Loading...
PC MINS 20101012 Approved December 14, 0 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Lewis, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Community Development Director Mihranian, Assistant Planner Kim, Assistant Planner Harwell, and Assistant City Attorney Snow. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their last meeting the City Council initiated a code amendment that would address hedge heights in the front yard setback. This item will be coming before the Planning Commission in the future. Director Rojas distributed two items of correspondence for agenda item No. 2 and 43 items of correspondence for agenda item No. 3. Commissioner Tetreault reported that he spoke to some City Council members regarding agenda item No. 3. Commissioner Knight reported that he received comments from a resident on agenda item No. 2, which he forwarded to the other Planning Commissioners. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items)• None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Height Variation & Site Plan Review (Case No ZON2010-00044)• 28820 Cedarbluff Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the proposed project and the need for the Height Variation and Site Plan Review. She stated staff was able to make the necessary findings in order to recommend approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight asked if there were any privacy issues with regards to the proposed balcony. Assistant Planner, Kim answered that the balcony is located at the front of the residence and therefore does not create any privacy concerns. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Austin Peters (architect) explained that he designed the proposed second story addition to maintain what seems to be a consistent massing in the neighborhood. He felt the proposed addition will blend in well with the existing homes in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to approve the staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Leon. PC Resolution 2010-31 was approved, (7-0). Commissioner Lewis stated that he would recuse himself from agenda items 2 and 3, and left the dais. 2. Variance, Coastal Permit, and Site Plan Revision (Case No ZON2009- 00403): 109 Spindrift Drive Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, giving a description of the proposed project and the need for the various applications. She stated that staff was able to make all of the findings to approve the Variance and Coastal Permit, and feels the balcony is compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the proposed balcony. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Tim Racisz (architect) stated that working with city staff and the Homeowners Association, he has designed the current proposal which he feels will enhance the neighborhood and provide the homeowners with the outdoor living space they desire. He stated he was available to answer any questions. Planning Commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 2 Sunshine objected to the Commission approving Variances that increase lot coverage and encroachments in the Coastal Zone. Commissioner Knight stated that he was generally not in favor of granting variances, however this is a unique neighborhood as virtually every property is out of compliance in terms of lot coverage or setbacks. He noted that these homes are out of compliance because they were built before the City's incorporation and regulations were put in place. He was therefore in favor of allowing this property owner to do something that most of the other homes in the neighborhood have already done. Vice Chairman Tomblin was also in favor of the proposed project as he felt it was compatible with the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. PC Resolution 2010-32 was approved, (6-0) with Commissioner Lewis recused. 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 200, Revision "W% Grading Permit, & Coastal Development Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00442)° Lower Point Vicente Director Rojas began by discussing the Program of Utilization. He explained the Program of Utilization was put on the property when the Federal Government transferred it to the County in 1978, and restricts the property use to public recreation. He explained that this does not prohibit buildings, noting that PVIC as well as the expansion of PVIC on the property were considered consistent with the Program of Utilization. He stated that the National Park Service was notified of the proposed project by staff in April and responded in June with a request for plans. In response, the Draft EIR was provided to them in July. The National Park Service has reviewed the EIR and raised a concern with the proposed project's consistency with the Program of Utilization. In addition, the State Office of Grants and Local Services raised concerns with the project because of deed restrictions on the property that link back to some Federal grants given by the State when the property was owned-by the County. He noted that the City had no record of those grants, as the restrictions are not recorded with the property. Given these concerns, staff traveled to Sacramento to meet with representatives from the State and the National Park Service to explain the project and for staff to understand their concerns and learn the process to deal with their concerns. He noted that representatives from the Annenberg Foundation also attended the meeting, since they are the applicants, but that all of staff's travel expenses were paid by the City. He explained that a Program of Utilization consistency determination is made by the National Parks Service in consultation with the State Parks after a formal request is made by the City. He noted the City has not made such a request, as staff felt it would be more efficient to go through the entitlement process to determine the final project before submitting a request to the Federal and State government. He explained that this was reiterated by Federal and State officials who noted it is not the role of the State or Federal government to dictate what the City should ultimately place at the site, but rather it is up to the local government to determine what its recreational Planning commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 3 needs are. He explained to the Commission that the Program of Utilization is not before the Planning Commission, only the Conditional Use Permit, the Grading Permit, and the Coastal Permit, and that it is the City Council that needs to discuss the processing issues related to the Program of Utilization and that the public should bring their concerns regarding the Program of Utilization to the City Council. Therefore, staff has added an item to the October 19th City Council Agenda to discuss the issues surrounding the Program of Utilization. Commissioner Knight questioned how he could make finding No. 4 that the project is consistent with the General Plan if the project, on the surface, appears to be out of compliance with several Federal restrictions. He noted that a policy of the General Plan is that implementation of the General Plan be consistent with State and Federal regulations and guidelines. Director Rojas agreed that while the State and Federal agencies have opined that the proposed project is inconsistent with Federal restrictions, he noted that the message from the Federal and State agencies who review the project is that while there may be components that are out of consistency, if that is what the City ultimately approves there is a process that involves the City working with the State and Federal agencies to attempt to implement what the City approves. Commissioner Knight still questioned how he could make finding No. 4 if there is a proposal before the Commission that, contrary to the General Plan, is not consistent with State and Federal regulations or guidelines. Deputy City Attorney Snow explained that staff's position is that, if approved, the project would contain a condition of approval that would require all appropriate approvals, clearances, and other requirements of the Federal and State Government would have to be obtained before the approval would truly become affective. With this type of condition, staff felt there would be consistency with the General Plan. Director Rojas added that just as the Program of Utilization is not addressed in the General Plan since the General Plan predates it, there have been many State and Federal regulations that have been enacted since the General Plan was originally adopted. This does not mean that applications that come before you should be considered to be not consistent with the General Plan simply because the General Plan has not been updated to address