Loading...
PC MINS 20140325 Approved 412212014 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 25, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Emenhiser at 7:04 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner James led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Nelson, and Chairman Leon. Commissioner Tomblin arrived during agenda item No. 1. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, and Associate Planner Mikhail, APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Leon suggested moving the selection of the Vice Chair after agenda item No. 1 so that Commissioner Tomblin could participate in the selection. The Commission agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their March 18th meeting the City Council accepted the Planning Commission's recommendation on the proposed code amendment regarding fences, walls and hedges with one minor change. He also reported that the City Council has asked staff to provide annual attendance reports for all city committees and commissions and stressed the importance of Planning Commission site visits. Lastly, Director Rojas reported that at the April 1, 2014 City Council meeting the Council will consider appealing the Planning Commission's recent approval of antennas on the 7- Eleven building. Director Rojas distributed two items of late correspondence for agenda item No, 1 and five items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Chase Bank— annual review (Case No. ZON2002-00216): 299,41 Hawthorne Boulevard Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, stating that at the last meeting the Planning Commission considered draft conditions of approval proposed by staff as part of the adoption of the Resolution for the six month review. She stated the Commission continued the public hearing to tonight's meeting to allow staff to look at the trees located along Crest Road, which was the result of a concern raised by a resident in the City; to allow the applicant the opportunity to respond to limiting the hours of operation; and to allow staff the opportunity to look at a potential raptor's nest in one of the trees. She explained that staff analyzed the trees and noted there are no raptor's nest in any of the trees, noting they are very young trees. She stated the owners responded to the hours of operation, and Chase Bank is agreeable to the proposed hours of operation. Finally, staff looked at the tree along Crest Road and noted that, while the trees do not currently impair views from Crest Road, and the views from Crest Road are not protected views, at full maturity the trees may partially impair a view of the ocean and the applicant was amenable to removing the trees. She stated staff has added a condition of approval to reflect that. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Bob Superneau (applicant) stated he has read and agrees to the modified conditions of approval as presented in the staff report, and is available for any questions, Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner asked for a review and discussion of the items the Commission brought up at the last meeting. Associate Planner Mikhail reviewed each of the new conditions with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gerstner noted that condition No, 33 requires the applicant to remove the four trees along Hawthorne Boulevard as well as the four trees along Crest Road. He recalled that at the last meeting the Commission did not decide to remove the trees along Crest Road, but rather had just raised the question in regards to the trees on Crest Road. He stated that if the applicant wants to remove the trees, he has no objection. However, he pointed out that it is rather barren in that area and he did not Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2014 Page 2 know that the trees along Crest Road would block a significant view, as the trees along Hawthorne Boulevard will. Commissioner James noted this area is not a protected view corridor and therefore the Commission may not have the authority to ask the bank to remove those trees if they didn't want to. He noted that this complaint is a result of one email from a resident who hasn't even spoken at any of the Planning Commission meetings on this topic. He would prefer the condition to remove the trees on Crest Road be removed. Commissioner Gerstner stated it was his preference to be silent in regards to the trees along Crest Road and let the applicant make the decision, and Commissioner James agreed. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioners Gerstner and James. Associate Planner Mikhail reviewed condition No,, 34, which requires ground cover along Hawthorne Boulevard and Crest Road to be maintained at a height not to exceed one foot above the adjacent public walkway. Commissioner Gerstner questioned why staff set the height at one foot as opposed to two feet. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that at one foot there would not be a view impact from this ground cover. She noted that the ground cover is currently at a height of approximately I Y2 feet and she did not believe it was significantly impacting views. Commissioner Gerstner stated that if this plant typically grows to two feet in height and is healthy at that height, he would rather see a healthy two foot plant as opposed to a quasi-dead one foot tall plant. Associate Planner Mikhail read condition No. 35 which requires the trees in front of the building along Hawthorne Boulevard, which are not being removed, to be at a height not to exceed the ridgeline of the building. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the trees in question are Crepe Myrtles which typically grow to a mature height of 15 to 16 feet. He stated the height of the building is approximately 11 to 12 feet from the street level, leaving approximately a three foot difference. He questioned if there is a significant view impact related to that three feet of height. Chairman Leon stated that the significant view impact was putting a bank on this property, rather than the trees that may grow slightly higher than the r,idgeline. He felt the trees may reduce the impact of the bank. