Loading...
PC MINS 20120522 Approved June 26, 2012 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 22, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: None Also present were Deputy Community Development Director Pfost, Senior Planner Schonborn, and Associate Planner Kim APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director Pfost distributed 13 items of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 2 and one item of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-anenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS I. A ppeal of Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2011-00242): 7 Seacove Drive Associate Planner Kim presented a brief staff report, giving a history of the project and the reasons for the continuance to this date. She reminded the Commission that staff had felt no information was presented by the appellants that wasn't already raised and addressed at the five previous Coastal Hearings Officer meetings. Staff was therefore recommending the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Coastal Hearings Officer's recommendation of approval. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing, Janet Yamamoto (appellant) stated she was not only representing herself, but many others who attended the pre-planning meetings. She felt that many of the conclusions drawn by the Planning Department to meet the City's standards and guidelines seems to be the sole interpretation of the few in the Planning Department. She felt the proposed home, with the very modern design, is completely out of character with the neighborhood. However, her main concern is the bulk and mass of the proposed house. She explained that the project encompasses the entire rear lot. It will also set precedence by being the largest home in the neighborhood. She questioned how this project falls within the City's guidelines, and noted that in her appeal she has listed six areas where she has found bulk and mass to be an issue. She stated she is not opposed to a home being built on this site, however she expected it to meet all of the guidelines of the City and not be the largest one in the neighborhood. Chairman Tetreault noted that a house had previously been approved on the lot that was much larger than the currently proposed residence. He stated that at that time there was no opposition, and asked Ms. Yamamoto if she was living in the neighborhood at the time the previous house was approved. Ms. Yamamoto answered that she was living in the neighborhood at the time, however the original design did not appear as large or bulky as the current proposal. Michael Lee (project architect) showed several photos of the property as well as other homes in the neighborhood. He noted that the house next door is the smallest house in the neighborhood, and it was unfortunate that his house was being judged against the smallest home in the neighborhood. He showed site plans of the different designs that had been proposed for the property and the changes that have been made, He noted that the home has been lowered to the point that there now appears to be a problem with drainage out of the rear yard, and wondered if the house height could be raised. John Phillips (property owner) felt there have been numerous misrepresentations made on the part of the appellants. He stated that his proposed residence will not be the largest in the neighborhood, but rather the fourth largest within the twenty closest homes. He also noted that his proposed residence is not the largest in terms of lot coverage and is well below the allowable lot coverage. He stated that his home will not block any views from any of the neighbors' residences and there are no privacy issues. He stated that the biggest concerns came from the neighbor next door, and he is now happy with the design. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 2 Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Phillips if he wanted the Planning Commission to make a decision on the plan before them, or if he was suggesting a modification to the design to address the potential drainage problems. Mr. Phillips answered that he would like the Commission to make a decision. He noted that the current house is so far below the allowable height limit, that being allowed to raise the height just slightly to get drainage would be helpful. If that isn't possible, he would understand. David Walbeck stated he has written a letter in support of the project, however a speaker at the last meeting felt the letter was an invalid support letter. He explained that his concern is that someone in the City is attempting to build a house that is smaller than allowed, lower than allowed, is supported by City staff, and still having this much difficultly getting approved. He felt that if a proposed residence conforms to the rules of the City, it should be allowed to be built. Michael Stuge supported the project, as it is eco-friendly and sets a good example for building a home in the neighborhood. Lynn Swank stated her home is across the street, and is not considered a part of the neighborhood. She stated she was very impressed that the architect and owner went to the neighbors to talk about the project and sign a petition, however there was never an attempt to discuss the plans. She stated there are several reasons she opposes the project, including the bulk and mass of the project. She noted that staff did not feel CEQA was required, however she pointed out that the gully behind the property is a wildlife corridor. She stated that if the Commission does approve the project, she was requesting some mitigation that was not included in the staff report. She requested there be no work on Saturdays; that concerns of parking construction vehicles in front of neighboring residences be addressed; that a full time traffic safety person be available to direct traffic at Palos Verdes Drive South and Seacove Drive; that neighboring driveways not be used by the construction vehicles to make turnarounds; that the developer put a chain across her entire property so that nobody can go on it unless she lets them in; and that a porta potty be required on the property for the workers. Corinne Gerrard stated that she had attended the previous meeting and became curious. She checked the title on twenty houses on Seacove Drive and found that nine of those twenty are over 3,000 square feet and one being 5,000 square feet. She felt the proposed house is very reasonable in comparison to the twenty houses on Seacove. She noted that many of the existing houses have a similar design to the one proposed. She also noted that she does not know either the applicant or the appellants in this case. Bill Swank stated that all of the houses on the ocean side of Seacove Drive have to be excluded, as they are not part of the neighborhood compatibility analysis. As such, of the twenty houses that Ms. Gerrard looked at, most of them were probably on the ocean side of the street. He stated that neighborhood compatibility is part of the code, not Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 3 something that is outside of the code that staff can apply. Therefore, even though the house may meet code requirements, the question should also be asked as to whether or not the house is compatible with the neighborhood. He did not think the house is compatible with the neighborhood because of the bulk and mass. He felt that to mitigate the bulk and mass the lot could be graded to street level, as it is currently three to four feet above street level. Shannon Hartman (appelllant) stated her concern is the bulk and mass of the proposed residence. She questioned if this will open up a trend that this neighborhood really doesn't want to see. She stated that this is a large house on a small lot and all she is trying to do is watch out for her neighbors and the neighborhood and look into the future to make sure this is the best house for the neighborhood. Chairman Tetreault noted that Ms. Hartman's main concerns appear to be the bulk and mass of the proposed residence. Since the proposed residence is an L shaped building, he didn't think that most of the house would be visible from the street. Further, reducing the size of the house would not seem to lessen the look of the house from the street since the front fagade would still be there. If bulk and mass is the main concern, he asked Ms. Hartman what it is about the bulk and mass that she objects to. Ms. Hartman explained that it depends on how far back she cuts