all State and Federal laws that have been enacted since its adoption. Commissioner Knight felt that this is precisely why the General Plan was written the way it was written, anticipating there will be changes in the Federal and State laws. In terms of doing a post-analysis of whether or not the project is consistent, he felt that staff was asking the Commission to make a finding that it is consistent and to approve the project in order to find out down the line whether or not it is consistent. Planning commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 4 Chairman Gerstner added that there is a difference between saying that the project needs to be compliant and knowing that it isn't compliant and saying that it needs to be compliant. Commissioner Tetreault stated his understanding was that their concern was that presently the project may not be in compliance with certain deed restrictions and the Program of Utilization. However, there is a process where the City can apply to the Federal Government to request the Program of Utilization be changed, whereby the proposed use and development of the property would be in compliance. Because the project currently before the Planning Commission could very well change as a result of the public hearings and Planning Commission review, as well as a review by the City Council, he understood why it may be necessary to go through the entitlement process before approaching the Federal Government to discuss a change to the Program of Utilization. In speaking to the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem, they felt the Planning Commission should move ahead with the public hearings and make a decision so that the project can move forward to the City Council. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Assistant City Attorney Snow his opinion on how this proposed project is consistent with the General Plan's designation of passive recreational use. Assistant City Attorney Snow explained that according to staff's analysis, as proposed this project fits within the passive recreation designation. He stated that, from a General Plan consistency finding perspective, the Planning Commission can either agree with staff's conclusion or can reach an alternate conclusion. Director Rojas acknowledged that there is room for interpretation on what is meant by passive recreation. It is Staff's position that when the City Council approved the Vision Plan they approved a concept as to what is consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, when the Annenberg Foundation asked permission to submit the appropriate applications, a zone change was not one of the applications that the City Council authorized, but rather a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, what is before the Planning Commission is a Conditional Use Permit application and with that is the implication that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning. Vice Chairman Tomblin added that one of the findings is that the Commission must find the proposed project consistent with the General Plan. Director Rojas agreed, adding that the Planning Commission may differ from the City Council's concept or vision for the site and feel this type of proposal is not consistent with the General Plan. Chairman Gerstner reiterated that next Tuesday the City Council will be discussing this project and that anyone from the public that wishes to speak about the Program of Utilization should do so at the City Council meeting, as the Planning Commission cannot make decisions regarding this topic. He asked that the public speakers tonight Planning commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 5 should try to focus their comments on the requested Conditional Use Permit and Planning entitlements. Commissioner Knight noted that David Siegenthaler of the National Park Service was present in the audience and available to provide clarifications and answers to questions the Commissioners might have. Director Rojas explained that staff is simplifying the process by stating that the City will have to take steps with the National Park Service to mitigate the change in the Program of Utilization. He noted that Mr. Siegenthaler's letter is a good letter in that it explains exactly what needs to happen and the analysis that needs to be made. Deputy Director Mihranian presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the proposed project, and explaining the scope of the project as outlined in the staff report. He explained the planning process, noting the Environmental Review process as well as the review of the planning applications. He explained the three applications were authorized by the City Council: the Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, and Coastal Development Permit. He noted that the Conditional Use Permit application is before the Planning Commission this evening, and the Grading Permit and Coastal Development Permit will be brought back at a later date. He explained there are six findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit, and briefly reviewed each finding. Chairman Gerstner noted that there is a request from the applicant that they be allowed 30 minutes for a presentation. There is also a request from a resident to be allowed an equal amount of time. He asked the Commission if they agreed to these requests. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Chairman Gerstner asked Rosemary Campbell if she needed the full thirty minutes and if she was representing a group of homeowners or just herself. Rosemary Campbell stated that she did not need the full thirty minutes, possibly ten to twelve minutes. She also stated that she was not formally representing a group of homeowners, however a lot of people are in agreement with what she will be saying. Chairman Gerstner asked Ms..Campbell if she felt there was something she needed to say that could not be said in the normal three minutes, but probably will not be said by another member of the public. Ms. Campbell answered yes. Chairman Gerstner felt that allowing the applicant the additional time was consistent with Commission practices in the past, and the Commission agreed. The Commission also agreed to allow Ms. Campbell the requested ten to twelve minutes. They Planning commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 6 encouraged that those speakers who have a similar opinion might get up and say they agree with the previous speaker. Chairman Gerstner reiterated to the speakers that comments regarding the Program of Utilization should be directed to the City Council at next week's meeting, as the Planning Commission is not in a position to make any decisions regarding this matter. Howard Litwak (Project Manager for Annenberg Foundation) stated this project is before the Planning Commission because of the 2008 City Council approval allowing them to submit the various applications. For the following presentation, he asked that the Planning Commission assume that the previously approved parking lot project is already built. He stated there are no capital costs to the City for this project, as all capital funding will be by the Annenberg Foundation. In terms of operating costs, if the project is approved there will be no new operating costs to the City. He also noted that the City Attorney has requested they do not pursue developing an operating plan at this stage of the project, as the project is still in the entitlement phase. Leonard Aube (Executive Director of the Annenberg Foundation) gave a brief summary of what the Annenberg Foundation does through their grants and their public-private partnerships. He discussed the extensive public outreach that has taken place for the proposed project and noted that one question they have heard over and over is in regards to what the project is and what will one do there if it is built. He explained that the project will greatly enhance the network of trails and open space, and noted that protecting the open space, enhancing the native landscape, and interpreting that is an imperative and important part of the project. He explained that the landscaping design has a strong emphasis on native species to replace the invasive non-native plants and also noted the proposed bioswale to improve watershed management at the site. He discussed the proposed outpost building, which he felt is a cornerstone element that addresses the park experience, and how that outpost building will be used. He also discussed various activities and features.that will be placed throughout the site. Finally, he discussed the main structure and how it will be used, explaining the various features and functions of the proposed building. He noted that these uses include some light retail with a gift shop and