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2014 Page 3 Commissioner Gerstner felt that if these are indeed Crepe Myrtles, and if they will only grow to a mature height of 15 to 16 feet, that these trees be allowed to grow to their mature height. He asked if there was a condition requiring the trees be Crepe Myrtles. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that there is no condition establishing these trees as Crepe Myrtles, however there is an approved landscape plan depicting the Crepe Myrtles. However, if the applicant wanted to change the type of tree that would be acceptable, as long as it was not the type of tree that would grow substantially above 16 feet in height. Director Rojas added that the Commission can add a condition that there be no change to the approved landscape plan. Commissioner Gerstner moved staff recommendation as amended as follows: 1) in regards to condition No. 33, the trees along Crest Road shall not be required to be removed; 2) in regards to condition No. 34 change the ground cover height from one foot to two feet in height; and 3) in regards to condition No. 35, that the height of the trees be restricted to the mature height of Crepe Myrtle. Seconded by Commissioner James. Commissioner Tomblin stated that there is an issue among the neighbors in this neighborhood regarding the trees along Crest Road and the possibility that they may block views in the future, Commissioner Nelson moved to amend the motion in regards to condition No. 33 to say that the four trees along Hawthorne Boulevard be permitted to remain and not be removed. Commissioner Gerstner seconded the amendment. Chairman Leon stated he would prefer those four trees be removed, as they may impact the views from the neighborhood across Hawthorne Boulevard as well as the view for those driving by the property. Commissioner James stated he was persuaded by the fact that the bank seems to have no problem with the removal of these trees, and these are trees the Commission has the authority to require be removed. He stated since the people wanted these trees removed and the bank was willing to remove the trees, he was prepared to vote in favor of removing these trees, even though they're not currently blocking any views. Commissioner Gerstner pointed out that that the complaint about the trees came from only one individual. Commissioner Nelson recalled that at the previous meeting the bank's representative stated he was disappointed that the City was considering having these trees on Hawthorne Boulevard removed, however if asked to do so the bank would remove the trees. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2014 Page 4 Commissioner Tomblin stated as a Commissioner and as a resident of the area that it was unfortunate the City allowed those trees to be put in. He noted areas at Oceanfront Estates and Crest Road where there are landscaping requirements to keep the views open, and the City is having to spend time enforcing these requirements, He stated that this area on Hawthorne Boulevard is a view corridor and the views should be protected, and he objected to the trees being there. The motion to amend the original motion failed (3-4), with Commissioners Tomblin, James, Cruikshank, and Chairman Leon dissenting, The motion to approve staff's recommendation as amended, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2014-12 was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting. SELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Tomblin nominated Commissioner Nelson for Vice Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Chairman Leon nominated Commissioner Gerstner for Vice Chairman, seconded by Commissioner James, Director Rojas distributed ballots. Commissioner Nelson was selected Vice Chairman by a vote of 5-2, with Commissioners James, Cruikshank, Nelson, Emenhiser, and Tomblin voting for Commissioner Nelson and Chairman Leon and Gerstner voting for Commissioner Gerstner. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Site Plan Review, Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit Case No. ZON2013-000631.: 2902 Vista del Mar Director Rojas presented the staff report, noting that the applicant has requested the item be Continued. Therefore, staff was recommending the public hearing be continued to April 22, 2014, Commissioner Gerstner moved staff's recommendation, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Approved without objection. 3. Point View Master Use Plan, six month review (Case No. ZON2010-00087, CUP and Grading Permit): 6001 Palos Verdes Drive South Chairman Leon stated that his residence is within the 500 foot radius of the project, and he therefore must recuse himself from this item. He left the dais. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the item and the various uses approved on the property. He explained the item before the Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2014 Page 5 Commission is a six month review and the intent of the review is to review the conditions of approval to see how well these conditions have addressed the various issues. He explained staff has been monitoring the area over the past year and staff has receiv6d some comments and concerns from the public. He stated the main concern expressed to staff was the issue of access, and noted the discussion in the staff report. He also noted that as a result of this six-month review, the applicant has requested three changes to the Master Use Plan: 1) the allowance for a vegetable garden area; 2) deletion of condition No, 55 which requires that five events be reserved for non-profit organizations, and 3) to allow up to twenty small events to be conducted on the property, which is in addition to the thirty that are