her trees as to how much of the house she will be able to see. If the trees are cut back to a certain level she will be able to see everything on the lot. If a portion of the back of the house were to be removed that would alleviate some of the issues for the neighbors down the street. She also thought that grading the property lower would help reduce the bulk and mass as seen from the street. Karl MacMillen stated he has known the Phillips family for over 60 years and felt the family does quality work. He stated that if the plan meets the minimum standards of the Code, he felt the City should welcome the new construction, Rick Carl stated he built his home at 42 Seacove Drive a few years ago and understands everything involved in building new construction in the neighborhood. He felt the proposed project fits into the neighborhood with no problem. He explained the neighborhood is made up of several styles of homes, including modern, classic, and old. He therefore felt that neighborhood compatibility is a non-issue. He felt the owner has gone out of his way to make the neighbors happy and address their concerns. Richard Schleicher stated he is not an immediate neighbor of the proposed house, but the owner did come to him to show him pictures and the layout of the proposed residence. He understood the owner's viewpoint as well as the appellants' viewpoints. However, he felt the City has the responsibility to adhere to the Code and maintain compatibility in the neighborhood. He felt that the Hartman's lot is higher than the subject lot and therefore there should not be any view issues. He stated he was in favor of the project. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 4 Sussan Bruguera stated that she does not know the owners or the appellants, but was very much in favor of the new home as proposed. Shannon Hartman (in rebuttal) explained that all she was trying to do was look into the future to make sure that the right decisions are made in how the development will be handled in the neighborhood. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis asked if staff has the ability, in terms of plans and specifications, to entertain a request to allow the house to be built at some level higher than what is proposed on the current plans. Associate Planner Kim answered that staff does not have sufficient drawings or plans, however if the Planning Commission allows for a taller height staff can bring a revised resolution to the Planning Commission at the next meeting for adoption. Deputy Director Pfost added that the silhouette may be an issue for the Commission to consider, as it is currently constructed to the proposed height of the residence. Therefore, the Commission wouldn't have the advantage of looking at the neighborhood compatibility issues of a taller residence. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked staff to clarify the homes used for neighborhood compatibility in terms of the size of the residence. Associate Planner Kim explained that at the last meeting she clarified an error on page 59 of the staff report in regards to 1 Seacove, as it is over 4,000 square feet in size. She also noted another home on Seacove within the twenty closest homes that is over 4,000 square feet, however the building permit has not yet been finaled. Per past practice, staff does not include homes in the comparison unless they have a certificate of occupancy issued. She also explained that, while the properties on the South side of Seacove Drive are larger homes, they are not included in the twenty closest homes as they are in a different zoning district. She also showed pictures of the twenty closest homes, explaining that based on staff's analysis the proposed residence has more articulation as well as a larger front yard setback. She noted the by-right height allowed for a sloping lot such as this is 30 feet from the lowest post construction grade and 16 feet from the highest post construction grade. This proposal is less than 13 feet in height in the back and 20 feet in height in the front. Commissioner Leon asked staff if they knew whether or not the neighborhood architectural committee had approved this design. Associate Planner Kim believed the architectural committee had not approved the design, however explained it was staff's understanding that there was a new board and new by-laws being put into place that were not yet finalized. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 5 Commissioner Leon asked staff if the architectural board had denied the design. Associate Planner Kim was not aware of that. Chairman Tetreault understood the front yard setback was quite generous, and asked staff how this home compared with the twenty closest homes in terms of side yard and rear yard setbacks. Associate Planner Kim answered that this proposed residence is similar to the others in terms of side yard and rear yard setbacks. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendation to deny the appeal and affirm the Coastal Hearings Officer's decision, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked if the motion maker would consider an amendment to prohibit Saturday construction and to limit construction parking on the even side of Seacove Drive. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the Commission has the authority to limit construction to Monday through Friday. Associate Planner Kim answered that the Commission does have that authority. Commissioner Gerstner did not see anything unique enough in this neighborhood to limit construction days or parking. He could not remember the Planning Commission ever putting these types of conditions on residential construction. Commissioner Nelson agreed. Chairman Tetreault asked if staff had ever put this type of condition on a residential construction project. Deputy Director Pfost was not aware of any residential project in the City where staff had placed these types of conditions. Chairman Tetreault asked staff about the permit parking on the street and how that would be handled during construction. Deputy Director Pfost stated he was not familiar with the parking situation on Seacove Drive, explained that permit parking is handled through the Public Works Department, and he thought construction parking may need some type of temporary parking permit through that department. He suggested the property owner visit the Public Works Department to deal with any issues in regards to permit parking on the street. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 6 Chairman Tetreault asked staff when, if ever, traffic safety issues are reviewed when a project is approved for construction. Deputy Director Pfost answered that traffic safety is typically reviewed when there is work being done in the public right-of-way and an Encroachment Permit has been issued by the City. It is also looked at when there is a large construction project that requires the contractor to use part of the street as part of the construction project and a part of the street may have to be closed. Typically there is no review for traffic safety from the Public Works Department for a new single family residence construction. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he considered the comment regarding additional grading on the lot, and noted that currently the garage is less than one foot off of the street level and any more grading may create problems. He also noted that the house is almost five feet lower than what is allowed by right. He did not think much could be done to the front of the building that would significantly change the look and perceived bulk and mass. Vice Chairman Emenhiser felt that the project has a minimal impact on views, and the design addresses bulk and mass concerns. He felt that there are limitations as to what can be designed and built on the property because of the size and shape of the lot. He noted that he was also encouraged because this house is smaller than the house that was previously approved on the property. Chairman Tetreault noted that over the years the Commission has discussed many times the incremental effect that home building has on a neighborhood and neighborhood compatibility. He explained that it isn't always the square footage, but also the appearance of the structure. The Commission has also noted and taken into consideration whether or not the square footage is somehow hidden and not visible, and will discount any precedent that square footage has made. In this particular house he was not concerned with the square footage, noting most of it is hidden and not apparent from the street. The motion to deny►the appeal and adopt PC Resolution 2012-09 was approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit for Point View Master Plan (Case No. ZON2010- 00087): Point View Property Vice Chairman Emenhiser disclosed that he purchased his current home from York Properties. Mr. York also contributed to his campaign for City Council, however the amount contributed was below the reportable level of$100. He did not believe that either of these issues would affect his ability to make a decision on this application. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 7 Commissioner Nelson reported that starting in 1999 his Homeowners Association supported Terranea and through that he had the opportunity to meet Mr. York and represent his interests in regards to Terranea and the Homeowners Association. He too did not believe this would influence his vote on this project. Commissioner Leon stated he lives within the 500 foot radius of the project and left the dais. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the project includes three main components: a golf course, agricultural use and other miscellaneous improvements, and an event garden. He described each of the proposed uses, showing the property on an aerial photo. He explained that staff performed a CEQA analysis, looking at the different environmental issues. He stated that the analysis showed there were several issues that came about as a result of the CEQA process, however the impacts that were considered significant could be mitigated with certain measures to a level of less than significant. He discussed the biological and noise impacts in greater detail, as discussed in the staff report. He also discussed trails on the property and how they related to the Conceptual Trails Plan. He noted that the inclusion of trails as specified in the Conceptual Trails Plan does not legally grant the use or guarantee the implementation of certain trails. The City Attorney did not feel there was a nexus between the proposed project and acquiring the trail segments to be implemented. Therefore the City cannot mandate or require the property owner to give an easement or allow for the use of his property for the trails. However, staff asked the property owner if he was interested in pursuing a dedication to allow for the trails, but the property owner was not interested at this time. Finally, he introduced Jay Ziff and Heidi Rous from PCR, who are the consultants that prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration documents for the project. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the Planning Commission had the discretion to determine a Mitigated Negative Declaration was not appropriate and an EIR was needed for the proposed project. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that when an Environmental Assessment is prepared there are certain issues identified as having a potentially significant impact. If these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated, that results in a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If staff identifies an issue that is significant and cannot be mitigated, that would be a precursor to establishing an EIR. In this case, the Environmental Assessment established there are certain potentially significant impacts, however they can be reduced to a level of less than significant. Commissioner Lewis noted staff's recommendation, however he asked if the Planning Commission were to conclude that they could not support staff's recommendation and felt an EIR was appropriate, could the Commission request an EIR. He also questioned the timing of this in regards to the Permit Streamling Act. Planning commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 8 Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the Permit Streamling Act allows for a one year frame in cases where an EIR is required. Deputy Director Pfost added that if the Planning Commission were to determine that an EIR was needed, it would be very important for the Commission to delineate which impacts they felt could not be mitigated that would warrant the EIR. Commissioner Lewis noted staff was recommending the Event Center not operate past 6 p.m. and asked if the applicant had any opposition to that recommendation, Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the applicant had concerns with that condition. Commissioner Lewis asked if the Planning Commission had the discretion to approve components of the project, or was it an all or nothing proposition. Senior Planner Schonborn stated the Commission has the ability to limit certain uses being proposed, and to approve or deny certain uses. Deputy Director Pfost added that the Commission is reviewing a Conditional Use Permit with certain components and findings. He encouraged the Commission to specifically identify which component they were not able to make the findings for, whereby they would be denying that component of the project. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked how many events were being held at the property now as compared to the number requested by the applicant. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that currently the property owner must request a Special Use Permit to hold an event on the property. He felt that the last Special Use Permit granted for the site was in either 2009 or 2010. He noted that other events have been held on the property, however they have been conveyed as events held for friends or associates which the property owner has the ability to do without a permit. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked how many acres would be devoted to agriculture. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that approximately 25 acres will be dedicated to agriculture. Vice Chairman Emenhiser felt that noise was an important issue with this project, and if noise were to be mitigated what type of techniques would be employed for the mitigation. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that mitigation measures include providing for some insulation in the existing walls, requiring the speakers be oriented in a certain direction, and limits on volume, Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 9 Ms. Rous added that these measures are performance based mitigation measures, Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked if the noise was trying to be mitigated from the top of the neighborhood, the north side of the property, or down closer to Palos Verdes Drive South. Ms. Rous answered that there are topography issues with the property and it depends on where in the Event Garden the event will be held as to where the noise must be mitigated. However, primarily the noise mitigation would be concentrated in the areas of R1 and R2. Commissioner Tomblin recalled when Wayfarer's Chapel proposed an addition to the back of the existing building and the Planning Commission put restrictions on the property at that time. He asked staff if there has been a comparison with the restrictions at Wayfarer's Chapel as it would be applied to the Event Garden. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that the comparison was not done, but it could be done if the Commission desired. Commissioner Tomblin also noted that in one of the comment letters a comment was made as to events held outside at Terranea or Trump. He asked if those comparisons would be applicable in this case. Senior Planner Schonborn felt Terranea was different, as it is not a residentially zoned property. Any comparisons would be better made with Trump, however he noted that there is no data or studies done in regards to outdoor events at Trump to get any noise levels. Deputy Director Pfost explained that for the most part there are no restrictions at Trump in terms of outdoor events. However, when Trump has a large event the City processes that through a Special Use Permit. Chairman Tetreault noted that in 2009 the Event Center was brought to the Commission in the form of a proposal through a Conditional Use Permit, which was eventually denied by the City. He asked staff to explain why the project is now being presented as a Master Use Plan (MUP), and what the difference is between this and the original CUP. Senior Planner Schonborn explained the main difference between this submittal and the one in 2009 is that the applicant submitted a CUP application for use of the property solely for the purposes of an Event Garden Center. Staff returned that application explaining that type of use, which was renting out a residentially zoned property for commercial purposes was not a conditionally permitted use and therefore a CUP application could not be accepted. An interpretation procedure was subsequently brought before the Planning Commission, and the Commission agreed with the interpretation that staff cannot accept a CUP application to use a residentially zoned Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 10 property to conduct events as a commercial enterprise. He further explained that a Master Use Plan is a term used when a variety of uses are proposed on a property, however it is all still governed by the Conditional Use Permit. The difference now is that, the CUP application includes an agricultural use and a golf course, both of which are conditionally permitted uses. As an ancillary use to those uses is the Event Garden. He added that in the Code there is no definition of what constitutes a golf course. Chairman Tetreault asked staff, if the Master Use Plan is approved, how long does that approval last and does it impact or restrict other possible uses for the property. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the longevity of the approval would be subject to the Planning Commission's discretion as to whether they granted a permit valid for one year, five years, or any given amount of time. He added this approval would not preclude other uses on the property, however if another type of use were added to the property it would have to come before the Planning Commission for a modification to the CUP. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they had discussed this application with the City Attorney and her comments on this type of application. Senior Planner Schonborn stated staff had reviewed this application with the City Attorney and she felt this is a conditionally permitted use and the application should be taken through the process. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Jim York (applicant) stated that, now that he has bought out his partners and has no debt on the property, his goal is to enjoy the property. He stated he hired a landscape architect to design a master plan for the property, and this master plan includes agriculture, a small golf course, and the event garden. The agriculture will consist of avocados, citrus, olives, grapes, and vegetables, all of which will have organic certification. He explained that the irrigation will be minimal and he will ensure that the most sustainable and economically methods available will be used, and he will ensure that no runoff will go into the ocean. The golf course is proposed to be a small course with a few synthetic grass greens and several 4 x 4 hitting mats. There will be no irrigation or grading involved in the golf course. The event garden is on a flat portion of the property and is basically complete, noting that it has been completed over the past several years with permits from the City. He noted the event garden has patios, grass areas, bathrooms, outdoor kitchen, and fireplace. He stated that he currently has the legal right to access the entire property from Narcissa Drive. He explained that this year he will have approximately fifteen events on the property. He is proposing to double the number of events from fifteen to thirty, and be able to charge for some of these events. In exchange for this he is proposing to build an all-weather driveway from Palos Verdes Drive South to the event garden and to build sound walls and other things to mitigate sound. He noted the staff report recommends all events be concluded by 6.00 p.m. and felt this was unacceptable, as there are many events such as dinner parties that cannot Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 11 end at 6:00. He stated he was not interested in building an improved road and sound walls if the events must end by 6:00. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Mr. York how many people he would expect at each event. Mr. York answered that the Walk on the Wild Side may have as many as 700, however that would be a once a year event. Most of the events he has had at the property have had no more than 125 people attending. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Mr. York to discuss what mitigation measures he is proposing or would consider to mitigate the noise concerns in the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. York explained that he has talked to people at Terranea and La Venta Inn and as a result he will be enacting an entertainment agreement. This agreement will be signed by anyone using the property, including his friends, which will specify the decibel level, the direction of the speakers, and if the agreement is not adhered to the event will be ended. Additionally, the noise consultant has recommended a twelve-foot sound wall be built behind the area where the music will be played. The wall will be planted with Boston Ivy to keep the noise from bouncing off. Additionally, there will be sound absorbing materials on the walls. He stated he agrees with all of the mitigation requirements except for the 6:00 p.m. requirement. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Mr. York about his thoughts on trails. Mr. York explained that he has had a history of problems in allowing the general public on the property. When the property was unfenced he had several cases of vandalism and burglary on the property, which prompted the need for the fencing. He stated he would let the residents of Portuguese Bend that he knows use the property, but could not let the general public access the property because of the liability issues. He stated he has talked to staff about allowing a trail access on the northwest portion of the property which would give access from Barkentine Canyon across the property. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. York what he felt was a reasonable time to end events on the property. Mr. York recommended most events end at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Lewis referred to the event where up to 750 people were expected, and asked Mr. York if he would be agreeable to a condition of approval limiting such events to once a year. Mr. York was agreeable to such a condition, as Las Candalistas holds this event only once a year. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 12 Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. York to clarify his easement rights to enter his property through Portuguese Bend. Mr. York explained that he has the same rights as the other residents in Portuguese Bend and those who live in the Vanderlip Estates, He clarified that this includes himself, his family members, his workers, and invited guests. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. York if he would be agreeable to a condition of approval that event access and parking be accessed from Palos Verdes Drive South, and not through the Portuguese Bend community. Mr. York was agreeable to such a condition of approval. Gary Weber (representing York Point View Properties) felt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project is a very comprehensive and thorough document, comparable to many EIRs being written today. He stated he does not agree with everything stated in the document, but felt it was a fair and accurate document that will stand up to any test. He stated the proposed project is fairly complex, however the issues are quite simple. He clarified that the Master Use Plan terminology is his terminology and not the city's. He felt there are a lot of uses and activities planned for the property that will be a benefit to the community, noting that the proposal is a mix of low impact environmentally compatible uses over what appears to be the largest vacant private property on the peninsula. Mr. York will be reintroducing the use of agriculture on the peninsula, which will include organic agriculture. He noted that the property has been certified organic for the past two or three years. He also noted that staff has verified the agriculture use will not impact the habitat. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Weber, if the Commission were to approve the proposed Master Use Plan, would Mr. York then give up the residential zoning rights and declare the property agricultural and open space. Mr. Weber answered that Mr. York would absolutely not give up the residential zoning rights. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Weber in what way an event center for commercial purposes is an ancillary use to a private, friends only, no green fees golf course. Mr. Weber related it back to what happens at Trump. He stated that Trump is a golf course, there are events held there, and these two functions are exclusive of each other. He did not see a difference in what Mr. York is proposing and what is allowed at Trump. Commissioner Lewis noted the agricultural use on the property has been certified organic and asked Mr. Weber if any certification or accreditation occurred with respect to the proposed golf course. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 13 Mr. Weber answered that has not taken place. He explained that it was briefly pursued, however because there is no set definition of what a golf course is it was difficult. Commissioner Nelson noted there has been mention of some environmental factors, one being first flush. He asked Mr. Weber to explain what first flush is and why it is important, and how that first flush will be handled. Mr. Weber explained that as part of the environmental analysis a hydrology study and a water quality study were prepared. He explained that a first flush occurs when there is a rain event that causes runoff from the property which will sometimes capture materials that you don't want to go into the ocean or habitat areas. The idea is to capture that first flush, and they are doing that by capturing it in a vegetated buffer on both sides of the road, which will capture the materials off of the road and the agriculture areas. He noted there are agricultural areas below the roadway, however those areas are captured through best management practices. He stated there are also drainage basins that will capture and filter excess water. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there is a maximum time limit put in place for use of this Master Use Plan. Mr. Weber stated Mr. York has not identified any time frame, noting that typically Conditional Use Permits are granted until some condition is violated which would invalidate the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Tomblin envisioned that in the future Mr. York could have a small golf course, agricultural use, and an event garden, and then decide to propose a residential development incorporating all of these uses. He felt that if this were to happen he would prefer to see the event garden go away rather than become a community clubhouse. He was not sure he was in favor of approving a Master Plan that may lead the way for the first phase of a future residential master planned community. Mr. Weber, stated there are currently no plans to do anything like that, noting that the process to get a residential development with these components in it would be a major project. He added that the Master Use Plan is only his terminology, not the city's, and only a label to put on the project. Jim Herrera stated he is a member of the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Commerce has voted to support this proposal, as it may bring jobs and tax revenue to the City. Speaking as a private citizen and resident of the City, he felt this is a great opportunity for the City to revisit its agricultural roots. He felt this is a gentle use of the property and one that would benefit the City, Gordon Leon stated his comments are solely his own and do not represent any group, committee, or organization. He also stated he lives across the street from the York property. He stated it was recently brought to his attention that this current proposal may be conceptually a better plan than building ninety homes on the property. He Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 14 stated there are a host of landslide and landslide related issues, but felt most could be mitigated with appropriate measures. He did find the proposed event center to be problematic. On its surface he did not feel it was compatible with a residential zone, as it is a business running in, a residential area. He noted Mr. York felt he has the same rights as others living in the area, but pointed out that other residents do not regularly bring 100 to 700 guests into their homes. He stated the Portuguese Bend neighborhood is an extraordinarily quiet neighborhood, with no background noise and almost no nighttime activity. He noted the event center is at the top of the hill and as a consequence one can hear what is going on there all around the community. Should the Commission allow an event center, he suggested rezoning the property. He also felt the site should be modified to lower the event center below the crest of the hill. He also suggested the hours for the event center be limited to daylight hours only, especially given the parking area is located so close to the community. Chairman Tetreault noted much has been said about the noise the event center could create, and also noted that the permitted use on the property is residential and Mr. York could propose to build many new homes on the property. He asked Mr. Leon if there had been any thoughts or comments on the types and amount of noise a fifty or sixty home development would create in the Portuguese Bend neighborhood. Mr. Leon felt the main difference would be the concentrated versus distributed nature of the noise. He stated the event center is at the top of the hill overlooking the entire Portuguese Bend area. If ninety homes were to be built if would be distributed across the entire area. Chef Michael Shafer stated he has done events at the York property, one of which raised $40,000 for the Palos Verdes Education Foundation. He stated that he does charity events in homes in this City at least once a month, and these events can have from 200 to over 800 people attending. He also addressed parking, noting that if 70 people show up for an event, there will be 20 to 30 cars. He stated that it is nearly impossible for weddings and events to end at 6:00, as there is time needed to set up and break down the event. Commissioner Nelson asked Chef Shafer what his average break down time is for an event. Chef Shafer answered that if an event ends at 9:30 he can be off of the property by 10:30, Commission Nelson asked what the average set up time is. Chef Shafer answered the average setup time is approximately 1 1/2 hours. Corinne Gerrard stated the Portuguese Bend roads are substandard to today's engineering standards. She was concerned that additional traffic and heavy trucks using Narcissa Drive will do damage to the road. She was therefore in support of Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 15 building the access road from Palos Verdes Drive South to the York property. She questioned the sound issues in regards to the event garden, noting that when she worked with Wayfarers Chapel she learned that sound travels up. If that does happen, she suspected any sounds from the event garden would travel up and not so much towards the residential homes. She noted Wayfarers Chapel has events until 10:00 P.m. Chairman Tetreault asked Ms. Rous if sound does indeed travel up and would therefore have less of an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Rous explained that sound travels in all directions, similar to a bubble expanding. Claire Monks discussed Mr. York's character and his willingness to talk to people about organic gardening, his sincerity to his neighbors, and his openness to concerns in the neighborhood. She agreed that the roads in Portuguese Bend are not up to handling the additional traffic, and supported the proposed access to the property from Palos Verdes Drive South. Dennen Monks stated he was in support of the proposal, and agreed with the comments made by Claire Monks. He was supportive of the idea that so much of the land was being dedicated to agriculture. Suzanne Hoffman stated she lives very close to the event center, and that parties and events held in the past have been very loud. She was therefore against the event center, as she did not believe an outdoor event center belongs in a residential neighborhood. She questioned if the larger community of Rancho Palos Verdes wants part of a hillside designated as a commercial zone for parties. She noted the City prides itself on its quiet, semi-rural environment. She discussed the dangerous roads in the City, and the guests leaving the event center after drinking and having to navigate these roads. She felt the event center poses a huge risk to the greater Rancho Palos Verdes community and there is no gain to the residents, only