snack bar, a large multi-purpose room that can serve as an auditorium, a series of exhibitions that focus on the connections found in the environment, an area that spotlights and champions other not for profit organizations involved in other types of non profit work in the region, formal classroom areas, and an area for humane education. He stated that there are very few places that one can go to learn about the fundamental connection of all living things and actually draw a bridge so that a gray whale or a dolphin is relevant to a gnat catcher or a blue butterfly. He felt this is an interesting and inspired vehicle to help one do so. To address some basic information that has come up in meetings, there are 18 animal adoption suites proposed for the facility. He stated that there have been comments that there will be up to 300 animals housed in the facility, however that is a false assumption as there are only 18 adoption suites proposed. He has been asked publically about a crematorium, and stated this too is a false assumption and that no crematorium will be at the site. He stated that there is approximately 35,000 square feet of useable space in the building, Planning commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 7 and noted that there is 30,000 square feet of landscape and useable open space on top of the building, much of which is available to the public. He concluded by stating that he is not aware of any other facility that uses the concept of integrating the public's experience to the ocean, to terrestrial habitat, and to humans. He stated this proposal is a park and there is nothing about the activities that go beyond passive walking around and stimulating your senses. Rosemary Campbell began by questioning who initiated and who paid for the Coastal Vision Plan. Director Rojas answered that it was a grant given to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy by the Annenberg Foundation. Ms. Campbell stated what makes Rancho Palos Verdes exceptional is the people and its natural beauty. She felt that Rancho Palos Verdes does not look like any other City in the Los Angeles area due to a long history of people dedicated to preserving the beauty of the peninsula in a natural state. She stated that people on the peninsula like to experience nature, not study it in preserves and walkways. She stated she is not wholly opposed to the Annenberg proposal, as she likes some of the ideas. However, she felt the building is a problem. She stated that in this era of citizen unrest and dissatisfaction with government and its agencies, special interests and their ways are not very popular, particularly when they try to push the citizenry around. It disturbed her to see City employees, employed by tax payers, working so hard for a private institution that already has its own bank of lawyers and administrators. In discussing the proposal, she found it hard to see how this proposed 51,000 square foot building fits the Municipal Code definition of privately owned recreation areas of an open nature. She could think of no private citizen who has been granted a permit prior to completing all of the requirements imposed by the City and governing bodies. Many residents have had to wait years to complete all of the City requirements to obtain a permit, and questioned why the Annenberg Foundation should get preference. She questioned if it had anything to do with them building a parking lot for the City, or if was because the City has essentially approved the project and is ready to move forward with or without the residents' approval. She stated again that she is not completely opposed to the project, but does not support the proposed location. She stated that the residents understand the relationship between domesticated animals and humans, but the kids in Compton don't. What could be better than a facility where children who live in concrete jungles can go and interact with pets and get to know and learn about domesticated animals. She appreciated the Annenberg's love for animals and the desire to share that love, but not on one of the only protected coastal points along the California coastline. She envisioned that in fifty years the Annenbergs will own this property, and noted that public lands are not supposed to be for sale. For that very reason, she felt the quit claim deed from the Federal Government stipulates that it cannot be sold in order to protect some spaces from development by well intentioned private groups. She presented a petition to the Planning Commission signed by residents of the City, stating that many were not even aware of the proposed project. She then.addressed how the views of many residents will be blocked by the proposed building, showing several Planning commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 8 photographs taken from her neighbors' properties. She objected to the photographs taken by staff, as they were taken from the living areas and not from the yards where people spend most of their time. She would also like to see a study of how her privacy will be affected by this building. She noted that Mr. Aube said there will not be a crematorium, but questioned how animals who do not get adopted will be removed. Kara Davis stated she is a freshman at PV High, and was here to tell the Commission why teenagers support the proposed project. She explained there are not many places to do internships or volunteer work in this community, and the Annenberg Center would provide many of these opportunities. She felt that PVIC is a great place, but the vacant land around it is wasted, and that an area with trails and native plants would enhance the property. She stated she supports the proposed project. Lori Jones stated that Ms. Campbell covered most of her concerns. She added that Mr. Aube's presentation did not show the added traffic the residents will have to put up with, or the added crowds of people. He also did not talk about the crime that will go up in the area when the crowds are added. In the earlier discussion it was mentioned that the State was willing to work with officials to give the City what it wants, and she questioned where the residents come into that discussion and when the residents get to tell the City their wishes. She suggested the Annenbergs work with the City to restore the property to what it was before it became a patch of weeds. Melanie Lundquist felt the merits of the project are undeniable. She stated there are many residents in this City who would like to see this type of project in the City for the betterment of the whole. She stated that this is a society with many ills and many needs and educationally California is number two from the bottom. She felt this project is a learning opportunity and kids are not getting this type of education from their schools, and won't in the future. She felt that the governing bodies have the responsibility to take those issues into consideration and this is not just about one tiny little City on the Peninsula. Lorraine O'Grady stated she is a resident of Oceanfront Estates and therefore has a strong interest in the development of Lower Point Vicente Park. She stated she watched as the Interpretive Center was rebuilt, and has found it to be a wonderful amenity. She stated she is a supporter of the proposed project for many reasons, which she has shared with the City Council, Planning Commission, and the home owners in Oceanfront Estates. She read from a 2003 Peninsula News article which described a docent plan for Lower Point Vicente which included a dry farming area, an archeological dig, a replica of a Tongva Indian village, a native plant garden, a site featuring local geology, and trails connecting Lower Point Vicente to trails east, west, and north. She also discussed other plans that have been proposed for the area over the years. She concluded by saying that there has been a history of proposals at this site, and it did not start with the Annenberg Foundation. Andrea Sala stated she has lived in the community for 40 years and has watched it grow and develop, and felt the City has done a very thoughtful job in planning the Planning Commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 9 growth of the City. She recalled in the not too distant past when the area of Oceanfront Estates was a large vacant piece of land. She stated that change happens and the thoughtful process of change is a good one. She felt the community should embrace this gift from the Annenberg Foundation, noting that their gifts are a gift from the heart and there is nothing they want in return. Lee Boyles stated she is a resident and is looking forward to the completion of this project and supports the project as proposed. Ann Hugh stated she is very much in favor of