over the years, has seen many beautiful street trees removed. She felt that the aesthetics and beauty of the Peninsula has suffered because of it. She understood someone moving into a home with a view and wanting to keep that view, however she questioned new residents who move in and demand that trees be removed so that they can gain a view. She stated that she very much supports the alternative presented by the residents. Cindy Hall mentioned Division 3 of CEQA referring to the quality of the environment to the people of the State. She also discussed some cities in the State that also have ordinances in regards to saving trees. She hoped that a solution could be found that would be equitable for all involved. Robert Hoskins asked that staff and the Commission follow the Code, which gives the authority to prune trees. After the trees have been trimmed then staff can reevaluate the view issues to see if further pruning, trimming, or removal is necessary. Joe Yousefpour (applicant) distributed two pictures to the Commission taken from his property. The first picture was taken in 1989 and he noted there were no pine trees. He noted that picture 2, taken last year, shows multiple pine trees in his view. He stated that when he purchased his home he paid extra to have an ocean, Catalina Island, sunset, and light house views. He felt that these trees are now impairing those views. He asked that the Planning Commission rule to have these pine trees removed and trimmed to restore his view and property values. Larry Marinovich (applicant) showed pictures taken from his residence in the early 1960s, pointing out that there are no trees in his viewing area. He stated that Mr. Wiggins and Ms. White were originally on this application but staff asked them to withdraw their applications. He also noted that there are other families that have expressed interest but were told to wait and see what happens. He stated that his house was recently appraised at a lower value because he no longer has a panoramic view. He stated that he originally wanted all of the trees removed, and still believes that Planning Commission Minutes April 27,2010 Page 6 tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 significantly impacts his sunset and ocean view. He felt that possibly topping and lacing the trees could be sufficient. Pio Perez stated that the trees not only block views, but the roots of tree No. 4 have been the cause of multiple plumbing problems at his property. He stated that the tree is much too big for the area and was in support of the removal of tree No. 4. Velaria Perez quoted a section of the code which states that tree removal is permissible when the tree has caused damage or is likely to cause damage to public or private improvements. She stated that this section of the code is her basis for requesting the removal of tree No. 4. She noted that tree roots caused quite a bit of damage to her garage floor and the area had to be recently repaired. She asked that the City deny the appeal in regards to tree No. 4. Kathy Liberman stated that she and her husband originally wanted to be part of the appeal but were asked to wait to see how the City ruled. She explained that because her property is lower than the others on Berry Hill, she currently has no view. However, if the trees were removed and/or trimmed they would have a view of Catalina Island and the ocean to the right of the island. She felt that staff's recommendation was a very fair compromise for both the residents who live in the neighborhood and to address the views of the residents who live above on Berry Hill Drive. Commissioner Tetreault disclosed that he and Mrs. Liberman are very good friends, however they have never discussed this issue. He felt that he is able to independently judge this application as well as the appeal. Jody Wiggins stated that one of the reasons she bought her home and paid the extra money was for the view, however now it is not a view home, as a large portion of her view of the ocean is being blocked by the trees. Marjorie Carter (in rebuttal) stated that Mr. Perez does not have a problem with a street tree in his view, as the trees are in front of his house and he looks out at the view from the rear of his house. She also questioned if the plumbing problems are actually caused by the roots from these street trees and not from other trees, as he has many trees on his property. Nancy Parsons (in rebuttal) agreed with Ms. Carter that this is a view restoration case and not a plumbing problem case. She felt the view problems can be mitigated in looking at the density of the trees by heavy lacing. She stated that in regards to the height of the trees, the sky is not a protected view, only the ocean and Catalina Island. She felt these views can be restored through heavy lacing of the trees. Mike O'Sullivan (in rebuttal) stated that even if tree No. 4 is cut to the ground the roots are still there and can still invade sewer and plumbing lines. He stated that tree removal is final and asked that the Commission give trimming and lacing a chance before Planning Commission Minutes April 27,2010 Page 7 ordering removal. He noted that some of the trees can be trimmed up above the horizon line so that the ocean view becomes visible under the tree. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Mrs. Perez if she had any rebuttal comments. Velaria Perez explained that she feels the street trees have caused the damage to her plumbing and that they should be removed. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff what recourse there is for a citizen who has a complaint regarding damage to their property that may have been caused by a city owned tree. Associate Planner Trester answered that she has talked to the Public Works Department about this issue, and it was explained that the resident should address the issue with the Public Works Department, at which time they will require certain documentation be submitted to help determine if the damage was indeed caused by and is significant enough to warrant the removal of the street tree. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff, since this is a view case, should the Commission be considering removal of a tree because it may be causing property damage to an adjacent homeowner. Director Rojas answered that is a separate issue, as property damage is not one of the findings. Commissioner Knight noted staffs recommendation for removal and replacement of tree Nos. 5 through 10, and asked staff if there were any particular tree types they were recommending as replacement trees. Associate Planner Trester answered that staff had spoken to Public Works about this issue, as several of the residents have indicated they are not happy with the designated street tree, which is a purple plum tree on Via Cambron and on Via Collado it is the Brazilian Christmas tree. She noted that in the staff report she listed the options for replacement trees that were then recommended by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Knight asked if the neighbors had any input on the tree replacement decision or if the decision will be made solely by the Public Works Department. Associate Planner Trester explained that there is some flexibility with the replacement trees, noting that in past cases there has been input from the neighbors regarding the replacement trees. Commissioner Tetreault questioned who in the neighborhood has shown interest in adopting and being financial responsible for tree Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 9. He also asked, if Planning Commission Minutes April 27,2010 Page 8 the property owner has an objection to a tree being adopted that is directly in front of their home, do they have any rights to do so. Associate Planner Trester explained that the Municipal Code states that the neighbor that is adjacent to the tree has to be in agreement that the city street tree be adopted. As for the adoption of the trees, she noted that she currently has nothing in writing, however several residents have said they would be interested in adopting a tree. Commissioner Tetreault felt that it may make it difficult for the Commission to make a decision on the option of adopting a tree if there are no residents who have committed to adopting a tree. Commissioner Knight suggested that if the Commission does recommend adoption of tree Nos. 6, 8, and 9 and nobody sets forward to adopt these trees, the default would then be their removal. Commissioner Leon stated that his mother lives on Via Cambron, however he has no economic interest in the property which is the reason he feels there is no conflict of interest in his participating in this hearing. Commissioner Leon asked staff why there were homeowners who were encouraged not to participate in this application, and if they did participate would it make any kind of trimming scenario impossible. Associate Planner Trester explained that there were other residents on Berry Hill who had initially submitted an application. However, because there were so many applications and so many views, staff looked at all of the views and made an initial determination that from the viewing points at 7306 and 7315 Berry Hill all of the trees significantly impaired the view. Staff felt that any removal or trimming done to restore these two views would also benefit the other properties on the street to the point where their applications may not be necessary. Commissioner Leon asked staff if they felt that when trimming the trees, a single trimming profile for one tree would work for all of the concerned properties on Berry Hill. Associate Planner Trester felt that, from her recollection of looking at photographs from the other properties, a single trimming profile for one tree would work for the other properties. The only reservation she had was what could potentially still extend into the Catalina Island view in regards to a laced tree. However, the homeowner would still have the option of applying for a permit and asking that the tree be further trimmed. Commissioner Knight moved to approve staff's recommendation, as amended to allow the adoption of tree Nos. 6, 8, and 9 with the contingency that if after the trimming of these trees there is still a significant view impact that corrective measures be taken with the trees to reduce the view impact to a less than significant level. Further, tree No. 4 could be replaced only with the permission of Planning Commission Minutes April 27,2010 Page 9 the Perez family. The Public Works Department would consult with residents as to the type of replacement trees with the understanding that only certain trees will meet the requirements of the Public Works Department for street trees, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Chairman Gerstner asked for some clarification of the motion regarding tree Nos. 6, 8, and 9. He noted that the Director has already determined that these trees are significantly impairing a view and asked if the trees are topped and trimmed if staff felt they would still be significantly impairing a view. Director Rojas explained that staff felt to avoid an unsightly tree or an unsafe tree that is top heavy that the only recourse was thinning. However staff was informed by the applicants that thinning would not solve the view problem. Commissioner Knight stated that his motion was for the adoption of tree Nos. 6, 8, and 9. As to the method of trimming, the Commission has discussed various options including topping to get the Catalina Island view and lacing the lower parts of the trees. He felt that the trees should be handled in the most effective way possible that will still save the tree for adoption. Director Rojas understood the intent to top the trees to restore the Catalina Island view, however he noted that staff feels that lacing the lower portion of the trees would still block some of the ocean view. He asked Commissioner Knight if his intention was that once the topping and lacing was completed if staff was to determine if there is still a significant view impairment. Commissioner Knight felt that in topping and lacing there would be a possibility that there may no longer be significant view impairment caused by these trees. He stated that the option to adopt the trees may not happen until it has been determined that the trimming has reduced the level of impairment to less than significant. Commissioner Knight moved to modify his motion regarding tree Nos. 6, 8, and 9, that they undergo the same trimming recommended for tree Nos. 5, 7, and 10 to be topped and thinned and then to be reevaluated by the Commission in regards to view impact, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Tetreault clarified that in regards to the adoption of tree Nos. 5, 7, and 10, these trees will be adopted up front and those residents