potential liability. Suzanne Griffith stated this project has been looked at by the Planning Commission on several prior occasions, and the only reason it is again before the Commission is because Mr. York is now proposing a golf course on the property, which he did in order to satisfy the Municipal Code requirement to apply for an ancillary use. She stated everyone knows the golf course is not the true reason for the CUP, but rather Mr. York's intent is to get permission to have the event center in a residential neighborhood. She did not think this proposed golf course and use can be compared to the Trump property. She noted that Trump has an enclosed building for events and parties. She asked the Planning Commission what type of precedent will be established by allowing this type of commercial activity in a well established RS1 zoned area. Barbara Sattler stated she was representing the Sierra Club. She stated there were significant concerns in regards to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, noting it fails to acknowledge the obligations under the NCCP for the property, has a number of very Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 16 serious inaccuracies within it, and does not provide adequate mitigation to the habitat impacts. She stated the entire property is identified as important habitat area for the preserve, yet the MND and staff are asserting it is not part of the NCCP. She stated the property is part of the NCCP plan, specifically mapped on almost every map within the NCCP plan, and is specifically referred to in the plan. She acknowledged it is not in the preserve, but it is specifically designated in the approved plan. She asked the Commission to not approve the MND, as she felt it is extremely flawed and needs revising. Leanne Twidwell stated she has lived in Portuguese Bend for 39 years, and in those 39 years she did not think she had been aware of 39 parties in the community. She stated the area is unique in that it is semi-rural, there are small houses on large lots, and is particularly quiet at night. She questioned how an event center is compatible with this type of neighborhood. She hoped the Commission would consider the lives of those who live in Portuguese Bend when making their decision, Peter McClaffert stated his property abuts the York property. He was concerned with the additional traffic, noting it has already increased on Palos Verdes Drive South since Terranea was built. He stated that with the events that have already taken place on the York property guests have not adhered to the speed limit and park wherever they want, Da'ad Makhlouf remembered speaking at the last hearing for the previous proposal for the property, noting that proposal was denied. She stated the only difference now is the event center is camouflaged in some trees. She was very much against a commercial venture in a residential neighborhood. Robert McClellan asked if a Friday and Saturday event would be considered one event, or a Friday, Saturday and Sunday event would be considered one event, He was concerned with the number of days these events may begin to take place. He also questioned who is monitoring the number of events held on the property. He was concerned with the added traffic to the already unstable roads in Portuguese Bend. He stated he would completely support the project if it were rezoned agriculture and split off a portion near the bottom for commercial zoning. Sunshine stated she was frustrated with staffs lack of interest in the City's General Plan. She referred to page 2 of the staff report and discussed her concerns with preserving emergency circulation with the side benefit of preserving recreational trails. She felt that more work needs to be done in terms of the trails. She did not think staff should feel free to say that just because an existing trail is not dedicated to the City it does not exist, hence the word conceptual. Gary Weber (in rebuttal) stated that most noise ordinances, especially in Southern California, have noise limitations that begin at 10:00 p.m. and end at TOO a.m. However, Rancho Palos Verdes is a little unusual and doesn't have those standards. He felt the 6:00 p.m. deadline is arbitrary, as he could not find any technical in the report that would indicate a 6:00 p.m. limitation really benefits the community. He also noted Nanning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 17 that the City did not deny a previous request for a Conditional Use Permit, as stated by many of the speakers. In 2009 the Planning Commission acted to confirm staff's interpretation that an event center was not appropriate in a residential district. He believed, and continues to believe, that decision was flawed. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Weber of he agreed that the Commission has the discretion to look at the character of the surrounding neighborhood when deciding whether or not this proposed use of the property would cause significant impact. Mr. Weber answered that the Commission clearly has that discretion. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Weber what time he felt the cutoff time for the event center should be. Mr. Weber felt 10:00 p.m. would be an appropriate cutoff time, but also felt that 9-30 would be agreeable. Commissioner Tomblin asked if Mr. York would be applying for a liquor license or resale license, or if they are necessary if there is a chargeable event on the property. Chef Shafer answered by explaining that according to the ABC there are three ways to have a party where alcohol is being served: obtain a liquor license, have a catering liquor license, or an individual can serve liquor at a party when they are responsible for that event. He explained that at the event center liquor would be served, but either under his liquor license as the caterer, or the person having the event will supply and serve the liquor. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin noted to staff that there is a particular residence in the city of San Marino that has had 150 fundraising events in the last eighteen months, and staff may want to contact the city to see how they have handled the situation. Commissioner Nelson asked staff how they determined 6:00 p.m. for an ending time at the event center, and asked staff if they really thought such an early time would work. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that in the Mitigated Negative Declaration there is a lengthy discussion about the ambient noise levels, including those for daytime and evening time, and that cutoff between daytime and evening time was 6:00 p.m. Using the ambient noise as a guide to help staff to objectively look at impacts resulting from noise it was determined that there was a significant impact at certain locations as noted in the staff report. In going through the document from a CEQA standpoint, the appropriate mitigation in order to account for exceeding the significance threshold in the ambient noise level is to not allow event activities at the ceremony lawn area or to allow amplified music after 6,00 p.m. Because there was that condition, looking at it from a Conditional Use Permit point of view, staff took the position that any exceedance of the Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 18 ambient noise level would be considered an adverse impact and because it occurs after 6:00 p.m. that is why staff ultimately suggested the 6:00 p.m. cutoff time. Commissioner Nelson felt that the Planning Commission is charged with coming up with and finding a practical solution to a real problem, and he felt this was real problem. He asked staff what they felt the practical solution might be. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that staff does not look at whether a party at the site is going to be successful, but rather whether the impacts from that party are significant. Staff felt that a party at the site after 6:00 p.m. will exceed the ambiance noise level. Commissioner Nelson asked Ms. Rous the same question. Ms. Rous explained that Noise 7, which was referred to by staff, is to limit activity at the ceremony lawn to not past 6:00 p.m. because that area basically cannot be mitigated. She stated an event could occur at the event garden, which is primarily walled and there are other permanent improvements planned to mitigate the noise that would bring it to a less than significant impact from a CEQA standpoint. She noted that staff is using a slightly different threshold definition of an adverse impact for the CUP approval versus a significant impact that has been mitigated to less than significant in the definition in CEQA. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there are mitigation measures that could be applied to the area, other than the ceremony lawn, that could make the impact less than significant. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that nothing has been identified at this point that would lead staff to believe that was possible. Commissioner Gerstner explained he was trying to find out if it was impossible to mitigate the noise coming from this area, or if it something that is difficult and a solution has yet to be found. He also noted that the evaluation that was done of ambient noise and the line that was drawn to distinguish afternoon from evening, was somewhat arbitrary. He felt that staff looked at that line of distinction and used that as a basis as to when the events should stop. He felt that staff could just as easily have said that afternoon ends at 7:00 p.m. and an entire evaluation done on that time period. Ms. Rous agreed that there is not a regulatory differentiation. She explained this study was done based on the monitoring studies done in four locations in Portuguese Bend, and there is a significant drop in noise in the neighborhood at 6:00 p.m. Chairman Tetreault questioned how much that is a function of what time it is as opposed to the season. He noted that at 6:00 in January it is dark as opposed to 6:00 in the summertime where there is at least two more hours of sunshine. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 19 Ms. Rous agreed that this is a function of the time of year the measurements are taken. Commissioner Tomblin asked if requiring tenting at the site would help mitigate noise levels. Ms. Rous answered that an a technical basis a tent offers little to no sound mitigation. Commissioner Gerstner noted that Mr. York offered to allow sound measurements to be taken at an upcoming event, and asked staff if they felt that would be beneficial to the analysis. Ms. Rous explained that she could set up monitors in the neighborhood that would allow them to know what the impact was, however one would not know what the noise that created the impact was without being at the event and monitoring everything at the event. Chairman Tetreault noted in the preliminary MND that noise was a potentially significant impact that was looked at but could be mitigated. There are many mitigation measures outlined in the report, one being that the event stop at 6-00 p.m. If that could not be done and that mitigation measure removed is there then not a MND, would an EIR then have to be prepared. Ms. Rous clarified the MND required the ceremony lawn functions end at 6:00, not that all events stop at 6:00 p.m., which is a different staff recommendation. The MND allows the event garden to operate until 10:00 p.m. with the physical improvements and performance limitations. Ms. Rous noted that the ceremony lawn is open to the neighborhood on the north (back) side. Chairman Tetreault asked Ms. Rous if her role in the MND was to determine, if the activities could be confined to the event garden, the event could go beyond 6:00 p.m. However, 20 yards away at the lawn area would create a problem after 6:00 p.m. Ms. Rous answered, with the appropriate mitigations in place, that was correct. Chairman Tetreault then asked staff, if the applicant can't or won't limit the events to before 6:00, what would then happen from staff's standpoint in terms of recommendations for approval or denial of the project. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that staff would still recommend approval with the condition of approval that events end by 6:00 p.m. He did not think there was a practical way to keep people out of the ceremony lawn area after 6:00 because of the close proximity to the event center, and did not know how that could be regulated. Deputy Director Pfost also explained that the MND has certain findings, however when staff looked at the findings for the Conditional Use Permit, which has separate findings, staff felt there would be issues allowing events to continue past 6.00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 20 Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if they worked with the applicant to find ways to mitigate this Concern. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that staff looked at the application in its entirety and did not approach the applicant in regards to this specific mitigation. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff, if the applicant were able to present mitigation measures that would control the noise issues to staffs satisfaction, would that then change staff's recommendation relative to the distinction between agreeing with the conditions of the MND as they are proposed versus the modification suggested by staff. Senior Planner Schonborn felt there could potentially be some modifications that would result in the ambient noise level not being exceeded. At that point, from a staffs perspective there would be no adverse impact in terms of the CUP. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to give staff and the consultants sufficient time to address the issues raised by the Commission and the public speakers, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Senior Planner Schonborn noted that in order to give staff and the consultants enough time to thoroughly review all of the issues, as well as the issues brought up by the resource agencies, and the likelihood that the final MND will have to be recirculated with proper notification, that staff would recommend this come back to the Planning Commission no sooner than the second meeting in August or the first meeting in September. Chairman Tetreault asked staff if there are other issues the Commission would like staff or the consultants to address as part of the review process. Commissioner Tomblin asked for a discussion of the road restriction through Portuguese Bend; conditions of the master plan; a comment about the definition of what an event is; the monitoring requirements, which may include the same requirements used for Wayfarers Chapel; a discussion of whether or not the event center will be used strictly for nonprofit events or if the event center will be used as a commercial business; and contacting other cities that have properties in residential neighborhoods which hold similar events to see how they are handled. Commissioner Lewis would also like to see the conditions that were applicable to Wayfarers Chapel in terms of comparing those conditions to this application. The application discusses large trucks or Hollywood style restrooms to be used for large events, and would like to see an analysis of these large trucks using the steep road in terms of safety. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 21 Commissioner Gerstner asked for a better understanding of the ambient lighting in the area. He also asked staff for an explanation of why staff was asking for mitigation of the color of the new road. Vice Chairman, Emenhiser agreed with the Commissioner's comments adding he would like to see a discussion regarding the northern trail along the top of the property. Commissioner Gerstner asked too see on an aerial where the original trails were and where the conceptual trail was proposed. Chairman Tetreault stated he would like to see more distinction between and more of a comparison between what was proposed to the City in 2009 and what is being proposed now. He would like to better understand how having some type of golfing element allows an application for commercial use of residential property, if there are any legal limits as to what constitutes a golf course, and if there has to be any nexus between the golfing element and the ancillary use. The public hearing was continued to an unspecified future date, (6-0). Commissioner Leon returned to the dais. 3. General Plan update — Review proposed changes to the existing Lane Use Ma Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining this is in regards to City owned property (park sites) and changing the General Plan land use designation from Residential to Recreation Passive similar to other existing park sites in the City. He stated that the Planning Commission decision is not a final decision, but rather a recommendation to the City Council which will be combined with all of the other land use changes that the Commission has reviewed in the past. Commissioner Leon asked if the same thing could be accomplished by having Recreational Passive be an allowed use in residential neighborhoods. Deputy Director Pfost believed that from a zoning standpoint government facilities and recreation are permitted uses. However, what should be done in the General Plan is to identify land use areas that are recreational or open space areas. He felt it would be preferable to have these on the land use map. Commissioner Leon noted these are very small areas, less than 3110s of an acre. He felt that if it was just called an allowed use then the City would not have to go through and identify these small areas on all of the maps. Deputy Director Pfost agreed that theoretically the City does not have to identify these areas on the maps, and it has been that way for a very long time. However, staff is Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 22 trying to clean up the map, and since these are City owned properties staff felt they should be identified as open space properties. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Max Behshid stated his concern was the issue on Crest Road, noting he owns the property at 3867 Crest Road. He stated that currently there is a lot of traffic and nuisance from people using the site. He felt that if this area is made a trail head there will be more traffic, noting that there currently is no parking in the area for these people. He felt that opening up this area will make a bad situation worse. Larry Prizlow also discussed the area on Crest Road, noting it is only 30 feet by 50 feet in size. He did not think this was a problem during the day, however at night the area is used for less than desirable things. Chairman Tetreault understood there are problems on this property, but asked how changing the land use designation would have any affect on this situation. Mr. Prizlow stated that it made no sense to open this as a trail head, as there is no place for a trail. Commissioner Leon asked if the City were to make this private property by ceding the property to the adjacent land owner, would this solve any problems. Mr. Prizlow thought that would be a good solution, as the property owner could then block the area to prohibit people from gaining access. He thought the City of Rolling Hills would also be willing to do the same thing. Commissioner Leon suggested staff look into doing something like that. Sunshine explained the Palos Verdes Loop Trail crosses Crest Road a fair distance down the hill and she advised the City against buying this lot because it is not feasible as a trail head. In regards to rezoning, she questioned why staff was recommending passive recreation as opposed to active recreation. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis cautioned that before pursuing the option of gifting public problem, the City Attorney may want to be consulted. Deputy Director Pfost stated there are prohibitions on gifting public property. Commissioner Lewis did not think people who use the Crest Road property at night rely on the GeneralPlan as a reference tool in finding places to go, and did not think there was a nexus between these problems and what is before the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 23 Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve staff's recommendation with the exception of item E, and to continue item E to allow staff the opportunity to confer with the City Attorney on gifting property, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Commissioner Leon stated that the question in his mind was whether or not to include these little pocket parks in the General Plan or add passive recreation as an allowed use in residential areas and would therefore be opposed to the motion. Commissioner Leon moved a substitute motion that passive recreation be an allowed use in residential zoned areas and not go through and add lots of small passive recreation areas to the General Plan, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Tomblin withdrew his motion, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Chairman Tetreault asked Commissioner Leon to clarify his intent in regards to the zoning. Commissioner Leon explained that the lots are currently zoned residential and will remain that way, with no change to the General Plan. Commissioner Gerstner stated that this seems to support many of the comments he has received, as the parks will remain parks. This way the City, who owns the property, will decide this will be the allowable use of a park in the residential neighborhood. Deputy Director Pfost preferred the land use designation be changed to Passive Recreation to be consistent with other parks in the City. He noted this helps in the General Plan document when discussing the text of the City and discussing what the park sites are. In the Land Use section of the General Plan, which breaks down the different types of categories of land use, these park sites would no longer be included in the park site land use discussion. He realized some of these park sites are small, but pointed out that Founders Park is a five acre park. He stated staff was charged with updating the General Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map, and this includes looking at and updating the land uses in the City. Commissioner Lewis understood that the General Plan is a too] for people to refer to and understand what the City is about. He asked if the current motion is passed, and a person wanted to look at the General Plan to find out about the City's parks, would they still be able to find out about Founders Park and the little pocket parks throughout the City. Deputy Director Pfost answered that they would. Nanning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 24 Commissioner Leon pointed out that Founders Park is actually a park, but he did not consider the little area of land on Crest Road as a park. The motion to not approve the land use changes for the parks, as recommended by Staff, and to recommend adding passive recreation as an allowed use in residential zones was approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Lewis and Chairman Tetreault dissenting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of May 8, 2012 Commissioner Tomblin noted a correction to page 8 of the minutes. Commissioner Nelson stated he would like to have the minutes reflect a dialogue between Councilman Duhovic and the City Council regarding the person who solicited the letter from Palos Verdes Estates, as well as the admission from Councilwoman Brooks that she was the person who did that. He felt this was an important part of what developed out of the meeting, as it develops how the City got into the ad hoc mess. He would also like to see Councilwoman Brook's laudatory remarks about the Chairman of the Traffic Safety Committee included. He felt the minutes are incomplete without these additions, noting they might want to be added verbatim from the tape. Vice Chairman Emenhiser felt the minutes did a fairly good job of reflecting audience and Planning Commission comments during this portion of the meeting. He also suggested verbatim minutes for this portion of the meeting. Commissioner Lewis moved to not accept the minutes and request the minute taker re-review the tape of the meeting and the discussion between Councilman Duhovic and Councilwoman Brooks concerning the source of the letter, as well as the comments about Mr. Kramer, and to come back with revised and more complete minutes, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Gerstner noted a typo on page 10 of the minutes, and a clarification on page 3 of the minutes. Chairman Tetreault questioned whether or not the City Council was going to also review these minutes, and voiced concerns that the Planning Commission and the City Council may approve different sets minutes. Deputy Director Pfost agreed, noting that the minutes most likely won't go to the City Council until they have been approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion that when including these draft Planning Commission minutes into the City Council packet, that a short memo be included on what the Planning Commission discussed and noted that there Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 25 seems to be omissions in the minutes and the Commission has asked for more complete minutes, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-agenda for the meeting on June 12, 2012, The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 22,2012 Page 26