Loading...
PC MINS 20151027 Approved November 9, 15 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nelson at 7:02 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Senior Planner Mikhail led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Leon, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Nelson. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Mikhail, Deputy Public Works Director Jules, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to move agenda item No. 6 to be heard before agenda item No. 5. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed six letters related to agenda item No. 5, as well as the City's budget in brief document. Chairman Nelson distributed a copy of the letter received from the State of California regarding the need to update the General Plan. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of September 8, 2015 Minutes Vice Chairman Tomblin moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Leon abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 2. Approval of September 22, 2015 Minutes Commissioner Cruikshank moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner James. Approved without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2015-00383) Director Rojas explained that staff is recommending the Planning Commission endorse proposed amendments to the code to eliminate the current City Tree Review process because the City's Public Works Department has instituted a more streamlined process for dealing with City trees that significantly impair views. He noted the Public Works Department is currently operating under an interim process, and at a previous meeting the Planning Commission had questions about this interim process. Staff has provided the Commission with the written interim process from the Public Works Department and the Public Works Deputy Director is present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Deputy Director Jules explained that the process before the Commission is the interim process, and with City Council approval, will become the permanent process assuming there are no recommended changes and the interim process is successful. She noted that since this interim process has been in place the Public Works Department has processed four removal/trimming applications and there are three applications pending. She also noted the interim process has been very successful and the Department has received no complaints from the residents. Commissioner Leon asked staff how long this interim process takes once staff receives the application from a resident. Deputy Director Jules explained that within 24 hours of being notified of a City tree impairing a view, Public Works staff notifies the Community Development Department to perform a view assessment. She noted that typically, the Community Development Department will give a view assessment memorandum back to the Public Works Department within 48 to 72 hours. Once Public Works receives this memorandum from Community Development, staff consults with the City Arborist, and the Arborist does an assessment and verifies what Community Development staff is recommending. Once this is complete, staff sends a notice to the residents advising them of the subject tree and the subject action. Therefore, from beginning to end, the process is typically one to two months. Commissioner Leon felt that the residents should be given more than seven days to comment on the proposed tree trimming/removal. He was concerned the residents could receive the notice when they're not home and not have the opportunity to comment. He asked staff how long the notification period could be extended without creating a hardship to the process. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2015 Page 2 Deputy Director Jules stated that seven days was comfortable for the Public Works staff, however being sensitive to the residents and giving them the ability to comment, she felt that no more than two weeks would be sufficient. Commissioner Leon felt that residents could be notified at the same time the Public Works Department gives the information to the Community Development Department, so that processes are running parallel. Deputy Director Jules felt that was a possibility, however cautioned that there would not yet be a potential action, and this may generate more phone calls and questions which staff would not have an answer to. Commissioner Cruikshank questioned why the view assessment had to come from the Community Development Department, and why the Public Works Department couldn't do this assessment. Director Rojas responded that making a determination of significant view impairment is subjective, and that the Community Development Department has been making these determinations for many years through experience and the guidelines. Thus, staff felt it would be best to retain these types of assessments with the Community Development Department. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon moved to adopt staff's recommendation, with the recommendation that Public Works' notification period be 14 days rather than the current 7 days, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion to forward this modified recommendation to the City Council was approved, (7-0), thereby adopting PC Resolution 2015-18. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2015-00230) 5837 Crest Road Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the public hearing to the November 10, 2015 meeting, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. The motion was approved without objection. NEW BUSINESS 6. Crestridge Senior Housing landscape plan update Senior Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining that at the May 26th meeting the Planning Commission requested that staff ask the property owner or applicant to submit renderings regarding the appearance of the retaining wall once the landscaping is installed, and this is what is before the Planning Commission this evening. She presented the renderings, and Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2015 Page 3 explained the yellow line on the bottom rendering represented the condition of approval where it is stipulated that the landscaping for this project not exceed the ridgelines represented by this yellow line. She pointed that trees that must be removed to meet this condition of approval. She also noted that when staff asked the applicant to prepare the rendering requested by the Planning Commission, the applicant provided the landscaping for the areas in front of the properties, however they did not eliminate the trees that are above the yellow line, and staff will ask the applicant to update the rendering. She noted on the rendering the location of the wall that will be landscaped, and stated staff has approved a type of plant that will proliferate in this climate zone. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that he has been the most vocal in what has happened with this wall. He explained that quite a bit of time was spent working with the applicant to ensure the natural grade at the front of the property would be continued from the existing project next door on the corner. Subsequently, an over-the-counter approval was given by a staff member to put in these retaining walls, which the Commission never saw or approved. In addition, four metal posts and wire fencing was installed for security reasons. He felt that this is not what was discussed and approved by the Planning Commission. With that, the Commission asked for a rendering, and he noted he was expecting a rendering and not an overview that was presented. He therefore did not think the applicant complied with what he felt the request was. He pointed out that when looking at the depicted grading on both renderings, he noted the grading is the same and does not show a depiction of the steepness of the walls on the upper section. Additionally, he did not see anything on the coverage of the wire fences and posts that were installed. He stated that he would be considering a motion to reject the staff report. Commissioner Emenhiser asked the Vice Chairman what type of rendering he was expecting and what would be helpful. Vice Chairman Tomlin stated he was looking for an actual rendering, and not just a picture. Commissioner Gerstner agreed, and noted that the problem with the wall isn't necessarily from this vantage point, and is much more significant than what is shown in the photo. He felt that, if in fact all of the grades were truly as represented on the submitted photo, we wouldn't have the situation at the property that we currently have. He felt that a rendering taken from the street below the retaining walls and looking up at those walls would be much more effective and was what he was looking to see. Vice Chairman Tomblin pointed out that the Commission did not approve the steel posts and wire fences that have been installed. Chairman Nelson stated he drove by the property today and there are green plants in every opening. He asked if the wall has been fully planted. Senior Planner Mikhail responded that she did not think the wall had been planted, as there may be sporadic green weeds at the area. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2015 Page 4 Vice Chairman Tomlin agreed with the Chairman, stating the applicant has planted the area, which bothered him since they do not have an approved landscape plan. Senior Planner Mikhail was not aware the applicant had done so. She clarified that there is a landscape plan that was originally approved, and that there are some components of that landscape plan that have structural aspects to it that are not approved. Director Rojas clarified that a landscape plan was approved several months ago by staff and the City's landscaping consultants. Staff has been withholding final approval of that landscape plan, given the Commission's previous direction. He noted that the applicant is ready to have that landscape plan approved next week, and he did not feel there was a reason for staff to withhold that approval. He stated that the current developer is fully cooperating with staff, noting that they inherited these issues from the previous developer. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if they could give approval of the landscape plan with the exception of an area that staff can cloud on the plans. Chairman Nelson noted that staff's recommendation for this item is to receive and file a status report, not to render final approval. He felt that the Commission has to give staff what they feel will be necessary to obtain final approval on this. Director Rojas stated that the tract conditions of approval state that staff, not the Planning Commission, is to approve the final landscape plan. Therefore, if the landscape plan is ready to be approved, staff may have no option but to approve the plan. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner James stated that the Vice Chairman has indicated he may make a motion to reject the staff report. He asked staff if that was an option and something that could be done procedurally. Director Rojas stated this is just an informational report and was not sure what rejecting the report actually means. He suggested that if the Vice Chairman was looking for additional information, that the report be accepted, but additional information be requested from staff or the developer. Vice Chairman Tomblin felt that it may be a waste of time discussing this at the Commission level and it may be time to take this issue to another level, as he felt the Commission was getting useless reports. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the problem is that a change was made that the Commission may feel is inconsistent with the approved CUP, and what the Commission is seeking is a remedy to that problem. He did not feel the remedy was that the landscape plan was approved and there is nothing more to it. He stated the remedy suggested is as simple as planting this wall in such a way that adequately obscures the problem. He stated the Commission is trying Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2015 Page 5 to get some precise, understandable assurance of what this wall will look like prior to it being done. The Commission doesn't know what their latitude is to do that, but he felt that if what was done was inconsistent with the approved CUP, that the Commission should have some say in how it's remedied. Senior Planner Mikhail stated she may be able to bring to the Commission at the next meeting another perspective of the rendering that may satisfy the Commission. She stated this rendering would be from a vantage point that would be at the street level closer to the corner, which would be the area that most impacts the public. Vice Chairman Tomlin felt that this would just be wasting more time at the Commission level, as it wouldn't make any difference since the Commission doesn't have any say in this matter. Assistant City Attorney Burrows commented that the Planning Commission does not have the ultimate say on the landscape plan, as it is a staff level decision. She stated the developer has presented everything to staff and the landscape plan is a week away from approval at the staff level. Commissioner Gerstner asked the Vice Chairman what other level he felt this could escalated to. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that residents have held discussions, and he would have to go back to these residents in regards to their discussions. Director Rojas suggested continuing this to the next meeting to have the new rendering presented, and ask the developer to attend the meeting to answer questions and respond to the Commission's specific concerns. He felt he may be able to hold up the final approval of the landscape plan for two more weeks to allow this to happen. Commissioner Leon suggested that, in trying to remedy this problem, the developer not put a uniform level of shrubs along the wall that just looks like a wall of shrubs. He suggested that the vegetation have some modulation included in it. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to the soonest possible date, and ask the developer and possibly the landscape architect to attend the meeting and bring the most detailed rendering and description of what they propose to do with respect to adequately screening the wall, with the intention of finding a way to solve the issues at that meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. Commissioner Cruikshank stated these are geo-grid walls, and there is a limited palate of vegetation that can be planted on or near these walls. The motion was approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2015 Page 6 5. Compliance review of Pt. View Master Use Plan (Case No. ZON2010-00087): 6601 Palos Verdes Drive South Commissioner Leon recused himself from this item, as he lives within 500 feet of the area. Commissioner Leon left the dais. Commissioner Emenhiser disclosed he purchased a home from Mr. York several years ago, and Mr. York contributed to his campaign when he ran for City Council. Chairman Nelson disclosed that his family has been friends with Mr. York for many years, however he felt he could render a fair decision. Senior Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the property and the uses allowed on the property. She explained that at the previous six-month review the Planning Commission allowed an additional twenty small events at the site and required an additional six-month review, which is what is now before the Commission. She explained that at the time the six-month review was up for review before the Commission, the applicant approached staff and asked that the Planning Commission eliminate the twenty additional events and allow a total of sixty events. She explained a public notice was sent out regarding that request and staff received a number of comments from the public which were then forwarded to the applicant. The applicant subsequently withdrew this request. Therefore, what is before the Commission is only the six-month review. With that, she explained that staff has looked at the conditions of approval and found the applicant is in compliance with the conditions of approval, with the exception of the condition that the applicant submit twice a year a noise report showing the levels of amplification and decibel levels from various points. Given that staff has received comments from neighbors that noise has been a concern, staff is recommending that condition remain in place and the applicant works closely with staff to ensure these reports are provided for the next review. She stated staff is recommending an additional compliance review occur at the end of 2016. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff if the applicant has done any noise studies since the CUP was approved. Senior Planner Mikhail stated one noise study was done, however the required subsequent noise studies have not been done. Commissioner James questioned why staff did not request these noise studies from the applicant when they were due. Senior Planner Mikhail noted that in the past year there have been no noise complaints, which may be one factor in why noise reports were not prepared. She noted that staff has identified the applicant is not in compliance with this condition, which is why staff is recommending the condition be maintained. She also noted that there have been some staff changes in regards to this project, which may account for some of the issues. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2015 Page 7 Commissioner James pointed out that the condition of approval does not say a noise report will be required if there are complaints from the community. He was slightly concerned that the Commission was not provided any facts from staff in regards to whether or not they agree or disagree with some of the allegations from the public. Senior Planner Mikhail did not disagree with Commission James, but explained that staff was not made aware of any of these issues until very recently. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Jim York (applicant) discussed the various activities that take place on his property, and noted that in 2015 the City issued four film permits for the property. In speaking with his neighbors, he feels there is some confusion as to his participation in these film permits. He stated that he has nothing to do with these film permits, he does not monitor the activities, and the City issues the permit and imposes the conditions. In regards to his events, he explained there is someone on the property at all times monitoring the activity with a decibel meter. He requested a minor modification to the twenty small events, noting Terranea would like to have more dinners on the property and extend the time to 9:30 p.m. He also requested the usage of amplified music at these additional events. He stated he has a question on the indemnity provision and if this is something that is required of everyone, or is unique to this property. Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. York if these additional events requested by Terranea were dinner parties, and why amplified music was requested. Mr. York stated these would be dinner parties, but with some type of entertainment, such as acoustical guitars, a string quartet, or possibly a DJ. He stated it would be in the same area that the current amplified music is allowed, so the neighbors would not hear the music. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. York how many events he currently has approval to hold, and what he is requesting. Mr. York answered that he is currently approved to hold 30 large events and 20 small events. He is requesting that for these 20 small events the time period be allowed to go to 9:30 p.m. and to allow for amplified music at those events. Commissioner Cruikshank asked what time the large events typically begin. Mr. York answered the larger events are typically weddings and start at 3:00 or so. Chairman Nelson asked how many of the small events benefit a charity. Mr. York responded that there have been several charity events at the site. Vanessa Bowman stated she works for Mr. York and helps put together and book the events. She stated in 2015 there were 20 large events and 2 small events held on the property. She noted 2 of the 22 events were fundraisers. She explained the DJs are selected from an approved Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2015 Page 8 list, and they all sign entertainment agreements and a deposit is taken. She stated that at the end of 2014 there were the first two events that chose to have lives bands. She explained that while the music did not exceed the 86 decibel limit, the crowd did exceed the decibel limit. With that, lives bands are now not allowed at events. She stated there is someone on site at all events taking numerous decibel readings, and the 86 decibel limit is not exceeded. Commissioner Cruikshank noted there are several residents in the Portuguese Bend area with noise complaints, and asked Ms. Bowman if anyone has actually gone to these residences to hear and measure what they hear from their property. Ms. Bowman explained that they have done so, but have not done so for every event. She stated that when she has measured the noise, the decibel readings are in the 30s and 40s. She stated, however, that she did not measure the decibel level at the surrounding residences during the performance of a live band. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Ms. Bowman why the required sound studies were not done. Ms. Bowman explained that she did not realize it was a requirement, and because there were no complaints it was something she did not do. Commissioner Cruikshank asked, if there were an event on a Sunday night that was too loud, how would the residents get ahold of her to let her know the noise may be exceeding the limits. Ms. Bowman answered that at both entrances of the property there are signs that say there's event in progress and gives her cell number to call if there are questions or concerns. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Ms. Bowman if the letters of concern from the neighbors were a surprise to her. Ms. Bowman answered that they were very much a surprise to her. Chairman Nelson asked Ms. Bowman how many phone calls she received on her cell phone regarding events in 2014 and 2015. Ms. Bowman answered that she received no phone calls regarding the events. Debbie Sampson (President of Las Candalistas) discussed the fundraising that is done by Las Candalistas. She explained that for the past several years Las Candalistas has been holding fundraising events at this property, and stated there are very strict requirements to hold events on the property, and they are very firm in making sure these requirements are met. She stated staff is very diligent in making sure the neighbors are not disrupted during the events. She stated Las Candalistas is in support of Mr. York's request to allow the 20 small events to run until 9:30 p.m. Deena Gribben (President for the Associates of the PV Art Center) stated she is in support of the project and in favor of Mr. York's request to allow events until 9:30 p.m. She stated the PV Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2015 Page 9 Art Center would very much like to use the property for upcoming fundraisers. She stated that in discussing the requirements with Mr. York and his staff, they were very diligent about the requirements and the limitations, especially in regards to noise and traffic. She asked the Commission consider Mr. York's request to extend the time limit. Lisa Dennen (4 Plum Tree Road) stated she supports Mr. York's efforts to make the property available for charitable events, and supported his request to allow these events to end at 9:30. She also stated she is a neighbor of the property, and has not heard any noise from the property. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Ms. Dennen how far her home is from the event center. Ms. Dennen did not know exactly, but acknowledged she is within 500 feet. Minas Yerelian felt this entire project was a big mistake, and to please one person many lives are being disrupted, as well as the value of their property. He felt Mr. York is abusive his privilege. He stated people are complaining because they feel the Planning Commission and the City Council have made up their minds and made a decision before the item even comes before them. He felt Mr. York will continue to come before the Planning Commission and ask for more. He felt the City should revoke Mr. York's CUP, as he is continually violating the conditions. He also suggested that every time the City receives a complaint of Mr. York violating the conditions he should be fined $5,000, and that way he will obey his conditions. He added that his major objection to this is that the CUP was issued under false pretenses, that being a golf course. He questioned if the golf course is even being maintained. Ellen and Joan Wright (1 Plumtree Road) felt Mr. York has been a nice neighbor. He has talked to, and listened to, the neighbors and their concerns. She explained that everything was fine until she received the notice from the City that Mr. York wanted to increase the number of events as well as the increase in time. She was concerned with the increased noise and traffic, explaining already there are cars, buses, vans, and catering trucks on the property with each event. She did not want any more to what was already taking place at the property. Ellen Wright noted that, in speaking to Mr. York about their concerns, he is going to work with her and her mother to mitigate their concerns. She has also learned that when they feel there is a problem they need to notify Mr. York's staff to let them know. Commissioner James asked Ms. Wright what the major problems have been. Ms. Wright answered that at weddings the music and guests have, at times, become quite loud. Commissioner James asked if their issue was the length of time of the event or the noise. Ms. Wright answered that it is both, particularly with the weddings. Commissioner James asked if there have been any weddings at the property since discussing their concerns with Mr. York. Ms. Wright replied that there was a small wedding at the property, and things went quite well. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2015 Page 10 Mr. York (in rebuttal) explained that he has always tried to be a good neighbor, and noted that Ms. Wright did not previously have Ms. Bowman's phone number to call with complaints and concerns. He stated that he and Ms. Bowman have met with the Wrights twice in the last two weeks and they will continue to everything to continue to be good neighbors. In regards to not monitoring the sound as required, he stated it was an oversight on his part and he will ensure that it is done in the future. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. York about the status of the golf course. Mr. York answered that the golf course is still in operation. He explained there are nine synthetic grass T-boxes and the sand at the bunkers was obtained from the PV Golf Course. Vice Chairman Tomblin felt that, because the proposal requests that amplification be extended to 9:30, that instead of a review at the end of 2016 as suggested by staff, the review be in six months. He asked Mr. York if that would be acceptable to him. Mr. York didn't think that was necessary, and suggested that after the two required sound studies are taken, they be immediately reported to staff. If there is a problem with the sound, then staff can then report that issue to the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Mikhail pointed out that the six month review is usually conducted six months after the first event, which would most likely make the review near the end of 2016. Commissioner Cruikshank explained that to get a true picture of what is going on, a sound study must be done during a large event. He asked Mr. York when his first full event will take place in 2016. Mr. York answered that the first full event will be held on Valentine's Day 2016. Commissioner James asked Mr. York if he could perform his first noise study by the end of February, 2016. Mr. York stated he can do a noise study for the Valentine's Day wedding. Senior Planner Mikhail noted that the condition requires Mr. York perform the noise studies on the events with the largest attendance, and questioned if the February wedding would qualify. Mr. York noted that currently there are about twenty events booked for 2016. He suggested giving staff a list of those events and letting staff choose the two events they would like to have monitored. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser moved admonish the City and to make sure the City Manager's office ensures there is some type of constraint placed on film permits issued for the Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2015 Page 11 property in terms of hours of filming, approve the request to allow small events on the property to run until 9:30 p.m. with amplified sound, and that this approval is conditional on meeting the noise study standard. If the noise studies show the decibel levels are above the allowed noise levels, the ending time for the small events would revert back to 8:00 p.m. In addition, the request to allow amplified music at these small events would be approved as long as it does not exceed 86 decibels. The motion was seconded by Chairman Nelson. Commissioner James did not feel the matter of the film permits was before the Commission, and would not support admonishing the City Manager's office. Commissioner Cruikshank stated that, while there may be many conditions of approval, Mr. York missed the most important one, which is monitoring the sound so that the neighbors are not impacted. Therefore, he could not vote to allow more events at the site and let these events go longer than 8 p.m. and to allow more amplified noise. He felt this was the wrong thing to do. He would rather see a sound study done within the next six months, and then let the Commission make a decision once there is more information to base this decision on. He commented that it looks like Mr. York may have been able to protect a good part of the neighborhood from the amplified noise, however it may be echoing or amplifying the noise up to the houses above the property. Therefore, he could not vote for the motion. He would rather see no increases at this point, have a sound study performed within the next six months, and then have the Planning Commission meet and re-review the material to make a more informed decision. Commissioner James was not concerned with the traffic issues as there were no speakers in regards to traffic and staff didn't do any studies or present any facts in the staff report. He was somewhat concerned with amplified noise, particularly at night. He noted this is a residential neighborhood, and if this is a problem, it should be considered by the Commission. He was also concerned with allowing the amplified music up to 9:30 p.m. at the smaller events. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that if he were vote in favor of this, he would like to see a noise study and have an additional review before the Commission in May or June of 2016. Commissioner James pointed out that events for 2016 have been booked, and that they know the small events have to end at 8:00 p.m. Allowing an extension to 9:30 would just be an added bonus to these events. He suggested the Planning Commission have a hearing in March to analyze the noise data from the Valentine's Day wedding event, and move on from there. He explained that he would very much like to give Mr. York what he is requesting, but feels constrained at this time. Commissioner Emenhiser noted the staff report stated the City had received no complaints until a notice was sent out that Mr. York wanted to increase the small events from 20 to 60, at which time the City received several complaints. He stated there have been speakers here tonight speaking favorably about the site, and even the complaints have noted that Mr. York has been very helpful. In addition, the second largest source of income in the community is what we get from Terranea, which holds a number of events at the Event Garden. Therefore, from his perspective, the more the Commission can do to be supportive without overwhelming the Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2015 Page 12 neighborhood, the better. He was open to the Commission meeting again in April to review a noise study, but would not like to see the Commission dictate which event would be the subject of the study. Vice Chairman Tomblin moved a friendly amendment to the motion, that the Commission have another review at the end of May to assess impacts of the requested time extension. Commissioner Emenhiser accepted the amendment, seconded by Chairman Nelson. Commissioner James asked why wait until the end of May, and not have the hearing in March or April. Vice Chairman Tomblin explained that he was trying to allow for additional large events to take place on the site. Chairman Nelson re-opened the public hearing to allow Ms. Bowman to answer questions from the Commission. Chairman Nelson asked Ms. Bowman if there will be events of over 200 people held on the property between February 14th and the end of May in 2016. Ms. Bowman stated that the February 14th event will be over 200 people, as well as events held on April 28th, May 13th, and May 14th Commissioner James agreed that the end of May would be the best time for the Commission to hear the information. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Senior Planner Mikhail asked the Commission to clarify if the motion included staff's recommendation, or just what was stated in the motion. Commissioner Emenhiser clarified that the 9:30 ending time is conditional on both reviews, and his motion includes staff recommendation. Commissioner James questioned the new indemnity provision added by the city attorney and what that meant for Mr. York. Chairman Nelson stated that it was his understanding that this new agreement would now be part of the approval of every CUP and contract in the City. Assistant City Attorney Burrows stated that was correct. Chairman Nelson reopened the question to allow Mr. York the opportunity to state whether or not he agreed with and would abide by the new indemnity provision. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2015 Page 13 Mr. York stated he would if this agreement, as written, is a condition of doing business in the City. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Director Rojas clarified the motion on the table as the following: 1) To advise the City Manager to keep better time constraints on film permits issued at Point View; 2) To allow for the additional twenty events requested by the applicant with amplified sound, provided the existing noise conditions are met; 3) Require the noise studies be done as required, and if the noise levels are exceeded to roll back the time of the new events to 8:00 p.m; 4) In addition to staff's recommended annual review, to require an additional review at the end of May 2016; 5) Implement the condition regarding the indemnification, as well as all of the other conditions in the resolution. The motion was approved, (4-2) with Commissioners Cruikshank and James dissenting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on November 10, 2015 The pre-agenda for the November 10th meeting was reviewed and approved. Director Rojas noted that there are currently no items scheduled for the November 24th meeting, and asked if the Commission would like to cancel that meeting. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff when they felt the General Plan would be before the Commission again. Director Rojas noted that the Commission continued the General Plan Update item to the November 24th meeting. Canceling that meeting would roll this item to the next scheduled meeting. He stated that currently staff is anticipating the General Plan update will be ready to be heard by the Commission at the December 22nd meeting. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to cancel the November 24, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. Approved without objection. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned scheduling the review of the General Plan Update two days before Thanksgiving and three days before Christmas, and felt it may be better to schedule to the hearing on a day that was more reasonable. Chairman Nelson agreed, and suggested scheduling the item for the first meeting in January. The Commission agreed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2015 Page 14