Loading...
PC MINS 20121009 APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2012 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7-07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault, Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Deputy Director Pfost. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their October 2nd meeting the City Council adopted the Resolution finalizing the denial of the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding a view restoration permit on Narcissa Drive. He also reported that the City recently prevailed in a lawsuit filed by a resident challenging a previous City Tree Review Permit decision made by the Planning Commission and upheld by the City Council. Lastly, he reported that at the upcoming October 10th meeting the City Council will consider the Planning Commission's recommendation on the code amendment involving hedges over 42 inches in the front yard setback. Director Rojas distributed eight items of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-a-genda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00112): 3344 Palo Vista Drive Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, explaining that after the public hearing notice was mailed out staff came across information that verified this request did not need to be heard before the Planning Commission. Therefore staff's recommendation is to receive and file the staff report. The Commissioner unanimously agreed to receive and file the staff report. 2. General Plan update— Passive and Active Recreational Land Use designations Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, giving a brief background on the subject and the Planning Commission's direction to staff at the last meeting. He explained that tonight's discussion is on the definitions of "active" and "passive" and whether or not the designation should be assigned to each park site in the city. In regards to the definitions, he reminded the Commission that the General Plan is a goals and policy document and it's important the definitions are contextual and give the reader an idea of the type of land use being proposed under the General Plan. Staff does not think it is practical to use the General Plan to identify and capture every specific use that would be in an active and passive park designation. In addition, he reminded the Commission that one of staff's recommendations is that after the General Plan update is completed is to do a code amendment that would implement active and passive recreational zoning designations. The purpose of that would be to provide more detail on the types of uses permitted, the development standards, and the permit process for the parks. He then described staffs three options for active recreation and passive recreation definitions as outlined in the staff report. He discussed Table A from the staff report, explaining the proposed land use designation for the various parks within the City, Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Ken Duda stated that with regards to the General Plan, he was happy to see there was more emphasis on update rather than revision. He pointed out that the General Plan was reaffirmed in 2002, and therefore is not that old of a document. With respect to the definitions, he noted that the concern was the glossary and the text in the General Plan doesn't match. He felt the glossary should reflect what the consensus of the community was with respect to the description in the General Plan. He therefore urged the Planning Commission to support definition option No. 2 presented by staff. In regards to Tables A and B, he had some concerns. First, he felt that Wallace Park should be designated a passive pocket park. He then discussed what he felt was a conflict in Table B, noting many parks are designated recreational or residential. He felt that if this is left in there at some time in the future there will be someone who will want to build on that park site, and that is not what the intent of this City has been. He very strongly Planning Commission Minutes October 9,2012 Page 2 urged the Commission to remove any residential development options within the park as this is counter to what the City was developed for, Commissioner Gerstner referred to the definitions, noting Mr. Dyda's preference for option No. 2. He asked Mr. Dyda to elaborate on his objection to option No. 3, Mr. Dyda felt option No. 3 extends it so far that it is unnecessary, while No. 2 reflects the text that is in the General Plan. John Freeman (President of Pacific View HOA) asked the Planning Commission to consider the actual land use of lower Hesse Park and upper Hesse Park, as he felt upper Hesse Park is active recreational and lower Hesse Park is passive recreational. He then read the definition of passive recreation and stated that is the current use at lower Hesse Park. He asked the Commission to move Hesse Park from Table A to Table B, separating Hesse Park into two sections with upper Hesse Park designated for active recreation and lower Hesse Park for passive recreation. Commissioner Gerstner did not think anyone would disagree that Hesse Park has two very separate areas and uses. He noted in the staff report, however, that there is a discussion on bifurcating Hesse Park. One of the discussion topics is that there are really only three active recreational parks within the City. He asked Mr. Freeman what he would propose to do to keep active recreational parks in the City, noting there are a lot of children in the City who like to do things other than walk on trails. Mr. Freeman answered that upper Hesse Park gets used a lot and noted that there is opportunity to provide unstructured family activities in lower Hesse Park, such as family picnics. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Chairman Tetreault suggested the Commission begin by looking at the definitions of 11 active" and "passive". Commissioner Gerstner felt staff's suggested definitions are very concise and incorporate the comments of the Commission. He felt option No. 3 describes what the Commission is trying to define and does not over extend into a finite definition of what happens in those parks. He referred to the passive recreation definition and asked staff to clarify what city staff support structures are. Deputy City Manager Petru clarified by giving an example at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park where in the upper parking lot there is a small concrete block staff building used by staff to greet visitors and monitor the parking lot. She stated that in these parks if there is staff on site there should be a place for them to be, as well as storage areas. Chairman Tetreault explained his biggest concern with respect to active and passive had to do with the contradiction in the existing General between the glossary and the Planning Commission Minutes October 9,2012 Page 3 text. He felt that option No, 2 is concise and to the point without making any real changes. Commissioner Nelson explained that most residents look at a park as a park and don't worry over whether it is an active or passive park,, He was perfectly happy to go along with whatever recommendation is made on this subject. However, he was quite concerned when the Deputy City Manager said they plan to put staff in the passive recreation area. He questioned how many staff members, and why. He noted this is a cost to the City and did not think passive recreation should have any costs. Commissioner Lewis agreed that option No. 2 may be the best choice for a definition. In regards to option No. 3, he felt that the Interpretive Center could be defined as a City support structure. Vice Chairman Emenhiser agreed that less is more and therefore supported option No. 2. With respect to the definitions, Commissioner Leon agreed that option No. 2 would be the better choice. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt option No. 2 in the staff report regarding the proposed definitions of"active" and "passive", seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Approved, (7-0). Chairman Tetreault asked that the Commission now discuss the various park sites, Deputy Director Pfost suggested taking each site one at a time so that the Commission could better understand how staff came to the conclusions in the staff report and the Commission can make a decision from there. He referred to Table A, and began with Hesse Park. He noted that staff was recommending in the text and the Land Use Map as they exist today that the current land use designation of Recreation Active for the entire park site not change. Chairman Tetreault asked staff for some clarification. He noted that currently the Planning Commission is tasked to look at a General Plan update. Upon what basis would the Planning Commission change any of the use designations for any of the parks. Deputy Director Pfost explained that the Planning Commission can change the use designation for the parks. What staff attempted to do in the tables was try to maintain the designation in the existing General Plan. Specifically, staff used the existing General Plan text and the land use designation on the existing General Plan Map to confirm what staff believes the land use designation should be for each park site. In areas where there is a conflict between existing text and the existing land use designation or new parks not discussed in the General Plan, staff created Table B. Planning Commission Minutes October 9,21012 Page 4 Vice Chairman Emenhiser felt Mr. Freeman made a good point in that Hesse Park is already bifurcated into two parks with active use above and passive use below, Given that Hesse Park might not fit into the existing definitions, he asked staff if they had any guidance to help the Planning Commission. Deputy Director Pfost agreed that Mr. Freeman makes a very good point, and he could not argue against the existing passive use of the lower Hesse Park site. However, based upon staff's review of the existing General Plan which defines the entire park site as active, as well as past City Council direction and the Parks Plan, which identifies active uses in the lower park area, staff believes it should remain as active. He noted that if the Planning Commission wants to bifurcate the park and make part of it passive, that can be the Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Gerstner explained that irrespective of the meanings of the words "active" and "passive", the way they are used in the General Plan a recreational passive park is a subset of a recreational active park. An active park can include all of the active uses as well as all of the passive uses. He felt that in looking at Hesse Park it does fall under the definition of a recreational active park, with the lower area being used in a passive way. He felt that changing something to recreational passive means there is some underlying specific reason we don't want that park to have the uses of recreational active. He stated this is much more restrictive and he is not inclined to restrict the property unless there is some reason to do so, other than we're not using it as a baseball field right now so it shouldn't be a baseball field ever. Commissioner Lewis was not convinced that the designations should be changed for Hesse Park. However, he also noted that it is the Commission's job to assist the City Council to make good decisions. A resident has said Hesse Park is really two different parks with two different uses, and he felt it would be helpful to the City Council if Table A were modified to show Hesse Park Upper and a Hesse Park Lower as two separate columns, without any change in the designation. This way the City Council may be better able to give thoughtful and careful consideration to the two different realties in that park. Commissioner Leon asked staff if they felt it would be a problem having a Hesse Park Upper and a Hesse Park Lower in the General Plan. Deputy Director Pfost stated the General Plan can discuss Hesse Park in any way the City Council directs. Chairman Tetreault commented that changing what can be done at Hesse Park is a well discussed topic and usually brings in quite a crowd. He felt that if the Commission is going to make a recommendation and the Commission thinks there is some substance to that recommendation to City Council, then perhaps this subject be a specific topic noticed for a public hearing. He suspected that if the people in the neighborhood thought the Planning Commission was going to make a decision that could result in a Planning Commission Minutes