Loading...
PC MINS 20161129 ADJ Approved 1/24/2017 II•k CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 6:12 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner James led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Senior Planner Kim, Associate Planner Silva, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at their November 1, 2016 meeting the City Council adopted the 2013 California Building Code, which will go into effect on January 1, 2017. The City Council also adopted an Urgency Ordinance in response to Proposition 64 which allows for the indoor cultivation of marijuana and prohibits outdoor cultivation. At the November 15th meeting the City Council authorized Public Works to address the traffic concerns regarding the left-turn lane from Palos Verdes Drive South into Lower Point Vicente Park. Director Mihranian reported that he attended the November 16th CHOA meeting and discussed the City's arterial fence and wall program, the Peafowl Management Plan, the Coyote Management Plan, and short-term rentals. He also reported that Staff and the Commission's sub-committee has met on two occasions to review draft language on the minor modification code amendment, which will likely be considered by the Commission in January. Chairman Tomblin reported that he, Director Mihranian, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows spoke with Vanessa Walker with the State Board of Cemeteries. Commissioner Nelson reported that he also attended the CHOA meeting. He requested that tonight's meeting adjourn in memory of thousands of sailors, soldiers, airmen, and citizens who defended our country at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines on December 7th and 8th. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Noel Weiss spoke about the required review of Green Hills compliance with the conditions in their Conditional Use Permit. He noted the one-year deadline for this compliance review has not been met and requested the Commission try to hold firm to the suggested December 13th hearing date. Matt Martin stated Green Hills previously presented false and misleading information to the City and was allowed to build a mausoleum and roof-top burial area only 8 feet from the property line. He stated the Area 11 mausoleum is currently still in violation of the CUP in terms of height and noted the recent Resolution regarding the structure has nothing in it in regards to legalizing the height of the structure. Therefore, he felt Green Hills is currently in violation of their CUP, and as a result Green Hills should not be allowed to file any permits or plans to the City for approval. David Turner stated Green Hills is building out the cemetery's north side, which abuts the Peninsula Verde neighborhood. He felt that any development along the cemetery's north side worsens an already degraded situation in the neighborhood, and the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum is a regrettable example of such development. He explained how he felt the mausoleum has obstructed his views; it has raised the burial area up higher which creates a platform that more easily transmits sound into the neighborhood; it creates a park-like area on the top of the mausoleum which attracts people with no real business in this area; it adds a water feature that attracts children who play in the water; and there is nothing that can screen visitors on the mausoleum from viewing into the Peninsula Verde homes. He felt that extending the mausoleum will further exacerbate these problems, and a new CUP requiring Green Hills to proactively regulate visitations is needed to ameliorate these problems. He also felt that penalties and consequences for non-compliance must be in place and enforced for non-compliance. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of October 25, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 2 2. Short-term Rental Code Amendment Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report, giving a brief background on the topic, noting the City Council has affirmed that short-term rentals are not an allowed use per the City's Municipal Code. He stated that staff presented proposed code amendment language to the City Council in October to help strengthen the City's code enforcement framework, and the City Council directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to prepare code amendment language, which is now before the Commission. He discussed the proposed code amendment language to Chapter 17 of the City's Municipal Code. He stated the Planning Commission's recommendation will be presented to the City Council on December 20th, and an Urgency Ordinance will be proposed to the Council that will codify the amendment language immediately and a Resolution that will increase the Administrative Citation fines. Commissioner Leon asked staff why they felt it was necessary to embellish the prohibition by saying "with or without people living there", when in fact the City is just prohibiting all short-term rentals. Director Mihranian answered that there are two types of short-term rentals, vacation rentals where the entire home is rented out versus home sharing where a room is rented out. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned if this type of proposed ban on advertising is in violation of one's First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of the press. He asked staff if commercial speech is speech and if advertisement in a newspaper or magazine is protected speech. Assistant City Attorney Burrows answered that commercial speech is speech and is subject to intermediate scrutiny. For commercial speech to fall within intermediate scrutiny it must concern lawful activity. The underlying activity that is being advertised here is not lawful, as short-term rentals are prohibited. This is speech that advertises unlawful activity, and therefore it is not protected under intermediate scrutiny. Commissioner Emenhiser asked how such a ban would be enforced on the internet. Director Mihranian explained that the enforcement of this prohibition is quite challenging. He stated that staff feels that in order to start the enforcement process there needs to first be a ban on the advertisement. Staff will start canvassing the various websites to see who is advertising, and based on that the City can react and start issuing notices to the property owners. He also explained that staff will be taking an item to the City Council to increase the administrative citation fines for short-term rentals to be more punitive than the currently established fines. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if one could advertise their rental as a thirty-one day rental in order to get around this ban. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 3 Director Mihranian answered that one could advertise their rental as a thirty-one day rental with exceptions or exit clauses in their contract. He explained that one of the challenges on enforcement is how to address this, noting staff cannot just knock on the door and confront the renter. Commissioner James agreed with Commissioner Leon that two sections are not needed in the definition of short-term rentals. He understood the distinction that was being drawn, but did not understand how that distinction is necessary. Secondly, he did not understand why there was the concept of a responsible party included. He felt it would be better to say "no person" rather than "no responsible party". Assistant City Attorney Burrows answered that the intent of this Ordinance is to enforce this ban against the operators and the individuals, and not to be pursuing enforcement options against the on-line platforms. Commissioner James noted in the sections defining advertisement there appears to be a focus on printed and lettered materials, and by doing that he felt that eliminates any form of radio or TV broadcast or social media. He asked if there was a specific reason that was being done. Director Mihranian pointed out that under advertisement it includes the internet and website, which implies that social media is captured. Commissioner James suggested taking out printed or lettered to make it quite clear this ban is verbal as well as printed. In regards to enforcement, Commissioner James asked why language couldn't be included now that would provide for a substantial fine. Director Mihranian explained that all penalties are captured in Title One of the Municipal Code. Commissioner James asked what the current maximum penalty is now. Director Mihranian answered that the current maximum penalty is $500 per day. Staff is looking to increase this maximum penalty to $2,500 per day. He explained that if someone is found advertising in violation of this code, they will receive a written notice to correct the situation. If the situation is not corrected, staff will have the option of following up with a second notice or to start imposing the fines. The proposed fine schedule that staff is presenting to City Council will have the first violation fine at $250, the second fine at$1,500, and the third is$2,500 per day. He noted that staff is still drafting this language, and will be presenting the staff report to the City Council in December. Commissioner James agreed that enforcement will be the key, and it will be a challenge. Planning Commission Minutes November 29, 2016 Page 4 Commissioner Nelson noted the Coastal Commission is involving itself in this issue, and asked how staff was dealing with the Coastal Commission. Director Mihranian explained that the properties seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South are in the city's coastal zone. The Coastal Commission staff, not the Coastal Commission, has informed the City that a prohibition would be in violation of the Coastal Act. He noted that is not coming from the Coastal Commission itself. He explained that the City's code is a permissive code, and the code already prohibits short- term rentals. Staff is not changing the City's Coastal Specific Plan to add a new prohibition, but rather Staff is just affirming and upholding the current prohibition. Commissioner Bradley asked if City would be fining the advertising of the prohibited act or would the City be fining the actual short-term rental. Director Mihranian answered the City would be pursing the advertisement of the short- term rental. The City could also pursue the actual short-term rental using a different form. Commissioner Bradley asked who would be fined, noting the actual property owner could have leased out the property to another individual and that individual was responsible for the short-term rentals. Director Mihranian responded that it would be the responsible party, which in most cases would be the property owner. However, he read the proposed definition of responsible party, which includes tenants, agents, or representatives thereof. Commissioner Bradley felt it would be very difficult for the City to enforce something against a second-tier party. He noted the second-tier party could refuse to pay the fine, and asked what would then be the City's recourse. Assistant City Burrows answered this could be pursued in small claims court or impose a lien per the City's Municipal Code. She felt there were other avenues that could be explored as well. Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted there was a change in the cost for private monitoring between the original staff report and this most current staff report. He asked why there was such a difference in the proposed cost. Associate Planner Silva answered that the original figure was for an outside contractor to perform this service. This vendor no longer provides the service, so the City may have to hire a part-time staff member to help. Vice Chairman Cruikshank questioned the use of the word "person" and if that would include a corporation. Assistant City Attorney Burrows stated that "persons" is defined in Chapter 17.96.1420 and includes corporations, private entities, as well as several others. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 5 Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted the discussion in the staff report that refers to a list that will be given to the Sheriff's Department. He asked if there was a system in which a residence could get off of this list. Director Mihranian explained the list would be based on the calls and complaints on a property. If the volume of calls subsides staff would work with the Sheriffs Department to remove the property. Chairman Tomblin asked if the internet provider of the advertisement would also be subject to a fine by the City. Director Mihranian answered that the internet provider would not be the responsible party, the person posting the advertisement would be the responsible party. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Noel Weiss felt that if there is aggressive and vigorous enforcement on this issue, then the advertisements might go away on their own. Chris Huang stated that since the affirmation of the ban on short-term rentals, most operators continue to advertise their illegal business in the City. She felt that travelers are not knowingly participating in this banned activity, and the money is too good for the operator to stop their business. She felt that banning the advertisements is an important step for the city staff to enforce current code and she urged the Planning Commission to approve this recommendation in whole. She felt that staff needs the tools to do their job. Michael Huang strongly urged the Planning Commission to amend the City code to prohibit the advertisement of short-term rentals. He stated it has been two months since the City Council has affirmed the ban, and noted that some operators are still blatantly advertising their short-term rentals. He stated some operators have language that short- term rentals are banned, but still allow for booking of short-term rentals. He stated that some operators are coaching their renters to lie and say they are the operator's friends if they are asked by the neighbors. Commissioner Nelson noted that between September 22nd and October 11th it appears that Mr. Huang wrote nine emails, turning in approximately 30 people, and asked Mr. Huang if that was correct, and that he was turning in his neighbors. Mr. Huang responded that he is reporting his neighbors because they continue to operate short-term rentals. Commissioner Nelson referred to an email written to the City Council on October 17th with the following sentence: In fact, many short-term ban supporters have expressed to me Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 6 that they have lost trust and confidence in the Planning Commission. He asked Mr. Huang to explain what he meant by that sentence. Mr. Huang explained that at the initial Planning Commission meeting there was much testimony on how the short-terms rentals were causing problems for the residents. Many of the residents were quite surprised after the meeting that the Commission recommended allowing the one-room rentals to remain. He stated this is something that most residents do not want. In regards to his neighbor, he noted she continues to rent out her rooms to short-term rentals, and because she is profiting illegally on this business, he feels he must keep an eye on her for the sake of his street to make sure she is following the law. Commissioner Nelson questioned Mr. Huang if he felt the voices of 36 percent of the residents who favored short-term rentals should not be heard, since he took it upon himself to turn in several alleged short-term rentals. Mr. Huang did not feel they should not be heard, however the will of residents and the majority of the residents stated they do not want short-term rentals. Noel Park stated he is the president of the Pacific View HOA, whose neighborhood surrounds Hesse Park. He stated the HOA represents 345 homes in the tract, and the Board has voted unanimously to ask the Commission to completely ban short-term rentals in R-1 neighborhoods. He asked that the Commission approve this proposed ban on advertisements and forward the recommendation to the City Council as soon as possible. Alan Siegel stated he favors the short-term rental ban, however he wanted to point out areas where he felt there should be some clarity. He noted that at the initial meeting the Commission agreed to recommend a ban on short-term rentals in single-family residential districts. He stated there are multi-family residential districts where there are short-term rentals which this does not affect. He noted he brought this up to the City Council, however the Ordinance was written with just single-family residences included. He felt that enforcement would be easier if enforced in multi- as well as single-family residences. He felt the ban on advertising was a reasonable approach, however reminded the Commission that there is one legally permitted Bed and Breakfast in the City, and there is the possibility of other legally permitted Bed and Breakfast Inns being allowed through a Conditional Use Permit. He did not want to see a ban on advertising on short-term rentals which would include that legally operating Bed and Breakfast. He suggested language be included that specifies this is only applicable to illegally run short-term rentals, or the requirement that the Conditional Use Permit number be included in the advertisement. Lastly, he noted that at a previous meeting he urged the Commission to review the definition of a Bed and Breakfast Inn, as he felt the current language could be misinterpreted. Director Mihranian felt that Mr. Siegel made some very good points, however noted that short-term rentals and Bed and Breakfast Inns are two very different uses. He explained that a Bed and Breakfast would require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit where Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 7 there will be a public hearing, and staff can add conditions of approval to regulate the use. In regards to the multi-family zoning district, he explained that since the Planning Commission is acting in an advisory capacity, the Commission may want to ask the City Council to clarify what their intent is with the multi-family zoning district. Carolynn Petru stated she would like to echo the comments expressed by her neighbors in regards to the need for the explicit prohibition language to be added to the code, as well as the language regarding advertisements. She stated this is going to be a step-by- step process, noting the behavior of some property owners of short-term rentals and how they are finding ways to go around the process. She saw this as an important first step in the process. She agreed with Mr. Siegel's comments regarding multi-family zoning, and she requested the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to encourage the ban in multi-family residential zoning districts. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned if the City could look into using additional Sheriffs Deputies to help the City enforce this prohibition. Ms. Petru did not know the answer to that questions, but thought it would have to be something negotiated with the County. She suggested looking through the COG to see if there is a possibility to hire a contractor or employee from the COG to do enforcement for the region. Commissioner Emenhiser liked that idea, and felt that having a Sheriffs Deputy knocking on the door would have more impact than a City employee with a clipboard. Director Mihranian commented that staff has had conversations with Captain Beringer in terms of what their role would be in the enforcement of this ban. He explained their role would be very limited, as a Sheriff's Deputy cannot knock on a private residence's door and ask who they are or to show some documentation. He added that the Sheriffs Department can knock on the door if there is a party and a disturbance of the peace. Nelly Bertolina agreed with the comments of the previous speakers. She added that since the ban was put in place owners have not changed their operations. She felt it was very important to charge a large penalty, as the short-term rental on Hightide rents for $850 per night. James Bertolina stated he agrees with all of the comments from the previous speakers. Mrs. Hammersmith stated she was very concerned with this issue and also agreed with the previous speakers' comments. Matt Martin agreed with those who are concerned with the issue, however he felt there was a fundamental flaw with the prohibition of advertising. He questioned how the City would prove who put in the advertisement, explaining a neighbor could put in an ad or post fake rentals just to spite their neighbor. He felt the best way to deter this was with heavy fines. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 8 Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bradley asked how the new language would not overlap the Bed and Breakfast language, and prohibit the Bed and Breakfast use. Assistant City Attorney Burrows explained that there is language in the Code regarding Bed and Breakfast, which takes it out of the realm of short-term rentals. She stated that the Commission can recommend added language, however, to this proposed Ordinance stating that this ban does not apply to a licensed Bed and Breakfast operating in the City. Commissioner Bradley asked why this focuses only on single family residential zoning districts and doesn't include multi-family residential zoning districts. Director Mihranian answered that the Commission originally looked at both single-family and multi-family zoning districts in their recommendation, however the City Council focused solely on single-family zoning districts. Commissioner Leon stated he was in favor of simplifying the language by distinguishing between rentals with people living at the house and those where people are not living at the residence. He also recommended that the Commission pass on to the City Council the concerns regarding multi-family residential zoning districts, and that these rules should also apply to that zoning district. He felt the residents are fully capable of identifying advertising and places of interest, and did not feel city staff needs to spend any time with this. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he was very sympathetic with the goals of the prohibition, however he did not feel he could support the current language. He felt this language sends the city down the road of hiring a rental police and sending cease and desist letters to Google. He also felt this was sending the City down the road to all types of legal fees and attorney bills for the City and the residents in regards to commercial speech. He felt a better option was to liaison with the County Sheriff to strengthen their enforcement of the City's rules and regulations and especially to strengthen the public nuisances laws that are already on the books. Commissioner Nelson felt that this advertisement ban may be easily set up for fraudulent use. He agreed with Commissioner Emenhiser's comments and concerns regarding advertising. He also pointed out there are 14,000 single family units in the City and currently only 11 units have been identified as being used for short-term rental purposes. Commissioner James stated the Assistant City Attorney's answer concerning protected or prohibited is absolutely correct. He therefore disagreed that there was any problem with freedom of speech in this proposed amendment. He agreed that enforcement is a problem, and having some sort of a prohibition against advertising makes enforcement much easier. He felt the goal is to give the city better tools with which to fight what he felt has become a very serious problem. He stated the Commission was not asked to Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 9 revisit the questions of whether or not to ban short-term rentals, but rather to address the ability to enforce the decision made by the City Council by banning advertisements. He felt there were a couple of things that could be changed in the Resolution in addition to the point made by Commissioner Leon in regards to the shortening the language in Section 17.96.1705. He suggested the change he mentioned earlier to expand advertisement to include television and radio. He did not think that some of the reasons people may think of that this won't work is not a reason to go ahead and try the proposed ban. He felt that the Commission is here to try to fix a problem they know exists and should do their best to do that. Vice Chairman Cruikshank felt this will be very difficult to enforce and people will always find ways to go around rules. However, he felt this may be the best approach the City can take at this time. He felt this is just a start and may have to be adjusted in the future. He also agreed this should not be limited to single-family residences, and the recommendation to the City Council should include a recommendation to add multi-family to this ban. He liked the idea of shared enforcement costs and thought staff should