already allowed. He stated that staff does not have issues with the proposed 4,000 square foot vegetable garden area, noting it is in an area west of the Event Garden area. Additionally, he stated staff does not have an issue with eliminating condition No. 55, as staff feels it is up to the property owner as to whether or not he wants to offer the property to non-profit organizations. With regards to the additional twenty small events, staff is recommending the Commission not amend that particular condition of approval as staff feels it may be a bit premature to start adding additional events, and the request is not warranted at this time. He explained that, based on the Commission's direction, staff will return at a future meeting with a Resolution memorializing any and all conditions that are modified at this public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they had received any complaints in regards to vehicle lights or sound, Senior Planner Schonborn responded that he had reviewed all of his emails and checked with Code Enforcement staff, and there have been no complaints in regards to vehicle lights or sound. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to clarify their concern with adding additional events to the Event Garden. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that currently there are thirty events per year allowed on the property, which spaced at one per week would allow for six or seven months of weekly events on the property. Staff felt that adding twenty more events could conceivably allow an average of one event per week for almost the entire year. He explained that staff felt it may be a bit premature to allow additional events given that, up to this point, there have only been about a dozen events within the last six or seven month span. He explained that staff would like to see how the initial thirty events go before allowing for additional events. He added that with the additional events staff may have to look at potential traffic impacts. Commissioner Cruikshank asked how the City knows when there is an event at the site. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that there is no requirement that the owner inform the City when there is an event at the site. However, there is a condition of approval Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 2014 Page 6 that in January of each year the owner supply staff with a list of all events that have taken place at the site during the previous calendar year, Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff why the events were initially limited to thirty at the site. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that was what the applicant had requested, and after performing assessments at the site, staff had felt that was an appropriate number. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the road to the Event Garden is supposed to be an earth tone color, why staff would not enforce this condition prior to allowing any additional work at the site. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that a building permit was issued for the roadway and the roadway was just recently completed, however the building permit has not yet been finaled. He explained before the permit is finaled staff wanted to have this discussion with the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the roadway, in its current condition, meets the intent of the condition. He explained staff's initial concern with the roadway was the contrast of the black asphalt material with the surrounding openness. However, with the treatment that has been applied to the material, staff is not as concerned with the appearance. He stated that this six month review is the time to revisit that condition of approval and determine whether or not the roadway meets the intent of the condition of approval. Commissioner Gerstner questioned the type of road that was approved through the building permit, noting that the permit should have been issued for a very specific type of construction. He felt the Planning Commission could be put in the position of deciding if the road is appropriate, after-the-fact, Senior Planner Schonborn stated he would have to look at the building permit to see what is indicated on the permit. Director Rojas explained that the approach taken with the road was that the applicant could chose the material for the roadway, it just had to end up an earth tone color. Commissioner James noted that there were twelve events held last year, and asked staff how big each of the events were. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that attendance at the events ranged from as little as fifteen guests to as many as two hundred eighty nine guests. He noted that five of the events have had over one hundred guests. Commissioner James noted the late correspondence from Terranea stating they would like to have approximately twenty small events at the Event Garden, which he felt clarified that the additional twenty events the applicant was requesting was for Terranea. He stated that paints a different picture for him, as Terranea is looking for Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2014 Page 7 outlets to provide their guests different things to do in this community. He asked staff if they would feel differently if these additional twenty events were limited to only events for Terranea. Director Rojas answered that would not make a difference to staff, as there would still be an additional twenty small events at the site. Commissioner Emenhiser referred back to the roadway, and asked Commissioner Cruikshank if this type of asphalt road will lighten overtime. Commissioner Cruikshank explained that asphalt roads do not typically lighten over time. He questioned what kind of treatment was put on the road, Commissioner Emenhiser noted that the greater contrast seemed to be the white shoulder along the road rather than the actual asphalt road itself. Vice Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Gary