the project. She stated she has always admired Rancho Palos Verdes and they way it has given its residents such wonderful parks. She felt this proposal would be a great asset to the City. Cinthia Joyce stated she is familiar with the site, as in 2005 she was commissioned to create the California Grey Whale sculpture that currently sits in front of PVIC. She stated the reason she supports this project so wholeheartedly is because of her love for animals and that the spiritual and physical connection between people and animals needs to be more highly explained and valued in this day and age. She also felt that enhancing the area will provide a wonderful area for artists and hoped that there will be classes for children combining animals, the nature around them, and the arts. She also felt that civic pride is a big issue, and this will be a big asset to the City. Joan Ban stated that although she is a Point Vicente docent, she is not speaking on their behalf, but rather speaking for herself as a resident. She expressed her complete support for the proposed Annenberg project, as it would provide positive recreational and educational opportunities to the City. She noted that eight years ago a group of docents developed a plan to build a natural outdoor history area to compliment the Interpretive Area. At that time the City Council approved the plan, but the idea sat unfulfilled until the Annenberg Foundation approached the City. She stated in the last four years the Annenberg Foundation has listened the docent group's every concern, addressed these concerns, and met their mission statement. The plans have greatly changed from the original design to developing a family discovery for the community. She also felt the proposal is a wonderful compliment to PVIC. Bob Critelli stated he is not in support of the proposed project. He felt that this project was rapidly pushed forward, behind the backs of the people who live on the Peninsula. He stated nobody ever came to the home owners at Oceanfront Estates to discuss this project. He questioned what is really known about the project, since it keeps changing and is always being amended. He felt that the gift is really not from Annenberg to the City, but rather it is a gift of 26 acres that the City is giving to Annenberg. He noted that he is not so much against the project as he is to the location of the project. He was concerned that the EIR was written so quickly and questioned the amount of grading in a known lead contaminated area. He suggested that the EPA should be notified of this dangerous situation. He felt the people of the City are being ignored and need to wake up to what is going on in the City. Planning commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 10 Donna Tarr explained she is just learning about this project, but it appears to be more of an anti-development project, as there is not a lot of cement and there will be a lot of planting of natural plants and landscaping. She thought that the types of people this project will attract are the type of people who enjoy and respect nature. She also agreed with those who have stated that it is important to know all of the facts before allowing the construction. Don Eichorn stated he was born and raised in this community and could not think of a more perfect use for that spot. He stated he fully supports the project. Pam Crane stated she has also grown up on the Peninsula and there is nothing more important to her than protecting and preserving the open space. She did not find the Annenberg project objectionable and felt it will only enhance the community. She stated she fully supports the project. Nancy Parsons stated she lives about one mile from Lower Point Vicente Park and uses the area frequently. She explained that currently the park is very beautiful and peaceful and there is very little traffic noise. She then thought of this beautiful place transformed with cars, buses, exhaust, concrete, and noise and was concerned that this will become another hub of congestion. She felt this proposal completely circumvents the intent to which this parcel was given to the City and is inappropriate for the spot. She agreed that the area needs trails, native vegetation, trees, picnic tables, and an area that remains harmonious with the wildlife and natural beauty of the spot. She did not think the City should destroy nature to create a virtual exhibit of nature. She also did not think there should be any type of building put on this spot. She thought there were merits to the project, such as the animal education center, but most of the uses of this project are already available on the Peninsula or could be located in a different spot. She noted that the draft EIR presented several alternative locations, however none of those have been studied. She felt all of the alternatives are preferable to the current project, and hoped the Planning Commission would not allow the project to go any farther without examining the alternatives. Meredith Whitney stated she is in total support of the Annenberg project as it will be a positive contribution to the community. She stated it will not only benefit people in this community, but those in surrounding communities. Betty Riedman stated PVIC had over 7,000 students visit the site this year in buses, and did not think the addition of the Annenberg project will make that much difference. She fully supported the proposed project. Daniel November stated that the Annenberg supported projects in Century City and Santa Monica are more than phenomenal, and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes should fully embrace their project. He felt the Annenberg Foundation has been willing to communicate and work with the residents on what their wants and needs are for this unique project. He stated that he fully supports this project as it will be an incredible improvement to the community. Planning commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 11 John Wessel stated he has environmental concerns about the proposed project. While serving on the Pump Committee he learned from conservation biologists that one of the key features to look out for is connectivity of parcels that are present in a preserve that one is trying to restore. He explained that recently he has been volunteering with the PV Land Conservancy and has been at the western area of Upper Point Vicente Park. He noted that segment is being revegetated and the area at Lower Point Vicente where a portion of the Annenberg project is located would be an ideal area for native revegetation. He felt the project will be breaking up the biological continuity and should have been addressed in the EIR. Barbara Sattler stated she was opposed to this very large building at this site, as it will increase the urbanization of the site. She noted that when looking from the Interpretative Center upward one will see a very large edifice looming down. She stated she would like to see further exploration of the outside exhibits on the proposal and elimination of the building. She stated the building is not in compliance with the City's land use regulations, not in compliance with the deed, and not in compliance with the grant. Judy Herman agreed with the statements made by Ms. Sattler that the deed was given with the property for outdoor recreation purposes. She questioned why the proposed building had to get bigger when the height of the building was reduced. She felt that this gift from Annenberg comes at too high of a price, as the land can never be replaced. Jeanine Mauch stated she is the former Director of the Center for Marine Studies at Fort MacArthur and that she was in support of the proposed project, as it will provide the quality science environmental education that students are in need of having. She felt that PVIC has done so much for students over the years, but so much more can be done by incorporating the Annenberg Foundation project. Nancy DeLong stated she is a whale census taker and has therefore spent hundreds of hours at Lower Point Vicente Park. She felt people come to the property for quiet and its pristine views. She stated that she never wants to give up open space that is dedicated to the public. Cassie Jones felt this project is ideally situated to provide something that this world needs. She discussed the increasing problem she sees as a veterinarian of the many animals that are sent to shelters each year, many of which are then killed. She felt that solutions can come through innovative programs such as this one where we reach the children and educate the children. Kelly Kalita expressed her support of the project, noting the good location and safe area for people to visit. She supported changing the zoning, if needed. Planning commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 12 Cathy Izumo stated she is in support of the project. She commented that those who live in the Oceanfront Estates and are concerned with this project and its affect on wildlife should remember that it was not too many years ago their property was on a large piece of vacant land, and the land was cleared to build their homes. Stephanie Rizzi stated she too is in support of the project. She explained that ecology and social science are all tied together, and this project will bring students and other to this spot where they will have the opportunity to experience the environment and understand the human impact on the environment. She noted that this proposed building only encompasses three percent of the land, where the City allows ten percent. Vic Quirarte stated he is a docent at PVIC, but is not speaking for the docents. In regards to the buses that bring the children to the site, he explained that there is a separate parking area for the buses that bring the school children to the site. He also discusses the concerns of noise and disruption while the construction is happening, pointing out that the construction will not take very long. He stated his support for the project. Mark Sturgeon stated he was in favor of keeping Lower Point Vicente Park as open space and finding an appropriate alternative site for the Annenberg Foundation project. He stated that the General Plan says Lower Point Vicente should be open space for passive recreation and questioned how putting a 51,000 square foot building, parking areas, and hardscape on an area that should be open space was consistent with the General Plan. In regards to the Conditional Use Permit, he noted the section of the Code he felt staff was referencing when discussing approval of this project. He read from the section, and noted the key phrase of buildings and structures related thereto. He asked what these buildings and structures have to be related to, and he felt that meant the buildings and structures have to be related to what the purpose usage of that park is. Right now the Program of Utilization says that space is for passive recreation oriented to the attributes of the Pacific Ocean. He felt an indoor educational and animal care facility is inconsistent with outdoor recreation oriented towards the attributes of the Pacific Ocean. To proceed under a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must make a finding that this indoor educational and animal care facility is consistent with the Program of Utilization and the General Plan. He discussed the actions of the City Council at their September 2, 2008 meeting where, on two agenda items, they adopted the Coastal Vision Plan and gave the Annenberg Foundation the o.k. to proceed with a planning application. He felt that during this process too much weight has been given to the City Council action on that date. He explained that he has read the staff reports from that meeting for the agenda items as well as the meeting minutes. He noted the staff report was completely silent on the deed, the deed restrictions, and the Program of Utilization, and there is no evidence in the minutes that the City Council deliberated on those topics. Likewise, staff provided no analysis on whether this project was consistent with the General Plan and no evidence that the City Council deliberated this topic. He asked that the Commission respect the words and intent of the General Plan. Planning commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 13 Dena Friedson felt that Lower Point Vicente is the wrong location for this project and urged the Planning Commission to stop this project. She noted that when the City Council authorized review of the Annenberg application, the Foundation was warned that the project might not be approved. She felt it was time to halt the proposed project, not only to save time and money, but also to prevent the spreading of large amounts of unsightly asphalt for many unnecessary parking spaces and for the extra wide roads and cul-de-sacs that would be required for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. Kirk Retz supported the proposed Tongva village and the devotion of a great deal of the site to natural foliage, noting that the building will actually only take up three percent of the area. He stated the Annenberg Foundation has changed the proposal several times because they have listened to the community, and he felt they will continue to listen to the community. He felt this project is a good use of the property and is strongly in favor of the project. Peter Jensen stated he is opposed to the proposed project. He felt that in looking at the models the building appears to be more than three percent, he estimated five percent for the building and then one has to add in the hardscape, parking, retaining wall, sculpture, and other art items, it is much more than three percent. Further the amount of land indigenous land devoted to natural habitat is more of a garnishment for the building centerpiece. He stated the building footprint is large enough to fit a 747 jetliner inside. He urged the Commission to deny the project. Al Sattler stated he was speaking on behalf of the Palos Verdes South Bay group of the Sierra Club and was speaking in support of the National Park Service enforcement of the deed restrictions on the property. He stated that the Sierra Club felt that the clearly dominate component of the project is the large building devoted to animal shelter and education with associated office, retail and parking spaces for uses other than public outdoor recreation. He stated that the Sierra Club has a long standing history of opposing use of public parks for this type of use. He stated that the Sierra Club feels that this is a beautiful proposal and the Annenberg Foundation has supported many good projects over the years, however this is not quite the right location and the right use of public park land for this type of proposal. Roberta Roberts stated she supports the Annenberg project. She stated that the bioswale alone is a wonderful way to lead this City in cleaning up the runoff and healing the bay. She felt the project will be a world class location for people to come and have moments that will impact the rest of their lives. Sharon Yarber stated this project is too much on the fast track. She also had a sense that the staff is advocating for this project, and felt staff had to have more neutrality. She was troubled that the Coastal Vision Plan was adopted on the same night that the Annenberg Foundation was given permission to submit applications for the project. She was concerned that the traffic report indicated there would be several points where there will be a sever impact on traffic, and the mitigation would be the installation of traffic signals. However, the City has indicated they would not have the resources to Planning Commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 14 install the traffic lights, and therefore these mitigations would not be achieved. She questioned if there is a nexus between the traffic impact and the fact that the dorms at Marymount were not approved. If the traffic from Marymount dorms and the traffic from the Annenberg project were to be combined, would it be beyond mitigation? She also questioned to what extent the existing Interpretive Center fails to address the needs of the community for interpretation. She noted the City is also trying very hard to develop Grandview Park and Lower Hesse Park. Valerie Blitz asked why the Program of Utilization hasn't been reviewed and why haven't the mandatory restrictions in the deed been reviewed, especially since the City had to review the remodel of the Interpretive Center. She asked why staff has not let the public know what these restrictions are and presented to the public the actual paper work for the deed and Program of Utilization. She felt staff is completely biased and it has been biased that staff has not done that. She also felt that the Planning Commission to be biased, as they came to her house and tried to take pictures that didn't show how the proposed building will block her view. She stated she was against increasing the noise coming from the property, noise such as barking dogs and additional traffic. Lenee Bilski stated she is here to support the National Park Service and to speak on finding No. 4 in the General Plan. She felt that the applicant has done a good job in their presentations to give the impression that the big building is full of wonderful things for the general public and downplays the emphasis on the dogs and cats component, which she felt is the real focus of the building, and the size which has grown from 21,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet. She