would be identified before any trimming occurs. Further, what happens to those trees later on would be the responsibility of those adopted property owners. In regards to tree Nos. 6, 8, and 9 the City is taking the financial responsibility up front for the topping and lacing and if the trees die, for their removal. This gives potential adopters the chance to see if the trees survive the process. Director Rojas agreed, noting however that if no residents step up to adopt tree Nos. 6, 8, and 9 that they will then be removed. Planning Commission Minutes April 27,2010 Page 10 Commissioner Tetreault stated that he can make the finding that tree Nos. 6, 8, and 9 significantly impair a view, but was very much in favor of trying to save these trees. However, he felt that those who are so strongly advocating that these trees should be saved should be the ones who adopt these trees up front and take the financial burden, rather than the City. Therefore, he was opposed to the current motion. Chairman Gerstner stated that what was being sought was someone to sign an agreement to adopt tree Nos. 6, 8, and 9 understanding that the trees will be trimmed, after which the case be reviewed by the Commission to see if the trees still significantly impact a view and, if so, they will be removed whether or not they have been adopted. Director Rojas clarified that the suggestion is to do the same trimming action to tree Nos. 6, 8, and 9 as will be done to tree Nos. 5, 7, and 10, contingent that there is an agreement entered into with the City and an eligible resident to adopt the trees and with the understanding that after the trees have been topped and laced if the City still finds significant view impairment the trees will be removed. Commissioner Knight restated his motion to approve staffs recommendations with the exception of lacing and topping tree Nos. 6, 8, and 9 along with someone adopting those trees, with the understanding that if the Commission finds that after the topping and lacing the trees still significantly block a view they will be removed, and if that is the case the covenant is cancelled. Further, the Public Works Department would consult with residents as to the type of replacement trees with the understanding that only certain trees will meet the requirements of the Public Works Department for street trees. Chairman Gerstner asked about tree No. 4 and if it was only to be replaced with the permission of the adjacent property owner, which is the Perez family. Commissioner Leon asked if tree No. 4 could be topped and laced, similar to the others, to see if it could be saved. He noted that the Perez family could still veto adoption of the tree. Commissioner Knight asked Commissioner Leon if he was suggesting allowing adoption of tree No. 4 only with the consent of the Perez family. He noted that staff's recommendation was to remove tree No. 4. He asked staff if they had any issues with that suggestion. Director Rojas responded that, under the premise that this will all be reviewed after trimming, he felt that tree No. 4 could be added to the same recommendations as tree No. 6, 8, and 9. Commissioner Knight amended his motion to include the language regarding tree No. 4, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Planning Commission Minutes April 27,2010 Page 11 Vice Chairman Tomblin was sympathetic to both sides. He noted that there are more residents on Berry Hill Drive that are not a part of this application, but who spoke who have views blocked by the trees below. He cautioned that once these trees have been trimmed and/or removed it may open up an entire new level of trees causing significant view impairment. He felt that once these trees are trimmed the other homeowners who gave testimony that their views are also impaired but are not on the application be included in the view analysis so that new cases are not brought before the City for the same trees in question. Director Rojas noted that the City cannot require someone to be part of an application, however staff can leave the door open if they want to join the application. Commissioner Knight commented that he believes the trees are very important to the character of the neighborhood, and there is a tremendous difference between a street that has trees and a street with no trees. However, the view restoration ordinance makes these decisions very difficult. He felt that the decision made tonight is the best the Commission could possibly do under the circumstances, and was their best effort to keep the character of the neighborhood. Chairman Gerstner commented that in his opinion these trees impact the views specifically as staff has stated in their recommendations. However, in trying to balance the issues, he stated he would vote in favor of the motion as he is very open to trying things to try to help find a balance. He noted, however, that in his review of these trees the trees do significantly impair views and would need to be removed, and he may have this same opinion when this comes back to the Commission. Director Rojas noted that staff will have to amend the Resolution and will bring the Resolution before the Commission at the next meeting. The motion to adopt staff's recommendations, as amended was approved, (6-0). NEW BUSINESS 3. Annual report on the implementation of the General Plan Commissioner Tetreault moved to waive the staff report and the motion was approved without objection. The annual report on the implementation of the General Plan was approved without objected. The Commission directed staff, via minute order, to forward the report to the City Council. 4. Annual report on the implementation of the General Plan Housinq Element Commissioner Tetreault moved to waive the staff report, and the motion was approved without objection. Planning Commission Minutes April 27,2010 Page 12 The Planning Commission approved the annual report on the implementation of the general plan housing element and directed staff, via minute order, to forward the report to the City Council, without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of March 23, 2010 Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Tetreault abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on May 11, 2010 At Commissioner Emenhiser's request, the Commission agreed to move the General Plan fiscal element to a later agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 27,2010 Page 13