Weber (representing the owner) felt the staff report did a very good job in analyzing what they have done on the property and how they have met the conditions of approval. He stated the driveway has been completed for approximately six months and has been implemented with a vegetated buffer strip, which serves as a water quality function. In regards to the color of the driveway, he explained he looked into a large number of options, some of which were very costly, Ultimately the owner chose to treat the driveway with cement which was then watered which faded the asphalt and gave it a grey appearance. He stated the owner strongly objects to proposed changes to condition of approval Nos. 60 and 60(A). He discussed a judgment by the Superior Court, noting the judgment gives the owner the right to use the road, as well as the owner's successor, employees, representatives, contractors, and persons acting on behalf of the owner. He stated the judgment indicated that the easements, the right-of- way in the roads, are pertinent to the ownership Mr. York has. Therefore, Mr, York owns to the center of the road, and the court found that he has the right to use that, as well as those mentioned above. He did not believe the City can change those rights to use that road. As it relates to the gate, he stated he does not have a problem keeping the gate closed when it's not used, however he did have a problem with the way staff was recommending the condition of approval be worded. He suggested the wording "When the gate is not in use the gate shall remain closed." Mr. Weber also noted the definition of an event includes more than twenty people, which he felt precludes Mr. York from having a private party at the site or a family gathering. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Weber if he has shared the court ruling with staff, Mr. Weber responded that staff was aware of the court ruling, and it was part of the original submittal for the Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2014 Page 8 Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Weber which access was used to bring in construction material, Mr. Weber answered that initially Narcissa was being used, as the judgment indicated they could. He stated that most of the construction material is no longer being used, and the main equipment now is agricultural equipment such as tractors. Vanessa Bowman stated she works for Mr. York handling the booking and oversight of the events on, the property. She stated any visitor to the property who is related to an event enters the property from Palos Verdes Drive South, including tours for an initial visit, to vender walks, event set up, and event guests. She stated that to her knowledge, nobody event related enters the property from Narcissa Drive. Jim York (property owner) addressed the requested twenty additional events. He noted the definition of an event may be incorrect, noting he can have a band and it is not an event, but add a DJ and its now an event. He noted that he has entered into a partnership with Terranea, where Terranea will be using fresh vegetables grown on his property, as well as his wine. He felt it was important to allow the twenty additional events, noting they will be smaller in scale than the typical event on the property, Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. York if the twenty events will truly be smaller events and if he would object if the Commission conditioned these events to have no bands, or that type of situation. Mr. York answered that would be no problem, Commissioner Emenhiser explained he was still a bit unsure about adding additional events, as the Event Garden has not yet been in operation for a full year to gauge the full impact on the neighborhood. He asked Mr. York if the Commission approved these additional twenty small events, would he be agreeable to another six month review. Mr. York stated he was in full support of another six month review, as he felt the current Conditional Use Permit needed some adjustments, Commissioner Gerstner stated his concern with the twenty additional events was that staff only had the data on twelve events, and while Mr. York's track record is very good, there are not a lot of data points and he wanted to ensure the neighbors are comfortable. He felt another option would be to allow Mr. York to continue on with his scheduled events and at some point in the near future the Commission can do an expedited review of this single item to evaluate the Event Garden and decide if an additional twenty events is warranted, Mr. York noted that he currently has twenty three events booked and will be close to thirty within the next month or two. He stated the wedding season is rapidly approaching and he felt he really needed a decision as soon as possible. He felt that he needed, at a minimum, ten additional events. Planning Cornrnissaon Minutes March 25,2014 Page 9 Commissioner James noted in Terranea's late correspondence they were asking for twenty events at Mr. York's property, He asked Mr. York, if the Commission were to approve the requested additional twenty events, would they all go to Terranea for their use, or would some of those events be for other uses. Mr. York explained that not all of the twenty additional events would be for Terranea exclusively, as he may not have the availability to give Terranea those twenty events, Lisa Dennen stated she is a near neighbor of the Event Garden, and noted the whole experience of the Event Garden is invisible to her and her family. She stated she hears nothing, and the only drawback is she is not invited to the parties. Secondly, she stated Mr. York has been very sensitive to community activities and she would like to see the Planning Commission be very generous in Mr. York's request for additional events. Lynn Swank reminded the Commission that the original consideration in approving this project was whether or not it was appropriate for a residentially zoned area. She felt that the minor revisions requested for the driveway/roadway are not really minor revisions, but rather are major revisions to the Conditional Use Permit and as such should be considered separately as a separate item, and not part of the six month review. In discussing the driveway, she noted there is a condition of approval that the driveway be an earth tone color, and she felt for very good reason. She noted that earth tone is not a subjective color, it is not green or grey or black, but earth tone. She felt the driveway should appear to be as natural as possible. She found it disturbing that the owner accepted this condition of approval yet went ahead and put in a black asphalt driveway without first coming back to the Commission or the City for approval. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Ms. Swank if she could see this driveway from her home. Ms. Swank answered that she can see the driveway from her home. She also noted that the current driveway does give the appearance of a road leading to a major street. Minas Yeralian reminded the Commission that this project was approved for the golf facility, and if it were a golf facility he did not think there would be these arguments about the project. He stated he did not see any mention of the golf facility in the staff report, and would prefer to see it maintained as a golf facility where one can bring a golf club and balls and play some type of golf. He questioned if the golf facility was being maintained. In discussing the earth tone driveway, and questioned why an earth tone color wasn't chosen for the asphalt. Lastly, he noted there is a parking problem at Terranea and suggested Mr. York open his parking lot to Terranea employees when needed. Jan Ramond stated she is actively involved in Las Candalistas and Mr. York has allowed this organization to hold their event on his property. She felt that having the event on this property will raise the attendance and allow Las Candalistas to be able to Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2014 Page 10 give more money to the community. She stated that to her, the roadway leading to the property looks like a driveway, and with the gate across the driveway she did not think people would mistake it for a roadway. She stated that she found the discussion of the grey color versus earth tone as too important, since nobody else is told what color their private driveway must be. She felt that having the event garden available for events such as weddings and milestone celebrations as well as for non-profit organizations is not a negative thing for the City, but rather a wonderful opportunity to show off this beautiful city, Gordon Leon stating he was speaking to the Commission not as a Commissioner but as a resident of Portuguese Bend. He stated that his residence is within 500 feet of the property and he has not hear noise from the area since the sound wall was installed. He stated, however, that he has heard comments from neighbors that they have heard some amplified noise from the property and felt the amplification should be looked at. In regards to access, he understood the intent of the court ruling was that when there was no access to the property from Palos Verdes Drive South Mr, York could access through the Portuguese Bend roads to perform maintenance to his property. However, the situation has now changed, with access to the property from Palos Verdes Drive South, He did not think there should be a prohibition of access from the Portuguese Bend community, however he felt the majority of access should come from Palos Verdes Drive South. Regarding events, before the CUP Mr. York was allowed to have private events with family utilizing the property. He did not feel that private family events on the property should not be counted as official Rancho Palos Verdes events at the property. He felt there should be some way to define how small is small, especially if there is no amplified sound and the event takes place during the day. Lastly, he noted that when he discussed the issue of allowing twenty additional events at the site with the neighbors, there was some concern. The neighbors seemed to agree that they would like to wait a bit longer to see how the current events go before adding more events. There was no rebuttal from the applicant. Vice Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff to comment on the statements made by the speaker in regards to the golf course at the property, Senior Planner Schonborn stated that the golf course was there when he recently visited the site. Commissioner Tomblin discussed the court ruling, and asked staff how they came to the opinion that the City has a right to restrict the ingress and egress in light of the court ruling. Director Rojas explained that staff is aware of the court ruling and recognizes the rights established in the court ruling with regards to the applicant's rights to use the Narcissa Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2014 Page 11 Drive access, In reviewing the matter with the City Attorney, the City Attorney felt that the ruling does not mean the City cannot restrict access as a way to minimize impacts to neighbors. He stated that just like any piece of property with numerous access rights, the City can dictate where to access a certain property if doing so seems to mitigate documented impacts to certain residents, Commissioner Tomblin asked staff about the driveway color and what will happen when the road has to be slurry sealed in the future. Director Rojas noted the applicant has applied cement to the road to try to minimize the color and obtain a greyer coloring. If the Commission feels that's acceptable, then when the applicant slurry seals in the future, the same type of treatment will have to be applied. Commissioner James explained that if he had been a Commissioner deciding this issue in the first instance, he would have had