did not think the proposed building is what the City Council thought they were asked to allow, as it is much larger. In reviewing the plans, she felt that it is obvious the building is for the animals and not for the people. She showed a slide of the floor area of the proposed building, pointing out the large area she said is for animals. She also noted the auditorium will only accommodate 100 to 150 people. She noted on the second floor the area open for the public as opposed to the area designated for office space. She stated this is not the right place for this project and would like to see it placed elsewhere. Ann Shaw stated she is one of the founders of this City and was sitting on the City Council at the time Upper and Lower Point Vicente were acquired. She stated the purpose of founding this City was to preserve low density and open space. She felt that this proposal is absolutely not what those on the City Council when this land was acquired had envisioned for the site. She felt this is an inappropriate use for a pristine area on the coast. She did feel that the Tongva village, the archeological dig, the dry farming exhibit, and the revegetation is all appropriate for this site and could be accomplished by other means. Eva Cicora felt the project is beautiful and if it were in the right place she would be in support of it. She disagreed with the staff report statement that the proposed project is not contrary to the General Plan. She felt that by any reasonable interpretation it most definitely is. The staff report says the land use for the site is passive recreation, and Planning commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 15 then read the General Plan definition of passive recreation. She did not think this project met the definition of passive recreation. She noted that the staff report says the zoning is Open Space Recreational, then makes the leap to say "as such it offers recreational and educational opportunities." She stated the Annenberg proposal is an Institutional use on the property rather than recreational. She noted the General Plan states that recreational activities are generally compatible with institutional uses, but stated there is no legal basis for finding the opposite that an institutional use is permittable in a recreational area. She stated that the staff report says there are no setback requirements for proposed structures. She noted that this is open space and there are not supposed to be structures. She listed some of the structures permitted under institutional zoning with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. She noted there is no such list for the Open Space Recreation district. She stated the staff report states the issue of whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's zoning is not before the Planning Commission, as this determination was already made by the City Council when it approved the Vision Plan. She stated that, setting aside the issue of whether approval of the Vision Plan was appropriate or legal, approving a concept for linking marine life and terrestrial life could contemplate a set of outdoor informational plaques. She didn't think the City needed 7,500 square feet of indoor exhibit space and 3,000 square feet of classroom space, plus the associated office and parking space to teach us about caring for wild or domestic animals. She felt the staff report was taking a huge leap that defies reason. She noted the staff report says a CUP is appropriate rather than a zone change. She felt that in order to make the leap to the conclusion that a CUP is appropriate, staff had to determine that this proposed facility is for a privately owned recreational area of an open nature, such as stables, parks, playground, and wildlife preserves. She stated that if that is what this is, then buildings and structures related thereto are permissible by a CUP. She noted this is not a privately owned recreational area. She concluded by stating this project does not meet the requirements of the National Park Service, Land and Water Conservation Fund, or the General Plan, and hoped that the Planning Commission would reject the proposed project. Commissioner Knight requested that David Siegenthaler of the National Park Service come to the podium, as he had some questions for him. Commissioner Knight noted in Mr. Siegenthaler's letter a statement that this land could not be leased but there could be a concession agreement for the land itself. He asked Mr. Siegenthaler to explain his. concept of a concession agreement. Mr. Siegenthaler explained that normally a concession agreement is entered into to fulfill a service that is there to support a public outdoor recreation use. Typical concession services would be rental of equipment or a food service concession. A lease is generally regarded as more of a conveyance of a property rights. He explained that the issue in the case of concession contracts as opposed to leases is how much control is surrendered to whoever the agreement or lease is with. Planning Commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 16 Commissioner Knight noted in the staff report a statement that the grassy area on top of the roof of the building would be considered maintaining outdoor public access. He asked Mr. Siegenthaler if he agreed with that statement. Mr. Siegenthaler answered that the City can do whatever they want with the building, however the building as he sees it could not conform to the requirements in the Program of Utilization and you could not amend it to fit a public outdoor recreation use. He did not think the building qualifies as public outdoor recreation. Commissioner Leon asked if there are examples where education facilities have been deemed acceptable within open space. Mr. Siegenthaler answered interpretive facilities have been accepted, noting they are always considered in terms of what is appropriate given the scale of the site and what is the purpose of the site. He added that education facilities are generally not allowed on Federal Park Service land, and educational facilities generally have their own public conveyance. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Siegenthaler to distinguish between educational and interpretive. Mr. Siegenthaler explained that interpretive programs are usually those kinds of things at a specific site and help them experience it. It is all in support of the public outdoor experience of the site. Educational services are generally those that deal with more general topics or are related to degree programs or other community services, and not so site specific. Howard Litwak (in rebuttal) clarified that in the 50,000 square feet of the building roughly 15,000 square feet consists of underground parking and underground mechanical and the program space is 35,000 square feet. In terms of concrete and asphalt, he clarified that the parking areas will be made of a material called naturalpave which is much more attractive. He also noted that if the PVIC parking project is built and the additional parking for the Annenberg project is built, this will still constitute fewer parking spaces than were originally approved for the PVIC in 1998. In terms of traffic, he did not feel this is the type of facility that will have large vehicular attraction. He felt that the biggest increment in people coming here will be people taking better advantage of the park. He thought the actual number of people using the education building isn't going to be that much larger than the number of people already using PVIC. He clarified that the on-site lead issue is not on the Annenberg project area but rather on the PVIC parking area. Secondly, at the City's direction the Foundation has worked with the DTSC to ensure there will be no hazard from any lead that may be on the property. Commissioner Leon noted the proposed walkways to the buildings are very wide paved walkways and asked Mr. Litwak the rationale for that and if they could be smaller and reduced in size. Planning Commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 17 Mr. Litwak answered that these walkways were designed in this matter because of fire and life safety considerations. George Miers (Project Architect) added that there is a Fire Department requirement that they be at least twenty feet wide. Commissioner Emenhiser requested that the Annenberg Foundation's traffic engineer come forward for some questions. Claire Look-Jaeger stated her firm, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, prepared the traffic and parking analysis that was included as part of the draft EIR. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Ms. Jaeger if she was able to discuss the various improvements needed for the intersections. Ms. Jaeger answered that the proposed project does not exceed the City's thresholds for having a defined significant traffic impact at the main PVIC intersection with Palos Verdes Drive West. However, there was a review that was conducted, in terms of overall site distance, a review of traffic volumes, and a review of accident data. This was included in a separate report that was submitted to the City and is referenced in the traffic analysis, which is contained as a technical appendix to the draft EIR. The traffic study also refers to the City's Capital Improvement Program and it does identify potential signalization at this location. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Jaeger how the buses will park on this property, noting he did not see on the plan any bus parking or any mitigation for the bus parking. Ms. Jaeger stated her understanding is that the bus parking will be consistent with the current bus circulation pattern and parking, which is off-site. However, there is also a turf surface parking area that could be utilized as well. Mr. Litwak added that currently buses occasionally park on the Coast Guard parking site, however it was a condition of approval of the PVIC parking project that this relationship with the Coast Guard be formalized. He stated that is in process now. Once that is formalized, he stated a separate project on Coast Guard land would be submitted to pave that dirt area and make it available to bus parking. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Jaeger if it was her study that determined three additional traffic lights would be needed on Palos Verdes Drive South. Ms. Jaeger answered that there are two project specific impacts, one being on Hawthorne Boulevard at Via Rivera. She explained that the Traffic Impact Study identifies two mitigation measures for this intersection, the first being restriping the southbound approach to provide an exclusive right-turn-only lane. She stated that in itself would reduce the project's impact to a less than significant level. The second mitigation was consideration of installation of a traffic signal. She stated that the traffic engineer in the City's Public Works Department noted that should the City approve the Planning Commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 18 signal installation it was likely that the southbound approach and the restriping to provide an additional approach lane would be integrated at the same time as the signal installation. She explained the next location is at Forrestal, and at that intersection a traffic signal was proposed. Through their analysis they demonstrated that the project's significant impact would again be reduced to less than significant. However, it was concluded in the draft EIR as well as the staff report that absence the approval of the signal installation, that location would remain significant and unavoidable. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that there were comments that the green area on top of the roof would be restricted, and asked the architect to comment. He also asked if there were other portions of the project that were restricted to public access. Mr. Litwak noted the portions of the roof that are not accessible to the public due to public safety reasons. He explained that includes an animal exercise area that has a glass enclosure around it, although it is viewable and was set up so that visitors could watch a training session. He noted that portions of the green roof areas are not accessible to the public, but are visually accessible. He stated all of the paths and areas on the property are completely accessible to the public except for the very upper green level of the roof. Director Rojas noted that roof areas are not generally an area open to public access. He added that in discussing the public roof access with the applicant concerns were brought up regarding public safety and security. Vice Chairman Tomblin commented that in discussions regarding this project he would probably look for addressing some of the presentation that was made on a different perspective of the ocean views from the residences at Oceanfront Estates. Director Rojas noted that Deputy Director Mihranian has showed pictures taken from all of the residences at Oceanfront Estates and questioned what additional view analysis the Vice Chairman was requesting. He noted that staff did their view analysis from the viewing area, as defined by the Development Code and the View Restoration Guidelines. Vice Chairman Tomblin explained that Mrs. Campbell had brought pictures she had taken from the properties and he would like to staff to address these pictures. He noted that this case is a little different from a view restoration case and it might be beneficial to see the views taken from a different perspective on the property. Commissioner Knight asked Ms. Jaeger to return to the podium, and asked her about the exits out of PVIC onto Palos Verdes Drive West, specifically if she felt there was something that needs to be done to make that area safer. Ms. Jaeger answered that the specific work that was done was reviewing the intersection in terms of sight distance, both for vehicles along Palos Verdes Drive West making a left turn onto the site as well as vehicles leaving the site. She noted there are Planning Commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 19 two things that have to be looked at: geometry and speed. She noted that the work referenced in the Traffic Impact Study included speed surveys along Palos Verdes Drive South and West. She stated that when the observations were conducted and the actual field measurements were taken, the existing sight distance was not found to be deficient, based on the advisory speed limit as well as the posted speed limit. She added there was a review of accident records from 2003 to June 2009 there were not five reported accidents in any twelve month span. She noted the threshold for consideration of installation of a traffic signal is five or more accidents reported in a twelve month period. Commissioner Knight asked if any consideration had been given to an acceleration lane in the median for those turning left out of PVIC. Ms. Jaeger answered that based on the prior review that was conducted she did not see a deficiency in terms of the criteria used in determining if there is a safe or unsafe condition. She added that the project impacts did not exceed the City's threshold for when Traffic Engineers have to report a significant impact. Had the City's thresholds been exceeded she would have had to recommend a mitigation measure to reduce the significant impact to a less than significant level. Commissioner Knight asked staff if there is an inconsistency between the General Plan and the Vision Plan, which document would prevail. Director Rojas answered that the General Plan would prevail, noting the Vision Plan is a conceptual plan as to what type of recreational amenities could go at certain recreational sites that are outside the Preserve. Commissioner Knight noted in the staff report a statement that the issue of whether or not this is an appropriate location for the project is not before the Planning Commission. He asked if that meant he could not consider an alternative in the EIR. Director Rojas answered that the project before the Commission is a CUP application at this site. If the Commission cannot make the required findings to approve the project then the Commission would deny the project and it wouldn't be built at the proposed site. The decision to approve the project at another location is not before the Planning Commission. Assistant City Attorney Snow added that in reviewing the EIR if the Commission comes to the conclusion that one of the alternative sites is environmentally superior to the proposed project, and that the site is feasible, the Commission would want to adopt that alternative. From a CEQA perspective, if those findings could be made, the Commission could use that as a basis for denying the project without an actual application or authorization from a property owner. He stated the Planning Commission would not have the authority to proactively approve the project at an alternate location. Planning Commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 20 Commissioner Knight reviewed the language in the staff report regarding the green roof buildings that would reduce the overall lot coverage calculation. He asked how that would apply to other applications in the City, specifically a new single family residence that might want to have a green roof. Director Rojas answered that the City has an adopted Green Ordinance which gives credit for permeable hardscape but does not give credit for the green roof. In the staff