look into that avenue. In regards to the list given to the Sheriff's Department, he felt it was important that anyone on this list be notified that they are on such list that is being shared with the Sheriff's Department, and how they can get off this list, and that there is language regarding this. Chairman Tomblin agreed this will be a continuing process, and everyone involved will need to help staff, Commission, and City Council throughout the process. He cautioned that nobody wants to live in a police state, so this process is put into place to help make sure that doesn't happen. Commissioner James moved to adopt the proposed code amendment language with the following changes: 1) Under Section 17.02.026(B) amend the language to say under no person shall post, publish, circulate, broadcast or maintain; 2) Under Section 17.96.025 amend the language to take out the words printed or lettered, and after Internet, website, or application, add any form of radio or TV broadcast; 3) For Section 17.06.1705 remove A and B. In addition to forwarding this recommendation to the City Council, he moved to include a recommendation to the City Council that they reconsider the possibility of extending the ban to include multi-family residences and state that if the City Council is agreeable to that, the Commission recommends making the necessary changes to the Ordinance. Seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Commissioner Leon moved a friendly amendment to Section 17.96.1705 to include language that states except as allowed by a Bed and Breakfast Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner James accepted that amendment, noting that it would be more efficient to reference the Code Section for the Bed and Breakfast. Seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Planning Commission Minutes November 29, 2016 Page 10 The motion was approved, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2016-14, (5-2) with Commissioners Emenhiser and Nelson dissenting. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2014-00332): 5500 Palos Verdes Drive South Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, stating the request is to extend the 2014 Planning Commission approval to convert a portion of the Gate House into a museum. She explained that the owners and staff have found that there are some conditions of approval that are very difficult to meet, as noted in the staff report. She explained that a two-year extension was being requested to allow the extra time to work out these conditions of approval, and possibly come back to the Commission with a request to modify some of the conditions. Commissioner Bradley understood the request for the extension, but in regards to the survey, he did not understand how this was ever going to be resolved since the land is moving. Senior Planner Kim explained there are other options in lieu of doing a land swap, such as an easement agreement or use agreement. She stated that there are other alternatives to address the issue, noting these alternatives will not make the issue go away. Director Mihranian added that the time extension request was, in part, to allow staff to look at the conditions the Commission put on the project and looking at how viable they are. Staff may end up coming back with an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to modify some of the conditions, as they may not be realistic at this point. Commissioner Leon stated he has received several reports that the applicant has imported significant amounts of fill into the area and destroyed habitat. He asked if there has been any type of restoration and asked, if the extension is granted, if the City will exercise some control over this. Senior Planner Kim responded that one of the reasons a two-year extension is being requested is to address that very issue. Staff recognizes and acknowledges that the property owner has conducted unpermitted fill on the property and expanded some of their flat areas, and by doing so habitat was damaged and denuded. She stated the owners are working with the City, they have submitted geology reports showing how they are going to remove the unpermitted fill, recompact the area, and restore the slope back to the original condition. After that grading is completed, the owners will have to restore the habitat. Until these issues have been addressed and resolved, the owners will not be allowed to move forward with the conversion of the structure to a museum. Commissioner Leon asked if the approval of the extension would, in any way, lessen staff's authority over the situation. Planning Commission Minutes November 29, 2016 Page 11 Director Mihranian did not think so, noting this unpermitted grading is a code enforcement matter which staff is pursuing. Commissioner Nelson asked what the owner's intent was with the proposed Heritage Castle. Senior Planner Kim explained that the Ginsburgs are very passionate about preserving and sharing the history of this area with the public, and want to educate the public about this history. Commissioner Nelson asked if this museum is open to the public. Senior Planner Kim stated that all of the conditions of approval must be met before the owners can formally convert the home into a museum, and these conditions of approvals have not yet been met. Commissioner Nelson noted this application has been open for two years, and now the applicant is requesting another two year extension. He was concerned, noting it really doesn't sound like anything has been accomplished in the past two years. Commissioner James agreed that two years seems like a long time. He asked staff why they are requesting a two year extension, as opposed to six months or one year. Senior Planner Kim explained that one of the reasons was because of the unpermitted grading on City property. In order to realistically have the issue addressed and resolved, and the grading completed, it will take approximately one year. She noted the owners are having to work with the Planning Department, Building and Safety, the Land Conservancy, and the Fire Department. Only after this is complete can the owners then work on complying with the other conditions of approval. Commissioner James understood, but reiterated Commissioner Nelson's statement that two years have already gone by and not a lot seems to have happened. He asked if there was a way to condition this extension so that a status report is presented to the Commission possibly in a year's time. Director Mihranian stated that the Commission can grant the extension with the added amendment that a status report be presented to the Commission in six months or one year. He added that one of the conditions of approval requires the applicant to do a Lot Line Adjustment for the encroachments, and staff is exploring other possible options. Before that condition can be amended staff has to consult with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Coastal Commission, as well as other agencies and sometimes getting a response takes a bit more time than one would expect. He also explained that staff thought hard about the length of the extension, and felt that realistically two years would be needed. Planning Commission Minutes November 29, 2016 Page 12 Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked staff how much dirt was brought onto the property. Senior Planner Kim answered that, based on the initial submitted plans, it is estimated at approximately 700 cubic yards. She noted that staff has done a preliminary review and has some questions on the amount of grading shown on the plans. Staff is currently waiting for the applicant to submit a more accurate grading plan. Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted that in December 2015 the architect brought up the inaccurate survey. However it is now December 2016 and he questioned why it would take a year for the Commission to hear about it. He also noted the architect suggests the City is going to provide the survey, and asked why that would be. Senior Planner Kim stated that the conditions of approval allows the Director to grant a one-time only extension, should one be needed. This was granted by the Director based on the trouble the applicant was having in getting a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor. She also noted the comment that the City was going to provide the survey was inaccurate, as the City was going to consult with the City's contracted surveyor, and have him go to the property to see if what the applicant was claiming was correct. She explained that the City's surveyor provided the same information that the applicant's surveyor had stated, which was that the survey monuments had moved, and therefore an accurate survey cannot be performed. Therefore the surveyor's best guess would have to be used as to where the line is located. She noted that this process took several months to complete. She also explained that staff looked into the Lot Line Adjustment, the practicability with the land swap, and the restrictions on the City property. She explained that the combination of the survey issues, the land swap issues, and the illegal grading basically delayed the project another year. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if the architect's statement that the City would be performing the actual survey was incorrect, and that the applicant will be responsible for taking care of the problem. Senior Planner Kim stated that the architect had misspoken, noting that even if the City's surveyor were able to do the job the City would have collected the funds from the applicant to pay for the service. This is not something the City would fund for the applicant. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Charlotte Ginsburg (applicant) stated she was requesting the extension as she would like to preserve this property to help educate the members of the community on the Peninsula's history. She acknowledged that there are a lot things that have gone on with the property that takes time, and reports take time. She stated they are actively working with the City to reach compliance. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 13 Commissioner Emenhiser moved staff's recommendation with the revision that the Commission receive updates from staff at the 12 and 18 month points, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Emenhiser felt that part of the issues and the delays may be with the applicant, but part of the delays may be due to the many levels of bureaucracy involved. He felt that by having staff report back to the Commission on the progress may give the Commission the opportunity to keep apprised of the situation and may also serve as an opportunity to nudge the applicant and City towards resolution. Commissioner Nelson did not understand why staff did not come the Commission a year ago to report the problems at the site. He questioned why conditions can't be modified to help accomplish a resolution. Director Mihranian stated it is very likely that staff will be back before the Commission in a few months with some proposed amendments to the conditions of approval. He added that, in response to Commissioner Emenhiser's motion to add a Planning Commission update at the twelfth and eighteenth month, he noted that staff is periodically putting updates in the weekly Administrative Report that goes to the City Council, the Planning Commission, as well as the public. Commissioner Bradley stated that when reading the staff report he was not aware there was a code enforcement case open on the property for a significant amount of grading that took place on the property. While he was thinking the survey issue seemed reasonable, he was concerned that through all this there is a code enforcement issue as well. Director Mihranian stated the grading/code enforcement issue is one aspect staff is dealing with, but staff is also having conversations with the property owner regarding the lot line adjustment issues. Commissioner Leon did not think that granting this two year extension was giving the applicant the incentive to come to a conclusion in a reasonable amount of time. He felt the City would want to somehow encourage the applicant to bring this issue to a conclusion, and asked if there were conditions that could be added to give the applicant some incentive to move forward with this a bit faster. He understood the property was currently being used for weddings and other fund raising activities. Commissioner Emenhiser understood Commissioner Leon's concerns, however he felt the applicant was trying to do something that could be spectacular for the City. At the same time he felt that not all of the issues are with the applicant, but rather with the many layers of bureaucracy. He therefore was in favor of granting the two-year extension while tracking the progress and the 12 and 18 month points. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated this property is in the middle of a landslide area and suddenly 700 cubic yards of grading takes place, which is a lot of grading. He was Planning Commission Minutes November 29, 2016 Page 14 disappointed that the applicant chose to do this grading, which is well beyond anything allowed in the conditions of approval. He was also disappointed that the Planning Commission was just now hearing about this illegal grading. He acknowledged that a two-year extension was quite long, but thought it may take that long to clean everything up. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend the motion to adopt staff's recommendation with the revision that the Planning Commission receive not an update but rather a review of the project at a duly noticed public hearing at the twelve and eighteen month periods. Seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner James asked how that would be different from granting a twelve month extension, and after hearing the review, possibly grant another twelve month extension. Commissioner Emenhiser responded that staff has said this will realistically take two years, so he was in favor of giving the two year extension. Commissioner James moved a friendly amendment to approve staff recommendation with a one-year extension rather than a two-year extension. Commissioner Emenhiser did not accept the friendly amendment, explaining he would rather vote on the current motion, and if it doesn't pass Commissioner James could then make a new motion. The motion failed, (3-4) with Commissioners Bradley, James, Leon, and Vice Chairman Cruikshank dissenting. Commissioner James moved to adopt staff's recommendation with the amendment that the extension be granted for a one year period rather than a two-year period, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. The motion was approved, and PC Resolution 2016-15 was adopted by a vote of(7-0). 4. Height Variation, Grading Permit, Minor Exception Permit, Variance, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016-00090): 29425 Palos Verdes Drive East Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report, giving a description of the existing lot, explained the proposed new single family residence, and the need for the various applications. He stated staff was able to make all of the necessary findings and was recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Tomblin referred to the elevations, and asked how the house will look from Palos Verdes Drive East. He also asked what type of materials will be used for much of the work in the front of the proposed residence. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 15 Associate Planner Silva explained that there is currently quite a bit of existing, mature landscaping on the property that will provide screening of the residence. He also stated that it was his understanding that the materials in the front would be cinder block. Chairman Tomblin expressed some concern with the bulk and mass of the proposed house as seen from Palos Verdes Drive East. Director Mihranian noted the topography change from the roadway to where the structure is proposed, noting the steep slope, and did not believe one would actually see the structure from Palos Verdes Drive East. He pointed out Condition No. 29 which requires the applicant to submit a landscape plan to ensure the slopes are properly planted and screen the structure from the road. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked staff to explain how this proposed residence is considered a split level. Associate Planner Silva referred to a photo of a rendering and pointed out how the garage and the storage areas are located below the primary living areas. Commissioner James stated he has several concerns with this project, and felt the applicant was trying to push the boundaries as far as they could possibly be pushed in several areas. He was especially concerned with a finding in the Height Variation where the proposed structure complies with all other code requirements, which includes the setbacks. He did not feel the structure complies with the setbacks, as the applicant had to apply for a minor exception to the setback. He questioned if that is the correct interpretation of the code when someone gets permission to change one of the other code requirements, it then piggybacks into the initial findings in the height variation. Director Mihranian explained that staff and the Commission must make the findings to allow the deviation from the requirements, and if the Commission can't make the minor exception or variance findings, then they wouldn't be able to make finding No. 7 of the Height Variation. The Director agreed that the applicant is requesting several deviations from the code, but pointed out this is a substandard lot and is not the typical sized lot in an RS-2 zoning district. Commissioner James understood, but also pointed out that this is the largest home per lot size of any in the neighborhood. He felt a home half this size would fit without the setback, grading, and height problems, and it would still be a reasonably sized home. Director Mihranian felt that, based on the size of homes being built in the City today, this is a reasonably sized home. Commissioner James felt that the notion of what is a reasonably sized home should incorporate some consideration of the lot size. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 16 Gerald Compton (architect) explained that, in terms of the size of the home, he explained the habitable space of the home is 2,758 square feet with a three-car garage. He also explained the extreme slope on the lot was created artificially when the fountain work was done down the hill. Because of this, a Variance is needed in order to build the house on the lot. He noted that, while the grading quantity may seem high, the amount of export is only 13 cubic yards. He explained he was trying to create a house that is relatively a single level home, noting there is a split-level in the center of the house. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if the house were to be more set into the hillside, as many in the neighborhood are, how much would that affect the house. Mr. Compton answered that there would be quite a bit more grading involved. He explained the original application had the house about four feet lower, however the grading quantity was almost prohibitive. He felt that setting the house into the hillside would have very little impact in terms of the neighbors' views, as they are quite a bit higher than this proposed house. Director Mihranian added that the original application submitted to the City included significantly more grading. Staff not only had a concern with the grading quantity, but across the street there is an ancient landslide. The City Geologist had concerns with the habitable portion of the structure being lower in case the ancient landslide was activated. Chairman Tomblin explained his concern with the bulk and mass created by the deck, as seen from Palos Verdes Drive East. Mr. Compton explained that the City's property goes down the hill and is covered in trees. He also explained he was planning to put some type of wood under the deck so that if one did look up they would see would rather than concrete. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The project was approved, and PC Resolution 2016-16 was approved, (7-0). 5. View Restoration (Case No. ZON2016-00013): 6520 and 30523 Palos Verdes Drive East Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to January 24, 2017, as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Cruikshank. Commissioner Bradley commented that he spoke to the applicant over the weekend, and the applicant indicated an agreement has been reached with the tree owner. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 17 The motion to continue the public hearing was approved, (7-0). 6. Appeal of Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016-00322): 27501 Western Ave. Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the details of the proposed retaining wall, noting the project also includes a railing, a family estate area, a cascading waterfall, and a stairway. She noted that, pursuant to City Council Resolution 2015-102, Condition 1-K, the Director is allowed to approve cemetery related features, including niches, water features, and walls, through a Site Plan Review process. She explained the Site Plan Review assesses compliance with the required setbacks and heights within the Cemetery Zoning District, as well as the conditions of approval for the property. In regards to setbacks, she noted the project is approximately 400 feet from the front property line facing Western Avenue, and approximately 330 feet from the nearest property line at the residential properties to the north. Additionally, the maximum allowed height, per the conditions of approval for structures is 16 feet. The maximum height for this combination wall will measure 14 feet 9 inches, as measured from the bottom of the wall to the top of the railing. She noted the water feature will measure slightly over 11 feet in height. In addition, the amount of grading proposed is well within the total amount of grading for the property approved by the City Council. Because the Director felt all of the conditions could be met, the Site Plan Review application was approved. Senior Planner Kim explained this approval was recently appealed by Mr. Weiss on behalf of Ms. Loveys. The decision is being appealed for three reasons: 1)There is no provision in the Master Plan to use this portion of the cemetery as a columbarium and therefore Green Hills should be required to apply for a CUP to vary from the scope of the Master Plan. She noted an excerpt from the City Council approved 2007 Master Plan which states that the Master Plan provides ample ability to retrofit most mausoleum building and garden areas with additional niche and niche vault inventory. She explained that, based on this language, additional columbarium niches were already considered and intended by Green Hills to be retrofitted in mausoleums and garden areas to accommodate additional niche vaults. Therefore, staff considers the combination wall having recessed niche areas to be in compliance with the Master Plan. Additionally, according to the recently approved City Council Resolution Condition 1-K, the Director has the ability to approve Site Plan Review applications. Therefore, a revision to the CUP is not warranted. 2) The top of the retaining wall is to be used to inter human remains which is in violation of the Master Plan and Green Hills is requesting to inter more human remains than what is called for under its Master Plan. She clarified that no human remains will be interred on top of the retaining wall, and there are existing burial plots behind where the retaining wall is going to be placed. She noted Green Hills is proposing additional family estate areas, but that is behind the area of the retaining wall and not immediately on top. In regards to the number of human remains, she referred back to the Master Plan. As a result, staff did not feel a revision to the Master Plan was warranted to allow more vaults or niches as part of the proposed project. 