Loading...
PC MINS 20130514 Amended Agenda June 1pp 1 20 AmendT September 10, 2 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY 14, 2013 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Leon at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Joey Bacon from Boy Scout Troop 128 led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Lewis, Nelson, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Leon. Chairman Emenhiser arrived after communications. Absent: Commissioner Lewis was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported at the upcoming May 21St meeting the City Council will hear the Crestridge Senior Condominium project. Director Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence for agenda item No. 2 and six items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 4. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Text Amendment— Fences, Walls and Hedges Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, noting the current Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit language does not address situations in which a rear property line does not abut another rear property line or when a side property line does not abut another side property line. She estimated that this situation affects over 1,000 properties in the City, and as currently written, and the City has no authority to require a Fence Wall and Hedge Permit which may afford view protection to the adjoining property owners. Taking these concerns into consideration, and as discussed in the staff report, staff is recommending revisions to the section of the Development Code that would permit approval of any fence, wall or hedge, unless exempted by the Code. She noted that in addition to this proposed change, there are two other code amendments suggested by staff. The first proposal is to clarify the allowed sixteen-foot I eighteen-foot combination height limit that is applicable only when hedges are involved and the second proposal is to clarify that a Minor Exception Permit is not required for any fence higher than 42 inches and up to six feet within any street setback, as had previously been determined through a code amendment adopted by the City Council. She stated staff was recommending the Planning Commission review the proposals, provide feedback, and continue the public hearing to June 28th to allow staff to return with finalized language. Commissioner Tomblin asked how this item was noticed to the public. Director Rojas explained that when there is a code amendment such as this that affects a very large number of residents, it is typical to not notify every resident but rather publish a large notice in the newspaper. He also noted that the HOAs were sent notices of the proposed code amendment and meeting. Commissioner Tomblin asked if this proposed change would affect the foliage in backyards that abuts a public street and impairs views, Director Rojas explained the current Code only addresses private properties that are abutting. Commissioner Nelson asked staff if they had received any correspondence as a result of the public notice published in the newspaper. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that staff has received no correspondence from the public on this matter. Commissioner Nelson noted that currently there is an area where a developer is planning to build homes and has allowed the vegetation to grow, noting the proposed development is near Terranea. He explained that part of the vegetation is quite tall but was designed to prevent golf balls from hitting houses. He asked if this proposed revision will have any impact on this development. Director Rojas answered that existing hedges will be grandfathered in unless the Commission wishes the new ordinance to apply retroactively to existing hedges. Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2013 Page 2 Vice Chairman Leon asked if there have been a number of complaints the City has not been able to address because of the way the current code is written. Director Rojas answered that over the years there have been a handful of situations where the City could not address resident's view concerns because they involved a hedge in someone's side yard which abuts a neighbor's backyard. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve staff's code amendment recommendations, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff about the price of the permitting process for a Fence Wall and Hedge Permit. Assistant Planner Harwell answered the price for the permitting process is $2,192. Chairman Emenhiser asked if the Planning Commission had any authority in determining the cost of the application process. Director Rojas explained that the City Council sets the fees, and several years ago the City Council elected to set the fees at 100 percent cost recovery. He noted that Fence Wall and Hedge applications tend to be one of the most complicated and time consuming applications, as staff often has to make several site visits to analyze views and privacy issues. He stated the Planning Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council that they re-examine at the fee and possibly lower and/or subsidize the fee. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if this revision would allow staff to go back and look at hedges that already exist. Director Rojas explained that unpermitted hedges are pursued through code enforcement, however if it can be proven that the hedge was planted before the Ordinance went into effect, it is not in violation. Unless the Planning Commission recommends adding language to the Ordinance saying the new language can be implemented retroactively, typically Ordinances are not retroactive and staff could not pursue an unpermitted hedge that is existing. Commissioner Tomblin asked what the remedy would be for an existing hedge. Director Rojas answered that if there is an existing hedge that would not require a permit by the new language, staff cannot make them go through this permit process, Vice Chairman Leon stated he would like to have staff take to the City Council a request from the Commission that there be a more reasonable permit fee for the Fence Wall Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2013 Page 3 and Hedge Permit application. He asked if that should be part of the motion or a comment that staff would take to Council. Director Rojas thought a motion would be more appropriate. Vice Chairman Leon moved to amend the motion to suggest to the City Council that the permit fee for this application be kept to a more reasonable level, not to exceed $250. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if the City Council has made other exceptions to the permit fee process. Director Rojas explained that when the City Council made the determination that application fees would be fully subsidized, they did make an exception for very simple over-the-counter type applications. He noted that energy saving related permits are also subsidized by 50 percent. With that, Commissioner Tetreault felt that a fee of$250 was too much of a discount on the application fee and would prefer the City Council review the cost and staff time and make a determination based on those figures. The motion to approve staff's recommendations was approved, (7-0). 2. Zone Text Amendment—Arterial fences and walls Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, noting the text amendment was in regards to the rebuilding or repair of existing fences or walls along the City's major arterial streets. She reviewed the current language, and noted the great variety of walls and fences along Hawthorne Boulevard. With the intent of minimizing further changes and discrepancies along arterial streets listed in the Development Code, staff is proposing a section be added to the Fence Wall and Hedge section of the Code which will require homeowners, if needed, to match the pre-existing uniform tract perimeter wall or fence that abuts the adjoining arterial street. She noted that staff was not recommending property owners be required to replace or change their wall, as this is simply to provide standards to assist in the preservation and maintenance of the character of the City's arterial corridors. She noted staff also provided the Planning Commission with two alternatives that would provide long-term solutions. She stated staff was recommending the Planning Commission review the proposed code 28th amendments, provide feedback to staff, and continue the public hearing to June 28 for staff to return with finalized language. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if the City has considered a program whereby irrigation and foliage is provided up against these walls to help screen the walls. He noted it may take years to work, but the foliage would eventually cover the entire wall, Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2013 Page 4 Director Rojas explained that over the past several years there have been several discussions as to how to improve the aesthetics of the private walls along arterials and whether it would dictate a public solution where the City might fund a beautification project within the public right-of-way, or whether a private solution is needed where the City proactively pursues repairs or replacement through code enforcement. He explained there have also been discussions in the past on possibly pursuing a private public partnership solution which was ultimately not pursued, He stated that this proposed Ordinance is not intended to force private wall owners to fix their walls but only requires that when walls are damaged the replacement wall must be replaced with the same material that was there and not a completely new material that doesn't match anything else on the street. Commissioner Gerstner agreed that there probably is a public solution that would include the use of vegetation, however that is not what is currently before the Planning Commission. In the interim, he agreed that the walls in these tracts should be replaced in a like manner to what was there before. He did think there was a problem with the old chain link fences placed between stone pilasters that have no foundation. He also felt that if a HOA were to come to the Director and want to change their standard that exception should exist in the language. Finally, he noted that chicken wire is no longer an acceptable term, as the fencing is now called poultry netting. Commissioner Nelson noted a letter from the public discussing the heights of walls, and the opinion that walls along arterials should be of the same height. He stated he would like to see language in the Ordinance that adjoining walls be of the same height. Vice Chairman Leon questioned the use of the chain link fence, and if it was the City's desire for the resident to simply fix the chain link fence or replace the chain link fence, or to choose an alternate material for a new fence. Director Rojas explained that many of the tracts were built before City incorporation, and therefore the chain link fences are grandfathered in, which is why a resident can replace their chain link fence with a new chain link fence. He stated that the City would rather the resident fix the chain link fence than construct a new fence or wall out of a different material. He also added that there is currently a moratorium adopted by the City Council on repairing walls along the City's arterials. Therefore, if a wall along an arterial needs repair, it cannot be done until this Ordinance is approved. Vice Chairman Leon suggested language be added to the text discussing the grandfathering of chain link fences. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Dan Murdoch stated he owns a home that backs up to Hawthorne Boulevard. He noted his home is below Hawthorne Boulevard that therefore he does have privacy issues. He explained that he currently has vegetation interlaced in his chain link to help provide Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2013 Page 5 privacy. He stated he is in favor of uniformity, however he is not in favor of having to replace the chain link fence he does not like or want, with another chain link fence. Mark Gran_geer stated he lives on Falcon Rock, which backs up to Blackhorse. He stated many of the neighbors' yards are fenced with chain link. He encouraged the City to ban chain link, as he felt it is very unsightly and cheapens the look of a neighborhood, Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault discussed chain link fences and since such fences are currently grandfathered, do property owners then have a property right to have chain link fencing in their backyard that we're contemplating taking away. Director Rojas answered staff will check with the City Attorney, Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if there was a way out of this bind where the City will require residents to replace their chain link fence with a new chain link fence, even though that is not the material the homeowner, the City, or the public may want. Director Rojas suggested writing the Ordinance so that the fence must be replaced with the same material, unless that material is on the prohibited material list in the Code. Commissioner Tetreault moved staff's recommendation that whenever a fence or wall along the listed arterials in the City needs to be replaced, it be replaced with like material and height; however, with respect to chain link, it not be replaced with chain link and that the City come up with some standard, to be determined, that will be used in its stead, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Tomblin moved to amend the motion to add language that the Planning Commission supports a Hawthorne CIP project, or other alternative, to be developed. The amendment was accepted without objection. Vice Chairman Leon suggested that the improvement simply facilitate landscaping and irrigation as opposed to a CIP project, as that is something the City can do that is uniform and reasonably affordable. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to discuss specifics of a CIP with respect to what is currently before the Commission. Director Rojas explained the CIP consists of numerous projects, funded and unfunded. Given the subject matter, he did not think it was inappropriate to discuss the specifics of the CIP. Commissioner Gerstner suggested language saying that, since the suggested Ordinance does not completely solve the problem, and the Planning Commission does not have the purview to deal with public land, the Commission recommends to the City Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2013 Page 6 Council they continue to pursue capital improvement projects on public land that would include irrigation and vegetation along the Hawthorne Blvd. arterial. The Commission agreed with this language. The motion to approve staff's recommendation with the exception that chain link not be replaced with chain link but rather with an alternative material of a standard to be set by the City, and that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they pursue improvements on public land to facilitate irrigation and vegetation along the City's arterials. Vice Chairman Leon suggested an amendment to the motion that would allow the HOA to change the style of the perimeter fence, with the approval of the Director. The amendment to the motion was accepted without objection. The motion was approved, (7-0). 3. General Plan Update — "Draft" land use change to add the Open Space Preserve designation to the Trump National pro*ect site Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining the City's NCCP requires the City to amend the General Plan to identify all preserve properties in the City, both on the Land Use Map and in the text of the General Plan. While working on the General Plan update, staff has taken the opportunity to add a new land use designation over the preserve properties which is entitled Open Space Preserve. He explained in May 2011 the Planning Commission approved the changes to the Land Use Map to add this designation to all of the properties in the City except the Trump property. At that time the City was in litigation with the Trump organization and did not want to push any changes on the property at that time. Since then, the litigation has been resolved and staff is bringing the portion back to the Planning Commission. He showed a graphic depicting the Open Space Preserve over the Trump property. He stated staff was recommending the Commission approve adding the Open Space Preserve designation to the Trump property as discussed in the staff report. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if they had received any comments from the Trump organization on this proposal. Deputy Director Pfost answered that he had received feedback, and the Trump organization did not have issues. They understood the obligation to dedicate the property to the City, noting that most of the property has already been dedicated to the City, Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Linee Bilski noted the City Council approved the NCCP for the City in 2004, however it has not yet been approved at the State or Federal levels. She felt this proposal is premature, as the NCCP has only been submitted and not formally adopted. She also Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2013 Page 7 objected, as she felt this proposal is not an update, but rather an amendment. She questioned why the area from the red line up to Palos Verdes Drive South was not included, as that is supposed to be adjoining the Portuguese Bend Club community and there is supposed to be not only a fire break, but trails and natural habitat restoration in the area. She stated that in general, she was opposed to this agenda item. Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff to address the issues raised by Ms. Bilkski. Deputy Director Pfost noted that, Ms. Bilski is correct in that in the area adjacent to the Portuguese Bend Club, specifically between the driving range and the Portuguese Bend Club, there will be an open space lot dedicated to the City that is a fire buffer lot but does not include the specific habitat materials found within the subject area and is not part of the NCCP. He noted there are other lots on the Trump National Project that are open space lots that may be dedicated to the City that are not within the NCCP either. Commissioner Tetreault was concerned that the City was trying to amend something that has not been officially approved, and if the Commission does approve the amendment, what happens with this amendment once the agencies approve the NCCP that is before them. Director Rojas explained that the City Council approved the NCCP in 2004, the Preserve has been assembled, and has been managed since 2005. The final NCCP document has not been formally approved by the resources agencies for a number of reasons, one being the open space acquisitions that were still taking place. Nonetheless, the agencies consider the City's Preserve as a functioning preserve, since City properties have been dedicated to the Preserve. He stated that legally it does not become an official Preserve until conservation easements are recorded on each Preserve property, which has not yet happened on all of the properties. The City Council approved NCCP requires that once the conservation easements are recorded on all the Preserve properties the General Plan should be amended to reflect the properties will be open space in perpetuity. Staff felt that since the General Plan is currently being updated, it would be a good time to capture that requirement of the NCCP. He noted that it is expected that the NCCP will be finalized and the conservation easements recorded by the end of this year. He stated that the City Council cannot approve these General Plan amendments until the conservation easements are recorded. Commissioner Tetreault asked if these amendments must also be approved by the various agencies. Director Rojas answered that they do not, as they are proposed changes to the City's General Plan Land Use Map. Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2013 Page 8 Commissioner Nelson stated he cannot support anything involving the NCCP until it has been approved, and did not think the City should assume the NCCP is alive and well and will be approved. Vice Chairman Leon moved to accept staff's recommendation, contingent upon final approval of the NCCP, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Tetreault asked if this is contingent upon approval of the NCCP, why is it before the Planning Commission at this time. Deputy Director Pfost explained that the City is in the process of updating the General Plan, and felt it was a good opportunity to do this specific update with the anticipation of the NCCP being approved. If the City doesn't make the changes now and the NCCP is approved, staff will schedule additional public hearings and bring this item back to the Commission. He added that staff will recommend to the City Council that this particular update not be adopted until the NCCP is approved. Director Rojas clarified that there are some properties, including this one, which already have conservation easements recorded on them. Therefore, if there is a situation where the General Plan update is before the City Council before the NCP is finalized, staff can recommend to the City Council that properties with conservation easements already recorded on them be designated as Open Space Preserve as part of this General Plan update. The motion to accept staffs recommendation, contingent upon approval of the NCCP was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Nelson dissenting. 4. General Plan Update — "Draft" changes to add the Urban Overlay Control District overs ecific properties in the Coastal Zone. Deputy Director Pfost began by noting that Commissioner Nelson and Chairman Emenhiser are within a 500 foot radius of the Terranea property, which is one of the sites being discussed in this item. If the Commissioners indicate there is not a conflict of interest, they can participate on the decision for that particular piece of property. He noted that because the Terranea property is already subject to the urban overlay control district through the Zoning Code and Coastal Specific Plan, staff presumes there is no conflict of interest, however the Commissioners would have to state so for the record. Commissioner Nelson and Chairman Emenhiser both stated they have no conflict of interest. Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, giving a brief background of overlay control districts and their purposes, and specifically the urban overlay control district. He explained that when the General Plan was adopted it indicated the urban overlay control district would apply to most properties in the coastal zone, except five. He noted the Zoning Code, which was adopted shortly thereafter, indicates all properties in the Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2013 Page 9 Coastal Zone have the urban overlay district. That is also supported by the Coastal Specific Plan. He reviewed the five areas that currently do not have the urban overlay control district on them. He explained staff was proposing the five areas be added with the urban overlay control district to the General Plan so that they match the Zoning Map and the Coastal Specific Plan Map. He discussed the correspondence received related to this item, noting all of the correspondence is against staffs recommendation. He explained one of the issues discussed in the correspondence is that the original General Plan did not identify the urban overlay control district in public, open space, or passive recreational parklands, and only identified it in lands that could be developed. He noted the question was why change the General Plan if that was the original intent. The second issue discussed was adding the name "urban" as it may be misleading and encourage developers to feel they have a right to be able to develop in some of these areas. He stated staff agrees with the persons who provided correspondence that it appears the intent of the General Plan when it was drafted to apply the urban overlay control district only to lands that had not been developed. He stated staff does not know why a few years later the City Council approved a zoning code that has the urban overlay control district on the properties in question. Given the inconsistency between the maps, staff took an approach that was more conservative in adding the urban overlay control district to these five properties. Staff felt this was an approach to help reduce impacts that could be caused by any proposed or existing developments in those areas. The second concern expressed in the correspondence was the issue of having the word "urban" used. He stated that staff understands this concern, noting all of these properties have an underlying zoning designation which indicates the specific uses and developments that can be approved on these properties. Therefore, the urban overlay control district designation would not cause the future development of these properties in any way. However, understanding that concern, staff did propose an alternative which is described in the staff report. With that, he stated staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed changes in the five areas. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Helena Reidt explained her mother lives in the PV Bay Club, and questioned if this proposal will affect the Bay Club in any way. Lenee Bilski stated she objects to the update as presented by the staff, agreed with alternative No. 1 and disagreed with alternative No. 2. She stated she agrees with the letter submitted by Dena Friedson, as she felt the urban overlay control district was not helpful as demonstrated by recent development proposals at Abalone Cove, Point Vicente, and even the Trump property. She stated that area C1 should not be changed from its current designation on the General Plan Land Use Map. She stated the definition and purpose of the urban overlay control district, and noted that foliage at existing developments at Abalone Cove impairs views, that the City has recently proposed to build a large nature center at Abalone Cove, and Inspiration Point can no longer be seen from the trails or street coming from the west because of the non- maintenance of the foliage. She stated that at Point Vicente the proposed Annenberg Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2013 Page 10 project would have impaired views for the neighbors. Finally, she stated that a change to the land use should be an amendment, and the General Plan should take precedence and the others should follow the General Plan. Commissioner Nelson asked Ms. Bilski, of all of her arguments, which one does she feel the Commission should pay the most attention to. Ms. Bilski felt the Commission should observe the General Plan as taking precedence, and if the Zoning Map and Coastal Specific Plan Map do not match the General Plan, perhaps they are the documents that should be corrected to match the General Plan. Further, if staff is trying to fix something that may have been done incorrectly, she felt it should be done as amendment rather than as a general update. Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he felt the General Plan should be changed before all the things that follow the General Plan are changed. He felt in this case it wasn't done that way, as the General Plan is different from the other documents. He asked staff how the amendment process works to change the Zoning Code and Coastal Specific Plan to match the General Plan. Deputy Director Pfost explained that there would have to be a Zoning Code amendment and a Coastal Specific Plan amendment in order to make these documents match the General Plan. Commissioner Tetreault felt it might be a lot of work to get back to square one, however he stated the City has a process and procedure on how things should be done. He felt that to jump past that procedure, for whatever reason, is ignoring the process and procedure. He stated he was not comfortable with the idea that the process was most likely done incorrectly, so we are now going to go back and clean things up and make it right. He felt it should be done the other way around. He explained he is not looking at the plusses or minuses of the project, but rather he was more concerned with not following the proper process and procedure. He felt that ignoring it was saying the process is unnecessary. Vice Chairman Leon stated that while the Zoning Map may have been modified in ways that are not consistent in details with the General Plan, it is the General Plan that is before the Commission this evening and not the Zoning Map. He felt that as long as the Commission acts in making the General Plan as they intend it to be, then some time in the future the Zoning Map will get fixed. Commissioner Tomblin requested the Chairman re-open the public hearing to further discuss this issue with Ms. Bilski. There was no objection from the Commission. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2013 Page 11 Lenee Bilski stated that it is staff's opinion that when the Annenberg project and the Abalone Cove project were proposed, the City was following the urban overlay control district criteria. She stated her point is the control district didn't do much good. She noted the Coastal Specific Plan does have certain limitations on developments on the ocean side of Palos Verdes Drive South. She reiterated that this does not seem to be the correct process to go about fixing what may have been a problem in the past. Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner stated that over the past several years staff has presented several updates to the General Plan to the Planning Commission, and in combination these updates are quite significant. However, this entire package will be presented to the City Council, and will be dealt with at a very high level. He felt that whether it's called an update or an amendment, in the end it's a lot of what appear to be changes to the General Plan. Although it may not change the General Plan significantly, all of the maps are new, the wording is new, there are new sections, and the General Plan will feel like a new document. He felt that this entire package will be treated as if it is a very significant modification to the General Plan, and will not be passed lightly. Vice Chairman Leon agreed with Ms. Bilski in that appears the urban overlay control district hasn't had the impact that perhaps the City would like it to have in its ability to protect the coastal areas. He asked staff if there are other areas within the City where the overlay district is having an effect, or does staff or the Commission need to go through and make some changes to entire urban overlay control district. Deputy Director Pfost answered there are other areas in the City that have the urban overlay control district. While he understood Ms. Bilski's concerns in regards to the two mentioned projects, he disagreed with the effect of the overlay district. He noted that the urban overlay control district is also over the Oceanfront Estates project and Trump project, noting the ocean views that can be seen over both of these projects. Therefore, he felt the urban overlay control district does and has had an effect upon development in the coastal areas, especially some of the open areas that were open at the time of the General Plan. He noted the General Plan and the Zoning Code describes the urban overlay control district as talking about existing developments as well as proposed development and maintaining this criteria over these properties. He also felt the urban overlay control district was important if there would be any future redevelopment on these properties, as it would have an added benefit of additional criteria in evaluating future development. Commissioner Tetreault noted that the Government Code does require cities to update their General Plan every five years. However, he felt any change made to the General Plan is an amendment. He stated that the process in that the General Plan is amended and things flow from that, such as Zoning Code adjustments and Coastal Specific Plan updates being done to conform with the General Plan. He questioned if changes to the Zoning Code or Coastal Specific Plan before amending the General Plan are legally enforceable. Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2013 Page 12 Commissioner Nelson moved to not add the Urban Overlay Control District to the General Plan Land Use Map, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault, Vice Chairman Leon felt that in this particular case the question before the Commission is the General Plan and whether there should be consistency across this entire zone, or if five little pieces should be left out and have different rules applied to them. He felt that consistency along the coastline was very important and the Deputy Director made a compelling case as to the overlay district adding value. Commissioner Tetreault agreed that affording an extra amount of protection is a good thing to do. However, there is a process by which the General Plan is to be changed, and this process did not happen with the urban overlay control district, He felt that approving this recommendation shortcuts that process, and while it may have a good result but it's basically sweeping the process under the rug and not for the benefit of the community in the long run. Commissioner Gerstner felt that if a precedent was set it was set in 1978. He stated his job as a Planning Commissioner is to try to make this situation better, and he intends to try to make it better. He absolutely agreed that a step was skipped years ago, and they shouldn't have. Now, however, the Commission can evaluate this with the benefit of hindsight having thirty or forty years of understanding what is going on with these properties. He felt the City should make the rules for the coastline properties consistent. The motion to not approve staff's recommendation was approved, (4-2) with Commissioner Gerstner and Vice Chairman Leon dissenting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of April 23, 2013 Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. Approved, (4-0-2) with Commissioner Tetreault and Chairman Emenhiser recused since they were absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the May 28, 2013 meeting The pre-agenda was unanimously approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2013 Page 13