report staff was pointing out that in this particular zoning district only buildings count towards lot coverage. Therefore, if the building is designed in such a way as to have a green roof or to have landscaping on top of the roof, this is something the Planning Commission may wish to consider when determining lot coverage. Commissioner Knight then referred to a statement in the staff report that the green roof could be considered part of the passive open space, and asked staff to clarify that statement. Deputy Director Mihranian added that there is no requirement that allows for reduced lot coverage because of the green roof. He explained that staff was trying to point out that if one were flying over the site and looking down, if there were no green roof one would see a building footprint of approximately 36,000 square feet. With the green roof one may not see that 36,000 square feet of building footprint. He stated that the statement was more of aesthetic comment rather than a code requirement comment. Commissioner Knight then referred to a statement in the staff report that special events will be permitted to occur until 10 p.m. and clean-up completed by midnight. He asked if this would include outdoor events, and would that include lights and amplification. Deputy Director Mihranian answered that there could be outdoor events at the site and it would be at the Commission's discretion if outdoor events are to be prohibited, or if allowed, the guidelines for the events. In regards to view impact, Commissioner Knight asked when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit does the Commission have to find significant view impact or just any view impact. Deputy Director Mihranian answered that the Commission must find a significant view impact. Commissioner Knight asked if the Planning Commission is able to address and add conditions of approval to the Conditional Use Permit in terms of the proposed concessions at the site. Deputy Director Mihranian answered that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation regarding the proposed concessions at the site to consider aspects included in the agreement. Planning Commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 21 Director Rojas added that typically when someone want to propose something on City property the City will have the applicant go through the entitlement process and then lease agreements can be discussed. He stated that ultimately it is the City Council that dictates what can and cannot be placed on public property. Commissioner Leon stated that he supports development at Lower Point Vicente Park to increase the usage, as he does not feel the area is utilized as well as it could be. Development he felt was appropriate might include the Tongva Village and the dry farming exhibit. He stated he admires the Annenberg Foundation and their philanthropic efforts. However, he did not think this proposed 50,000 square foot facility is consistent with an open space designation. He felt that to be consistent with an open space designation it would need to be significantly scaled back and have much less of the site covered with hardscape. In terms of conditions, if this project were to come back as a scaled down project and he could find it was then consistent with an open space designation, he would look at conditions to have permeable hardscape, requiring 20 foot fire access, improvements to the Palos Verdes Drive South access, and the continuity of habitat between the ocean and Upper Point Vicente. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he too has concerns about the project. He felt the location will have an immediate impact on the neighbors at Oceanfront Estates. He also felt that the project at this location is subject to a dangerous entrance and exit off of Palos Verdes Drive. He felt a substantial change in this intersection is required. He stated that he was able to make four of the required six findings and is positively inclined towards the project. He explained that this project will help the City realize the original goals and aspirations of PVIC. He felt the Annenberg foundation is a wonderful charity and their gifts have already enhanced this community. He felt an even greater presence in Lower Point Vicente Park will benefit the citizens of this City as well as other communities. While he may still have questions regarding the purpose of this proposed facility, he felt that we must appreciate the concept of the donor's intent and he felt it would be wonderful to have another destination and educational facility in this City. Commissioner Tetreault stated his biggest concern would be in regards to finding No. 4, which states the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan. He explained that he is having difficulty finding the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan, as the General Plan states this property is for recreational passive use and it is Open Space Recreation zoned. He acknowledged that parts of this proposal would comply with the General Plan, however he felt that much of the project does not. He stated that irrespective of the Vision Plan, the Planning Commission is charged to make certain findings from the Municipal Code in respect to this project, and he was having difficulty doing so. Commissioner Knight stated he too is having difficulty making finding No. 4 in terms of the compliance of the project with the definition of the passive land designation. He stated that he listened to Ann Shaw when she spoke about the City's intent when this land was obtained. He also looked at the National Park Service's definition of passive Planning Commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 22 open space and looked at the General Development Map that is attached to the deed restriction that shows passive uses. He did not think the proposed plan complies with finding No. 4. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that these types of City owned projects must go through the same review as a project on privately owned land. He too was concerned that this property is designated in the General Plan as passive recreational. He noted how much development has happened along the City's coastline in the last several years, and if that over the years the City has done a better job in terms of beautifying development along the coastline. He felt that Lower Point Vicente is a little difficult to access, and noted that many National Parks can be enjoyed because somebody took the time and vision to develop the park in a way so that one could go and enjoy that beauty. He felt that if the applicant at Lower Point Vicente went in, went through the normal processes of a zone change to active recreation, and the items in the deed restrictions were addressed, he could easily support the project. He felt the views from the neighboring residences should be readdressed to see if there is some mitigation for those views from the backyards. Chairman Gerstner felt that Lower Point Vicente is poorly utilized, and has been poorly utilized for quite some time. Further, he saw nothing in the near future that would cause the property to be utilized any better in the absence of this project. He felt the gift the Annenberg Foundation is offering is a great gift, and this use would be a great asset to the City. However, he did not feel the use is consistent with the General Plan as passive recreation. He stated that he would like the City Council to affirm that they would like this project in this configuration at the site, and if so, they need to recognize that does change the zone and the use, and take steps to direct the Commission or the staff to make that change. Director Rojas suggested that the public hearing for this item be continued to the November 9, 2010 meeting. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the public hearing to November 9, 2010, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (6-0). 4. General Plan Update — "Draft" Noise Element Director Rojas noted that staff's recommendation for this element is for the Planning Commission to receive the Noise Element, hear any testimony, direct the subcommittee to work on the element, and continue the item to the November 9t" meeting. He noted that he has no requests from the public to speak. The Commission unanimously accepted the staff's recommendation and continued the item to the November 9t" meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Planning Commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 23 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of October 26, 2010 The Commission reviewed and approved the Pre-Agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:28 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 12,2010 Page 24