3) The public notice is inaccurate as it does not clearly specify what Green Hills intends to do on Inspiration Slope and therefore, should be recirculated. Senior Planner Kim pointed out that the only proposed work that Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 18 is near Inspiration Slope is the proposed stairway, and noted that this proposal does not involve any improvements on or within the Inspiration Slope area. She noted the proposed stairway will give the public access to the Inspiration Slope area. Therefore, staff does not believe the public notice is inaccurate and does not have to be recirculated. Senior Planner Kim concluded by stating that, based on the reasons discussed in the staff report, staff feels the proposed project approved by the Director is consistent with the Master Plan and the Conditions of Approval approved by the City Council Resolution and recommends the Planning Commission find the proposed project is in substantial compliance with the Master Plan and deny the appeal and uphold the Director's approval. She emphasized that this appeal hearing is solely on the merits of the proposed project, and recommends that all correspondence and discussion in regards to other issues at Green Hills take place at the upcoming annual compliance review hearing in January with the City Council. She noted that all correspondence received by staff that is not directly related to this proposed project will be compiled and forwarded to the City Council at the time of the public hearing for the compliance review. Chairman Tomblin asked if the City Council requested the Planning Commission not hear the compliance review, or was that strictly the opinion of the City Attorney. Director Mihranian stated this is the opinion of the City Attorney. Chairman Tomblin referred to the City Agreement dated June 28, 2016, page A-2. He noted the Director has stated the Planning Commission will be the body who hears all application requests for certain improvements, however he did not feel that was stated in the letter. He asked staff if the Commission will be hearing these improvement applications. Director Mihranian stated that he, as the Community Development Director, was stating that this will come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nelson stated that since the City Attorney has opined the Planning Commission should not hear the CUP review, he questioned if the Planning Commission should be hearing this appeal. Director Mihranian explained that the Municipal Code states that a decision made by the Director can be appealed to the Planning Commission, and a decision made by the Planning Commission can then be appealed to the City Council. Separate from that, an annual review of conditions of a CUP is to be made by the final deciding body, which in this case is the City Council. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Nelson, adding that given this issue is most likely heading for the courts, the issue should either be tabled or referred to the City Council as the body who has the authority to take action on this. By running it through the Planning Commission, he felt the City was giving the public the false impression that the Commission was the deciding body, when they are not. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 19 Commissioner Bradly felt that this item is the appeal of a building permit issued to Green Hills, outside of the CUP. He felt this is a construction action that has nothing to do with the uses and operations of Green Hills, as currently being evaluated on other matters. He asked staff if this was a fair interpretation. Senior Planner Kim stated that was a correct statement, as this application is independent from the Conditional Use Permit. In regards to the grading, Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted there is an approval for over 600 thousand cubic yards to grading on the property, and asked if someone is tracking the grading quantities at the site. Director Mihranian stated the grading is being tracked by staff and is being treated like a checking account, with a balance that is being deducted for each time Green Hills comes to the City with a grading request. Commissioner Nelson asked staff if the maps they have been showing the Commission tonight are in agreement with the four maps that were recorded with Los Angeles County in June of this year. Senior Planner Kim explained that what Commissioner Nelson is discussing is in regards to the Inspiration Slope area, and what is being proposed is not considered the Inspiration Slope area, but rather Vista del Ponte which is south of Inspiration Slope. She showed on an aerial the area that is addressed in the recorded maps and the separate area that is being discussed with this application. Chairman Tomblin stated that earlier today, at his request, the Director, the Assistant City Attorney, and he had a phone call with Ms. Walker, who is the State of California representative for the California Cemetery Board. He stated there was a discussion in . regards to the recording of the maps for the burial sites on the rooftop of Inspiration Slope. He asked the Assistant City Attorney to summarize the discussion with Ms. Walker in terms of the rooftop burials. Assistant City Attorney Burrows stated that both the CUP and the letter agreement dated June 28, 2016 acknowledge that Green Hills would have to file an application and have that application approved prior to conducting rooftop burials. She noted that, to date, an application to do so has not been received by the City. She understood there was a plat map showing recorded plots on the roof, and explained that cemeteries are exempt from the Subdivision Map Act. Chairman Tomblin stated that, according to Ms. Walker, any cemetery has the right to record burial plots one year after a plot has sold. Assistant City Attorney Burrows stated that was correct, noting Ms. Walker referred staff to Health and Safety Code 8550. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016' Page 20 Chairman Tomblin explained that it was confirmed that Green Hills was allowed to record those plots on the rooftop, however, approval to bury anyone in those plots has not been given and cannot occur. Assistant City Attorney Burrows responded that was correct, and no application has been submitted by Green Hills to do so. Chairman Tomblin referenced the retaining wall, and asked if the retaining wall was attached to the mausoleum. He also asked if the columbarium is on the recorded map. Senior Planner Kim showed a plan of the proposed retaining wall, noting the area of the wall and the edge of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. She pointed out that proposed columbarium wall is not directly connected to the mausoleum building. She also pointed out on an aerial photo the area where the burial plots from the referenced recorded plat map are located. She noted the area is right before the proposed project area and the proposed stairway is adjacent to the back end of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. The burial plots and the columbarium wall are south of Inspiration Slope area. Director Mihranian added that staff does not have an exhibit that was recorded with the County depicting those columbarium walls. Before the public hearing was opened, Director Mihranian asked the Commissioners to disclose whether or not they had been to site to view the proposed retaining wall. All of the Commissioners except Commissioner Bradley stated they had been to the area of the proposed retaining wall. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Noel Weiss (appellant) began by stating that clarification was needed in regards to the call with Ms. Walker in regards to who participated in this call. He noted that there was a potential for a Brown Act violation. Chairman Tomblin clarified that he made the phone call as part of his due diligence as the Chairman of the Planning Commission. He stated that Director Mihranian and Assistant City Attorney Burrows were also part of this phone call as staff representatives. Mr. Weiss continued, stating that the presentation was very misleading. He felt the aerial should reflect what is at the site currently, which is a nearly completed mausoleum with vaults that are being stored on the roof. He felt the core issue is what is required under the Master Plan. He explained Inspiration Slope is referred to in the Master Plan as Area 2 and incorporates everything that is seen on the map staff was using as a reference. He stated that the use of the term burials should be discarded, as it is not a term in the zoning code. What is being discussed is internments, which is a defined term. He felt that the use of the term burials in the notice is misleading. He stated what is being decided is Planning Commission Minutes November 29, 2016 Page 21 compliance with the Master Plan versus something that is over and above what was initially contemplated by the Master Plan. He also felt it was important to discuss not only the type of use, but the quantity and the intensity and the density of the use. He felt it was important for the Planning Commission to look at whether or not the Master Plan contemplated, not just the use, but the intensity, quantity, and the quality of the use. He felt that if Green Hills were required to apply for a CUP for the use, a better analysis and understanding of the work would result. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Weiss how his client would be affected by this proposed retaining wall, and if she will see the activity from her residence. Mr. Weiss answered that the concern of the Lomita residents was to ensure the system works for the residents, whether they be in Lomita or Rancho Palos Verdes. He felt there were ways and means by which all of these issues can be clarified, so that when there is a project relative to an ambiguity in the code the interpretation review procedure should resolve it. He felt the City Attorney's office is giving political advice that is disguised as legal advice. Commissioner Emenhiser stated to Mr. Weiss that he felt this appeal may be more of an attempt to harass the operations at Green Hills rather than something that immediately affects his client. Mr. Weiss responded that he did not think harassment was a ground for allowing Green Hills to violate the law. He considered Green Hills to be a lawless, rogue operation that is using its influence to affect the politics of the City to the detriment to the people of the City. He stated that, regardless if it is harassment or not, Green Hills deserves to be harassed and the citizens of the City deserve the opportunity to have their elected representatives and appointees to Commissions to do the right thing. Commissioner Leon stated the Commission is to hear an appeal of four or five very specific issues. He stated it would help him in making his decision if the speakers systematically addressed those issues. He stated that in the last four minutes he did not hear anything that addressed those issues. He requested that the remaining speakers address the issues that are in the appeal. Mr. Weiss responded that the core issue is the scope of the Master Plan in terms of use versus extent and quantity of use. He questioned if it was appropriate for the Director to determine the intensity of the use could be expanded under the current Master Plan simply based upon a determination of compliance. He questioned what they are complying with, the use or the intensity of the use. He stated he has issues with the intensity of the use. Instead, he felt Green Hills should have applied for a Conditional Use Permit. He stated the other issue is that it is obvious work is being piecemealed together and he felt the Commission could call Green Hills on that and make it clear that the City does not allow piecemeal work. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 22 Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Weiss the following the following question: Why is he appealing the construction of a combination wall of 14'9" in height to accommodate an additional burial and niches in the eastern edge of Vista Del Ponte. Mr. Weiss responded he is appealing the decision because the procedure used was not consistent with the City's code. The City should follow its code. He felt the code requires a CUP application and not a substantial compliance review. Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Weiss why he is appealing the water feature. Mr. Weiss answered that the water feature is not particularly important. Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Weiss why he is appealing the staircase that will provide access to the upper existing burial area at Vista Del Ponte and the upper area of Inspiration Slope. Mr. Weiss felt that the stairway is really part of a disguised, piecemealing effort. He stated the stairway facilities access to the rooftop where Green Hills has manifested intent to inter people on the roof. Ellen Berkowitz (applicant representing Green Hills) expressed her support for and concurrence with the staff recommendation. She questioned why Mr. Weiss was advocating for using the word internment rather than burial, noting Green Hills is a burial park and that is what they are authorized to be under the City's Municipal Code. Regarding the scope of the requested work, she explained what Green Hills is asking for is a stairway, a wall with niches, and a water feature. She noted Mr. Weiss's concern that the stairway will lead to the roof of Inspiration Slope, and Green Hills is piecemealing that project. She noted that, according to staffs presentation, the stairway is actually leading to existing burial grounds at Vista del Ponte and the upper area of Inspiration Slope. The stairway is intended to make it easier for the family's to visit their loved ones buried there. With regards to the wall, she noted Mr. Weiss stated he objected because it's an intensification of the use that requires a CUP. She referred to condition 1-K in the conditions of approval and stated this wall is exactly the type of activity and features that contemplated in condition of 1-K, and does not require a CUP. She stated that Green Hills does not think there is any merit to the appeal, and for that reason is asking the Planning Commission uphold staffs recommendation and deny the appeal. Matt Martin showed a page from the Master Plan and noted that there is nothing shown at Vista del Ponte, and it is shown as a garden area. He then showed the plan of what is being proposed for the area. In addition, the grading map in the Master Plan shows no grading in the Vista del Ponte area, therefore this project is clearly beyond the scope of the Master Plan. He referred to condition 1-K, which he felt gives staff permission to approve things that are consistent with the Master Plan. It does not give the Director permission to approve new things. He felt that the intent of the language of the CUP and Master Plan was to allow the Director to review small and minor modifications to plans for CUP compliance, and not to give the Director power to approve large construction Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 23 projects that includes significant grading when the project is clearly outside the scope of the Master Plan. He stated there are laws and conditions that Green Hills agreed to follow, however he felt over the past years Green Hills has shown a propensity to stretch or break these rules every change they could get. He felt that instead of punishing Green Hills the City has modified the rules to legalize their wrong doings. Chairman Tomblin referred back to the Master Plan that Mr. Martin showed in his presentation. He asked staff when this Master Plan was approved. Senior Planner Kim answered it was approved in 2007. Mr. Martin stated that what is being proposed is an extensive grading operation along with a large retaining wall structure, which will include an intensification of its original use, which includes in-ground burials. Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Martin if 14'-9" will obstruct any views from any of the residents. Mr. Martin did not believe that was a relevant question. He stated there are laws, and asked what gives this special interest the authority to violate the law. Debbie Landes stated that the residents are here because they still live with the horrible consequences of the building of the mausoleum. When she sees rooftop burials coming to other areas of Green Hills it brings up all the issues. In regards to the stairwell, she felt it was clearly going in for the rooftop internments. She stated that in view of Green Hills' lack of compliance with their CUP, it would seem prudent to require Green Hills to submit any requests for changes to the Planning Commission. Pat Akins asked that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's decision to grant a permit for the Vista del Ponte project at Green Hills. She explained that during the past five years, when vaults were buried 8 feet behind her neighbor's home she accepted the noise as part of the necessary development of the cemetery. Then construction of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum began with trucks, digging, jackhammering, and the arrival of nearly 600 vaults. She stated that most recently dirt has been moved to cover those vaults. She realized the years of construction noise would eventually end, but she did not see any end to the violations of the conditions of approval regarding funeral noise, well over 65 dBa and visitations that allow disrespectful language and behavior that is disturbing the surrounding neighborhoods. She no longer felt the conditions of approval were protecting the surrounding neighborhoods because Green Hills has been allowed to violate those conditions over and over. She asked the Commission to protect the neighbors' quality of life by addressing the problems of lack of enforcement before any further development is allowed. Vince Reher stated he is the president of the Peninsula Verde HOA, noting in August the Board sent a letter to City staff, Planning Commissioners, City Council, and Green Hills describing a number of problems that have been affecting the Peninsula Verde residents Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 24 and suggesting some potential solutions that involved some reasonable changes to the Municipal Code and some of the conditions in the CUP. It was the Board's hope that this letter would start a process that would result in the proposals being discussed and negotiated during the annual review of Green Hills CUP, and hopefully culminate in a satisfactory long term solution to the problems. He stated the Board has been patiently waiting for any sign that this process was starting. In the meantime, Green Hills was given the approval for this new project, and staff has spent a good amount of time justifying the project and rebutting any arguments against the project. He felt that the Planning Commission was now deliberating arguments for and against the project instead of grappling with more timely and important issues pertaining to CUP compliance and modifications to protect the interests of the residents. He very much disagreed with the City Attorney's opinion that the City Council hear the CUP review, and felt that the hearing of this appeal be postponed until the CUP review is completed to the satisfaction of the residents. Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Reher if he was speaking on behalf of the HOA. Mr. Reher answered that he was speaking on behalf of the HOA Board. Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Reher if he would consider that an increase of density at Green Hills would be a detriment to the quality of life in his neighborhood. Mr. Reher answered that as things currently stand, the answer would be yes. However, some of the suggestions he made could mitigate the problem through proactive monitoring and enforcement on Green Hills part. David Turner stated the Vista del Ponte retaining wall has two additional, undesirable features; a water feature at the top of the wall and a flight of stairs up to Vista del Ponte and to the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. He explained the water feature has the undesirable effect of attracting visitors, and once there the large park-like area will draw them towards Peninsula Verde Drive bringing noise and people overlooking the neighborhood. He felt a sub-set of the visitors will have no business at all in the immediate areas. Therefore, he did not feel the building of this wall was the stand alone issue it was being treated as because it is correlated with the Inspiration Slope problems. He did not feel the stairway was needed, noting that Vista del Ponte and Inspiration Slope are both easily approached from Longview Drive with less altitude gain. He stated that another concern is the height of the proposed wall. He noted the elevation plan drawing shows the height of the wall will not be any higher than the roof of the mausoleum and its railings. However, the high point of Vista del Ponte overlooks the mausoleum roof and there may be a temptation to build the wall to this height. He stated the proposed wall and railings will be visible from his house, and will clutter his remaining view. If the wall is built higher than shown it will further obscure his view. He felt that denying the Vista del Ponte proposal is a step the Planning Commission can take to reduce noise and visual impacts on the Peninsula Verde Drive neighborhood. He felt that many small steps such as this are needed to help prevent the further decline in the quality of life and property values in his neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes November 29, 2016 Page 25 Chairman Tomblin asked if the retaining wall will obscure his view. Mr. Turner answered that he can currently see the railings on the back side of the mausoleum and the proposed wall will have railings, however they will not be above the existing railings that he can currently see. Chairman Tomblin asked if a silhouette was ever erected at the site for the wall. Mr. Turner was not aware of one. Chairman Tomblin asked if the increased density of burials would affect his quality of life. Mr. Turner answered it would. He added that any burial on the north slope of the cemetery would affect his quality of life. Irene Turner explained her property is separated from Green Hills by a chain link fence, and is eight feet away from the first burial. She discussed the noise, which she felt was too loud, too close, and too often. She stated that area behind her home started to be developed about two years ago, and there hasn't been a quiet weekend since. She stated the music played by the mourners at the site is exceptionally loud, and there is quite often alcohol involved. She noted there are often mariachi bands and one weekend an eight- piece brass band was playing. This is in addition to the crypts that Green Hills is moving around in the area. She questioned if Green Hills cannot enforce the rules that are already in place, she did not understand why they should be allowed to have any more permits until they take care of the existing problems affecting the neighboring residents. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they were aware of these complaints and if something has been done about the issues. Director Mihranian responded that staff has received complaints from Mrs. Turner, and staff has met with the Mr. Rehr and the HOA. He explained that staff has been logging and tracking all of the complaints and issues and intends to address the issues during the annual review with the City Council. Mike McClung noted that the exact same problem faced by the Lomita residents is starting to happen to the residents in his neighborhood. He stated the lights are on in the mausoleum and Green Hills is ready to start funerals. He explained he is not necessarily opposed to the building, but he is opposed to it because we haven't finished fixing the other problems. He stated he has a large pile of dirt and rubble directly behind his backyard into his view. He noted the large amount of dirt that has to be dug out to build this retaining wall and asked where that dirt would be placed. He stated it will be placed behind his backyard. Bernadette Sabath felt that the renderings and plans shown by staff is not a true representation of what is happening at the site. She did not feel that staff was giving the Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 26 neighbors of Green Hills the attention and focus that they should. She felt that there was some influence from the cemetery that is infiltrating somewhere. She stated the Planning Commission is very educated on the history and issues at Green Hills, and did not feel the City Council has any real knowledge of the problems. She stated the Planning Commission is the neighbors' voice in this issue, and if the Commission doesn't speak for the residents they will have no choice but to go to the District Attorney. Diane Smith stated she was speaking as an individual and not on the behalf of any organization or group. She stated she does not live near Green Hills, but was speaking at this hearing because she knew the City was not holding Marymount College to its conditions of use, and was told by Lomita residents that they are having similar issues. With that, she went to Green Hills, started going through files, and speaking to staff, and was shocked at what had happened. She reviewed the problems that occurred, the mistakes that were made, and the City's own internal investigation. She did not feel that Green Hills has been upfront and honest in the past, and she did not think they were telling the truth now. She felt the issues at Green Hills should be taken from city staff and away from the City Attorney and go to an independent review. Sharon Loveys stated that three years ago