no problem with an asphalt driveway. However, that is not what was decided, and the rule is now that the driveway must be an earth tone color. He didn't understand why staff did not require compliance with what was decided six months ago. Director Rojas explained that this project was scheduled for a six month review for the Planning Commission to look at what has happened on the property and make any necessary or requested changes to the Conditional Use Permit. In the case of the driveway, staff felt that, while the color is not earth tone, it's not the dark black roadway that staff expected and thus, in staff's opinion it meets the intent of the condition. Given the scheduled six month review hearing, staff felt this issue should be decided by the body who made the original decision. If there were no six month review, staff would have made the final determination. Commissioner James referred back to the definitions, specifically item No. 54, discussing amplified sound in the form of a disc jockey. He felt it may be better to define it in terms of decibels, noting a live band or a mariachi band could easily be louder than a disc jockey with a small amplifier, Director Rojas stated conditions of approval can be changed if the Planning Commission feels it is warranted. Commissioner James also noted that there have been opinions that twenty or more people in attendance is considered an event is too low a number, and asked staff if they had any opinion on raising that number. Director Rojas reiterated that staff feels it is premature to allow any more events than what the Commission originally required, and raising that attendance number will allow for more events. Therefore, staff was recommending not to change the definition or add new events at this time. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2014 Page 12 Commissioner Emenhiser felt that this property is a community asset and that after twelve events some of the neighborhood's worst fears regarding noise have not been realized. He also acknowledged that there have only been twelve events. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to modify the Conditional Use Permit to allow an additional ten events at the site, and another ten be allowed at the discretion of the Director. Further, the Conditional Use Permit come back to the Planning Commission for another review in six months. Commissioner Tomblin seconded the motion. Commissioner Emenhiser clarified that this motion is in regards to the number of events only, and it is not addressing the other items in staff's recommendation in regards to access or the driveway. Commissioner James stated that he would be more comfortable with a fixed number of additional events rather than a fixed number plus some additional number at the Director's discretion. He also felt the Commission should discuss the idea of increasing the number of persons in attendance as part of the definition of event, which would allow more gatherings at the property that are not considered events. Director Rojas explained the applicant is proposing twenty small events with fifty guests maximum, which will end by 8 p.m. and will have no live music or DJ. Commissioner Tomblin felt that the use of the gate through the Portuguese Bend will be impacted if more events are added. He was in agreement with allowing the additional twenty events, and was also in agreement with changing the definition of a small event to allow up to fifty people. He stated that he would like to see those additional twenty events be restricted to Terranea events, and there be conditions that there be no music or amplification. In addition, he felt that if the Commission does allow the additional twenty events, he would ask the applicant to restrict all access to these events to the entrance on Palos Verdes Drive South and not use the Narcissa gate entrance. In addressing the driveway, he felt that the Commission approved the driveway with specific direction to the applicant and the Commission must keep the same standards they would keep with anyone else in this situation, and therefore the driveway must be mitigated back to conform to the condition of approval, Commissioner Emenhiser accepted the amendment to his motion in regards to the twenty events being limited to Terranea and that access to these events be limited to the gate on Palos Verdes Drive South. Commissioner Tomblin requested the applicant be asked if it would be acceptable to him to limit the additional events, whether it be ten or twenty, to events held by Terranea only, with the condition of no music and amplification. Vice Chairman Nelson re-opened the public hearing, Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2014 Page 13 Mr. York stated that would not be an acceptable condition, as he would like to be able to include charity events for organizations such as the Peninsula Education Foundation and Children's Hospital, as well as private events at the site. He suggested the condition could be written that he have an additional twenty events for Terranea, charity events, and personal private events. In regards to the use of Palos Verdes Drive South entrance, he explained that this entrance is used as the only entrance whenever there is a public event on the property. He noted the maintenance workers use the Narcissa entrance, Commissioner Cruikshank referred to the court ruling in regards to the use of the Portuguese Bend roads, which says only employees, representatives, contractors, and persons acting on behalf of York Long Point will access the property from the Narcissa Drive entrance. He felt that this clearly says the public should not be using the Portuguese Bend entrance for events, therefore the Commission acting again on this seems a bit redundant. He also was not in favor of restricting the additional twenty events to events held only by Terranea. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend his motion to include the additional events be events held by Terranea, charity events, and private events, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Vice Chairman Nelson requested staff read the motion back to the Commission for clarification. Before doing so, Director Rojas asked the Commission to clarify how many additional events they were approving, Commissioner Emenhiser explained that there have only been twelve events at the site, and with those twelve it appears there haven't been any problems. However, if with the next ten events there are numerous problems and complaints, he would like the Director to have some discretion on allowing another ten events to take place before having another six month review. Director Rojas explained that from the applicant's standpoint this may be difficult, as they will need to know upfront how many events they can plan for on the property, Director Rojas read the motion as follows: Keep the current thirty events, per the definition of events that is currently in the CUP; in addition to the thirty events allow an additional ten small events pursuant to the rules that these small events are limited to fifty guests, the event ends by 8 p.m., there is no live music or DJ, and the guests use the Palos Verdes Drive South entrance; the events are utilized by Terranea, private parties by the applicant, or charities-, after these additional ten events occur if there continues to be no complaints the applicant will be allowed to have an additional ten small events for a maximum of twenty; and there be an additional review six months from the adoption of the Resolution. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2014 Page 14 Commissioner Gerstner asked for clarification as to whether these events are counted beginning July 1st or if they were looked at in a calendar year. Senior Planner Schonborn clarified that the intent was to have thirty events in any calendar year. He noted that July of last year was merely the trigger for the six month review. He stated that every January Mr. York will report how many events were held in the previous calendar year. The motion was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner James dissenting. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to accept staff's recommendation in regards to the color of the road from Palos Verdes Drive South that staff believes the intent of the Planning Commission's earth tone color condition of approval has been met, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Commissioner Tomblin stated the Planning Commission required this road be an earth tone color, however the road is a black asphalt road and this road will need to be maintained in the future. He stated he would rather continue this portion of the item to allow the applicant time to come up with some alternative, cost effective means to make that driveway an earth tone color. The motion was approved, (4-2) with Commissioners Tomblin and Gerstner dissenting. In regards to the Narcissa gate entrance, Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve staff's recommendation as amended to say vehicular access for all event related, cook shack, and garden area uses shall be via Palos Verdes Drive South only, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was approved, (6-0). Senior Planner Schonborn referred to condition of approval No. 60(a) in regards to the Narcissa gate being closed, and if that condition had been addressed in the previous motion, Vice Chairman Nelson thought the previous motion addressed what is written in condition No. 60(a), in which case condition No. 60(a) should be expanded to include maintenance and contractor personnel. Commissioner Gerstner moved to modify condition No. 60(a) to read the gate at Narcissa Drive shall remain closed when not in use, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was approved, (6-0). Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staffs recommendation to delete condition No. 56 which eliminates the requirement that five events be reserved strictly for nonprofit organizations and to acknowledge a new vegetable garden area west of the event garden area, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Approved, (6-0). Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2014 Page 15 Director Rojas noted that the public hearing could be left open, which will allow the public to react and comment on the language in the Resolution. The Commission agreed to leave the public hearing open. Commissioner James moved to modify the language in condition No. 54(d), the definition of an event, by removing the phrase "in the form of a disc jockey", seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Gerstner recalled that when the Planning Commission was originally discussing this issue, it was their intent that amplified sound be included as one of the triggers of an event, not amplified sound with a disc jockey. The motion was approved, (6-0). Director Rojas explained that staff does will have to prepare a Resolution with the approved language, and suggested the public hearing be continued to April 22nd. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the public hearing to April 22, 2014 to allow staff to prepare a Resolution memorializing the Commission's direction on a number of issues, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved without objection. Chairman Leon returned to the dais. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. February 25, 2014 Minutes Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioners Cruikshank and James abstaining since they were not at that meeting. 5. March 11, 2014 Minutes Vice Chairman Nelson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-A_qenda for the meeting on April,8, 201 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented, ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2014 Page 16 The meeting was adjourned at 10-15 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2014 Page 17