she spoke to the Planning Commission regarding Green Hills. She stated silhouettes were up at Inspiration Slope, and did not represent what was ultimately built. She noted that the height certifications are not in the file and she stated that without everything in the file, the approval is null and void. In regards to the proposed stairs, she stated the burials have been in place for many, many years, and questioned how the families got there all this time. She stated the stairway was not necessary. Joanna Jones felt that everyone now knows the system is rigged, and it is very apparent in light of the City Council's current and consistent lack of oversight in calling out Green Hills violations of its own Master Plan. She stated this has become more and more apparent in light of the unfolding details that are emerging with regards to Inspiration Slope. She stated that once again the number of internment sites exceeds the number permitted by the Master Plan. She stated that once again Green Hills bucks the system and plans to inter human remains on top of the Inspiration Slope retaining wall despite the lack of State laws allowing Green Hills to inter human remains on top of a retaining wall. She felt this very retaining wall is itself in violation of the Green Hills Master Plan because there is no provision in the Master Plan to use the retaining wall as a columbarium. She stated that decisions made by staff now fall into question, as it appears that City decisions made by staff are guided by the City Attorney's office, and they continue to dismiss policy and procedures and make policy decisions without the permission of the Planning Commission and the City Council. She stated that it has become clear that the Planning Commission and the residents are not allowed to interfere with Green Hills profits. Nadia felt it was critically important to ensure proper review of projects at Green Hills to protect the quality of the surrounding neighborhoods. She stated that property values are affected as well as the ability to sell a property. She felt the proper reviews must be done Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 27 for the proposed project in order to ensure the project will not negatively impact the community. Minas Yerelian stated the issue is trust, and there is no trust in Green Hills. He did not feel Green Hills should be allowed to continue business as usual when they have created a hostile environment. No permits should be granted, as they have intentionally created hostility between the neighbors, the City, and the residents. He did not feel the current project was a minor modification and should have been heard at a public hearing and not by the Director. He stated a CUP is a privilege and not a right, and the City should apply the law and deny the permit. Jamie Ahern stated that since buying her home that is adjacent to Green Hills she has spent quite a bit of money improving the rear yard area to block out Green Hills and their activities. She explained that it is currently quite noisy on the weekends and felt the proposed stairwell and fountain will attract even more people. Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Ahern if she would consider any increase in the amount of burial space a quality of life issue. Ms. Ahern answered that it absolutely would be an issue. Commissioner Nelson moved to suspend the Planning Commission rules and continue the meeting until midnight. The Commission unanimously agreed. Noel Weiss (in rebuttal) stated that there are two issues being discussed. One is a procedural issue, whether or not Green Hills needs a CUP application or if the Site Plan Review is sufficient, and the other is whether or not what Green Hills is proposing is even authorized under the Master Plan. He felt that procedurally it is clear Green Hills needs a CUP application. He discussed the large amounts of grading that has, and continues, to take place and questioned the authority to conduct this grading. He discussed the need to use the proper wording as interment, rather than burial, and felt the word burial is too generic and brings out all kinds of possibilities and thoughts. Because the Resolution discusses burial, he felt the Resolution was insufficient. He felt that the presentation to the Commission and public was dishonest. He stated Green Hills originally applied for a 2.5 acre total development in Area 2 consisting of a one-story mausoleum and 2800 crypt spaces. He noted there was no references to niches. Finally, he questioned if this discussion was about Area 2, a sub-Area 2, or a whole new area. Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Weiss where he got his density issue numbers. Mr. Weiss answered that it was from the Green Hills Memorial Park January 29, 2007 proposed Master Plan amendment that was received by the City in February 2007, and is part of the file that created the Master Plan amendment. Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Weiss to be very specific on his density numbers. Planning Commission Minutes November 29, 2016 Page 28 Mr. Weiss stated that the document says there are to be 2,800 crypt spaces inside the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, niches to be determined. Chairman Tomblin asked if the niches to be determined were inside or outside the mausoleum. Mr. Weiss answered they are inside the mausoleum. Director Mihranian directed the Commission to page 44 of the staff report, which contains the information Mr. Weiss is reading from. Mr. Weiss noted that the term ground burials refers to earth internments. He stated that distinction is very important because part of what Green Hills is contemplating are additional earth internments of an unspecified amount. Chairman Tomblin asked staff to review these numbers, based on what has been submitted and has been approved. Director Mihranian stated he does not have the plans for the mausoleum building with him at the meeting to verify the 2,800. He also noted that is not part of this appeal. Chairman Tomblin stated the appeal is to overturn the Director's decision to allow a retaining wall with niches at Inspiration Slope. Therefore, he felt this was a density issue. The purview of the Planning Commission is to review the Master Plan, as well as the number of proposals being done, and therefore the Commission should have that information. Director Mihranian clarified that this development isn't at Inspiration Slope, but rather Vista del Ponte area. He stated that there is reference in the 2007 Master Plan that allows niches as part of retaining walls. Chairman Tomblin asked staff what area of the Master Plan covers the addition of a retaining wall with niches in this area. Senior Planner Kim referred to page 49 of the staff report, which references the area south of Area 2, referred to as Vista del Ponte. Commissioner Bradley asked if Vista del Ponte was not contained in one of the numbered areas in the Master Plan. Senior Planner Kim stated that was correct, explaining the Master Plan is a conceptual long-term plan for the development of the cemetery. When this Master Plan identified areas and numbers, those were areas that were at that time somewhat or entirely vacant. She stated that Vista del Ponte was already developed except for the small edge area. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 29 Chairman Tomblin read the development numbers from the staff report in regards to development numbers for Inspiration Slope. Director Mihranian acknowledged that was correct, however he again pointed out that the numbers the Chairman read are for Inspiration Slope, and the area where the retaining wall is proposed is below that area in the Vista del Ponte area. He stated that the retaining wall and niches fall under the general development parameters on page 42 of the staff report, and read the section that addresses the possible increase in niches and niche vault inventory. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if it would be within the Planning Commission's purview to look at the possibility of increased density and if it affects the quality of life to the surrounding neighbors when reviewing any type plan. Director Mihranian answered that it could be a factor considered by the Commission. Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Berkowitz how many niches were planned for the proposed retaining wall. Ms. Berkowitz answered that Green Hills has not made a determination yet, but estimated approximately 100 niches. Ms. Berkowitz (in rebuttal) stated the Master Plan very specifically contemplated there would be additional inurnments, and there has been evidence that the space needed is very small and they don't generate the same number of visitations as other types of burials. Therefore, the impact of cremated remains is very small. She stated this is why the Master Plan recognized that there could be more and didn't put any type of cap on this. She added that a cemetery cannot very well have a cap or a limit on the additional density of a cemetery. She stated that a number of Vista Verde residents spoke comparing the issues relative to Inspiration Slope, saying they are the same as Pacific Terrace. She stated the issues before the Planning Commission involve a stairway, a wall, and a water feature. She stated there has been no discussion that anyone's view will be blocked. She reminded the Commission they are considering this appeal on three grounds, one being the area cannot be used as a columbarium and a CUP would be required. She stated a CUP is not required, which is what condition 1-K states. Secondly, she stated that Mr. Weiss felt what is being proposed is not contemplated by the Master Plan. She noted, as staff pointed out, that the Master Plan is a concept that is intended to guide the life of the cemetery for 30 to 50 years, and not every single stairwell or water feature was indicated in that Master Plan. She stated there was some discussion that Green Hills is unlawful or lawless, and she pointed out that Green Hills did make the proper application for these features and went through the due process with the City. Chairman Tomblin stated that the density at Green Hills is increasing and this is affecting the neighbors. He felt the Commission needs to see actual numbers before anything is approved by the Director, and what the impact of the additional burials will have on the neighborhoods. He stated this is purely a density issue and has nothing to do with what Planning Commission Minutes November 29, 2016 Page 30 has happened in the past. He asked Ms. Berkowitz her opinion if the Commission approved the appeal and allowed Green Hills to come back with specific numbers in relation to the retaining wall. When the Commission gets the numbers they will make sure it complies with the Master Plan. Ms. Berkowitz pointed out that the Master Plan does not set a limit or fixed number on the amount of burial spaces allowed, and it certainly does not set a limit on the number of inurnments that are allowed. She stated the Master Plan is explicitly flexible on the number of cremated remains. Therefore, she stated it would be very problematic for Green Hills if the Commission now wanted to put some kind of cap or limitation on how many people could be buried at the cemetery or in different parts of the cemetery. Chairman Tomblin referred to page 44 of the staff report which references the Master Plan and noted the areas of Green Hills do have descriptions and numbers, and it does not say anything about unlimited use of burials, but rather states to be determined. Commissioner James stated that the general development parameters state that the Master Plan provides the ability to retrofit most mausoleum builds and garden areas with additional niche and niche vault inventory. He asked Ms. Berkowitz if she was aware of any support one way or the other for what the word retrofit is supposed to mean. Ms. Berkowitz believed that what retrofit was supposed to mean in this case was that Green Hills could take certain areas that may have been intended for ground burials or some other type of internments and turn them into niches or other type of burial. She stated that, in actuality, what is happening here is in a way retrofitting. Green Hills is taking a certain area that was intended for ground burials and putting in a stairwell and a water feature. To make up for that loss of burial area Green Hills is proposing a niche with a columbarium. Commissioner James explained that his other concern was in reference to condition 1-K and whether or not a retaining wall is a customary cemetery related feature as described in that condition. He noted that a retaining wall is not included in the list, however the condition does say included but not limited to. Ms. Berkowitz explained the wall is required because of the configuration of the cemetery, and the fact that there are niches in it is what makes it a customary cemetery feature. Commissioner James understood, adding that he wasn't sure this was a decision and approval that should have been made by the Community Development Director. He stated that when there is a case such as this where there is a lot of community concern about what is going on and what may go on in the future, it forces the Commission to take out their fine-tooth combs and magnifying glasses. Ms. Berkowitz understood, noting that with the Director's approval there is the opportunity to appeal that decision to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 31 Chairman Tomblin agreed that Green Hills or any property owner has the right to develop their property to the maximum amount of use and profit. He stated that in the whole cemetery industry in-ground burials have changed and it's become more of a niche. He felt that as Green Hills tries to revamp their business plan, the City has to look at the revamped business plan and understand the impact of the increased density. He felt the retaining wall is an issue because it is increasing the density to allow more burials, and more burials impact the neighborhoods. He felt it was the Planning Commission's job to allow Green Hills to expand, but also mitigate the impact of increased density and increased use. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Chairman Tomblin moved to overturn the Director's approval and request Green Hills come back to the Planning Commission with specific plans in reference to how many niches will be going into the retaining wall and how this applies to the Master Plan, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Director Mihranian felt that since the Chairman was suggesting Green Hills come back to the Commission with additional information, rather than overturn the approval it might be more appropriate to continue the public hearing. Chairman Tomblin stated he would like to overturn the approval. Director Mihranian explained that if the Planning Commission adopts a motion where they are overturning the Director's decision, that action is then appealable to the City Council. Staff will have to come back to the Commission with a Resolution memorializing the decision. Assistant City Attorney Burrows clarified that the application has four parts, the grading, retaining wall, water feature, and stairway. The Director made findings that all four of these substantially complied with the Master Plan. In granting the appeal, the Planning Commission will be finding that the grading, retaining wall, water feature, and stairway do not substantially comply with the Master Plan. Chairman Tomblin understood, stating that was correct. Commissioner Bradley asked why the Commission couldn't ask the applicant for additional information, and not make a motion to either reject or affirm the appeal. Director Mihranian felt that from a procedural perspective, that is a cleaner approach. He stated that approving a motion for staff to come back with a Resolution to ask for more information may get complicated. Chairman Tomblin stated he would withdraw his motion if a Commissioner would like to offer a substitute motion. Planning Commission Minutes November 29, 2016 Page 32 Commissioner Emenhiser felt that, regardless of the action taken by the Planning Commission, this item will be appealed to the City Council. He felt that the Director's decision should be upheld, and that the appeal was made to gain attention and to interfere with the operations of Green Hills. However, he also felt that Green Hills has major public relations problems, major community relations problem, major credibility problem, and a major enforcement problem. While he stated he would be voting to uphold the Director's decision, he noted that if the CUP issue comes back to the Planning Commission he will be reassessing his decision. Commissioner Leon felt the scope of the work at Vista del Ponte is relatively limited and he felt it is hard to say it is against the Master Plan. However, he felt a valid point was made in terms of the CUP controlling the intensity of use. He felt the transition from having traditional burial plots to having cremations and niches raises the question of the intensity of use and the City's ability to mitigate the negative impacts. He asked the Director if, during the review in January, will there be the ability to change any of the conditions of the CUP. Director Mihranian answered that the annual review will open up the Conditional Use Permit to allow amendments to the conditions to address the concerns staff has been collecting from the community over the past several years. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to uphold the Director's decision. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Commissioner Nelson moved to overturn the Director's decision. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Commissioner Bradley moved to table this discussion and ask for staff to bring back to the Commission more information on the increase in density that the niches on the retaining wall will be adding to the neighborhood, and the Commission will reconsider the appeal at that time. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Director Mihranian stated the motion should be to continue the public hearing to a date certain, and that the applicant should be asked how long it will take to get staff that information. Commissioner Nelson pointed out several inaccuracies on the map included in the staff report, and asked that a corrected map be included. Director Mihranian stated that the illustrated portion of the Master Plan is the 2007 version, and it has not been revised. He stated to get an update to this will have to be addressed with the overall review of the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Tomblin reopened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 33 Ellen Burkowitz stated Green Hills would need 30 days to get the requested information to staff. With that, Director Mihranian felt this item could be agendized for the January 24, 2017 meeting. Commissioner James stated he does not disagree with all of the points, noting the water feature is clearly within the parameters, has nothing to do with density, and is something the Director can approve. He asked Ms. Berkowitz if she was comfortable continuing the entire matter until the 24th, or would she rather go ahead with parts of it, assuming the rest of the Commission agreed. Ms. Berkowitz stated Green Hills would prefer to continue the entire thing and considered as a packet. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Director Mihranian stated the motion currently on the table is to continue the public hearing to January 24, 2017 to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide information on the density in regards to the number of niches proposed in the retaining wall within the Vista del Ponte area. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated that on page 173 of the staff report there is a different map and it shows the project location partially in Area 2 and partially in Vista del Ponte. He therefore had a problem stating this project is in Vista del Ponte when this map clearly shows a portion of it in Area 2. He also felt that in looking at the scale on the maps it is very difficult to make decisions. He noted that if the project is a small part of Inspiration Slope, it would have more of a problem because then there would be additional conditions of Inspiration Slope that would have to be met. Commissioner Bradley referred to the map on page 173, and asked staff if Area 2 is specific surveyed site, or if Area 2 more of a general area as a call-out. Director Mihranian explained that staff was referring to the exhibit in the Master Plan that was approved by the City Council. Commissioner Bradley then referred to the map on page 173 of the staff report, and asked whose definition of Area 2 was shown on that map. Senior Planner Kim answered this is a photo copy of a set of plans in the file. Director Mihranian added that this map was attached to the public notice because it was a clearer copy of the area in question. He stated this is not the official plan, the official plan is what is in the Council approved Master Plan which was being shown on the screen. He stated that on January 24th staff will clarify exactly what exhibit is being referred to, as well as the number of ground internments. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 34 The motion was approved, (5-2), with Commissioners Nelson and Leon dissenting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on December 13, 2016 The Commission unanimously approved the December 13, 2016 agenda. Chairman Tomblin noted the Commission was originally scheduled to hear the Green Hills CUP on this evening. He appreciated the City Attorney's opinion, but asked that the City Council formally make the decision as to what body would be hearing the item. He therefore asked that this item be put on the Planning Commission's December 13th agenda until such time as the City Council makes a change. Director Mihranian explained that staff cannot do that because there is not enough time to publically notice the item. Chairman Tomblin asked how the Commission would formally ask the City Council to make that decision and give direction. Director Mihranian explained that it would have to be added to a City Council agenda. Assistant City Attorney Burrows stated an agenda item could be added to the Commission's December 13th meeting to discuss a request for direction from the City Council on the annual review. She explained this would be an item to make a formal request of the City Council on which body will be conducting the annual review. Chairman Tomblin stated that the CUP hearing was previously discussed and agreed it would be heard by the Planning Commission at the December 13 meeting. He asked why it was not then on the pre-agenda for that meeting. Director Mihranian responded that the item was removed from the pre-agenda in light of what the City Attorney had advised staff to do. Chairman Tomblin felt that the City Attorney has overruled the Planning Commission and the City Council on this. Commissioner James did not understand why the Commission had to put an item on their agenda to make this request to the City Council. He stated the City Council is capable of not following the City Attorney's recommendation. He asked why this item was taken off of the Commission's agenda with no direction to do so by the Commission or the City Council. He felt that as it currently stands, the direction is for the Commission to handle the annual review, and not the City Council. He assumed the City Council would accept the recommendation of the City Attorney, however that hasn't yet been done. He didn't feel it should ever have been taken off of the Commission's agenda. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 35 Director Mihranian understood, however he reminded the Commission that they would be hearing the item in an advisory role, as the Commission is not the body who can amend the conditions. He stated that ultimately the item will go to the City Council as they are the final deciding body. He stated that an item would have to be added to the City Council's December 20th agenda for the Council to formalize the process. He also noted that the agenda packet for the December 6th meeting has already gone out, so nothing can be added to that meeting. Chairman Tomblin summarized that staff will put an item on the City Council's December 20th agenda for the City Council to make a determination as to which body will hear the Green Hills CUP review, the Planning Commission or the City Council. Director Mihranian clarified that he will ask the City Manager, who will then proceed. He noted that the Community Development Director nor the Planning Commission can add agenda items to the City Council's agenda. Chairman Tomblin asked that on December 13th an item be on the Commission's agenda to update the Commission on the status of the Commission's request. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 29,2016 Page 36