October 9,2012 Page 5 change to the designation of the park, perhaps there would be more response from the public, Commissioner Lewis moved to forward Table A to the City Council and that upper and lower Hesse Park be separately designated on Table A with the current Active Recreational designation on both,, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser, Commissioner Lewis noted that Table A is simply a decision making tool and no change is being proposed to Table A. Chairman Tetreault asked what the demarcation line was between upper and lower Hesse Parks, Commissioner Lewis thought it would be the area between the lowest playground and where the hiking trail begins. Commissioner Nelson reminded the Commission that Mr. Freeman is representing the 340 homes in his HOA and he can therefore make the assumption that he is speaking for 340 homes, Commissioner Tomblin noted that there had recently been a study taken to the City Council regarding upper and lower Hesse Park, and asked staff the results of that study. Deputy City Manager Petru explained that there were two different alternatives presented to the City Council and the City Council conceptually approved one of those alternatives. She stated the CEQA document is being prepared but there was a question on funding for the improvements. Therefore, the last direction received from City Council was to not pursue the entire project, but directed staff to work with representative from the Pacific View HOA on a scaled back and phased project. She added that the plan had included tennis courts, a basketball court, a staff building, parking lot improvements, trails, and other passive elements, Commissioner Lewis' motion to separately list lower Hesse Park and upper Hesse Park on Table A and keep the active recreational designation on both was approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Gerstner and Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve Table A and the recommended designations from Ryan Park down to the City's 1,400 acre preserve, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Commissioner Gerstner stated he wanted to discuss the residential designation that is placed on the Don Wallace Park. He asked staff what the advantage would be to have an underlying residential designation on this park. Deputy Director Pfost explained the park is part of the Wallace Ranch subdivision that was developed after the General Plan was adopted, which is why there is the existing Planning Commission Minutes October 9,2012 Page 6 residential designation. He noted that the park was part of the QUIMBY dedication for park use. Commissioner Gerstner understood, however he pointed out that if the land is dedicated through QUIMBY to be a park it should always be a park, since the point was if the land was going to be subdivided for development this area has to be permanently dedicated as a park. He felt the residential designation could lead one to believe it is not permanently designated as a park since it is zoned residential. Director Rojas agreed that when the tract was approved and the park dedicated, the park area should have been rezoned as recreational. Deputy Director Pfost added that currently the park is just a green belt in the neighborhood and the question was whether or not that site would be used as a park in the future. Staff opted to leave the designation as is at this time. Deputy City Manager Petru explained that the issue is that the City Council has really not considered the future of this property since it was originally designated for the radio museum. Therefore, it really is a policy issue as far as what the City Council wants to do with the area. She felt that, theoretically, the three lots could be sold since they are subdivided as three single family residential lots, and the money could be used to develop another park site. She noted there are still people in the community that are interested in the radio ranch museum. She felt this is a site that has not been given due consideration for a number of years. Commissioner Lewis asked staff to clarify the note for this item that addresses passive use in the General Plan text. Deputy Director Pfost explained that in the General Plan Open Space and Conservation section there would be a general description of what the park is, a passive open field park use. Commissioner Lewis asked if the text read that way, would that foreclose the situation the Deputy City Manager just described in regards to building a park elsewhere. Deputy Director Pfost was not sure it would necessarily foreclose the situation, but felt it would make it a little more difficult. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion to include the former motion with the added language that when Table A is presented to the City Council the text of the staff report contains an explanation as to why it's staff's recommendation to keep the designation for Wallace Park as residential as opposed to a different designation, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Commissioner Gerstner discussed Grandview Park, noting it is not addressed in the existing text, City Council has gone back and forth in discussions as to the park being Planning Commission Minutes October 9,2012 Page 7 passive or active, yet Table A designates it as passive. He felt this was a change, and if not a change a fairly significant clarification. Deputy Director Pfost clarified that, although Grandview Park is not addressed in the General Plan, it is addressed on the General Plan Land Use Map, which is the adopted map, as passive recreation. Therefore staff was merely keeping the same designation that is on the existing General Plan map. Director Rojas added that the improvements currently being contemplated for the park are within the definition of passive in the General Plan. Commissioner Tomblin suggested, for consistency, that Grandview Park could be bifurcated into two areas on Table A, upper and lower, so that the City Council could make a policy decision at a later date. Deputy Director Pfost stated that if the Commission desires to place a note in the General Plan to the Council that indicates the Commission wanted the Council to focus in on Grandview Park that note could be added if that was the direction. Chairman Tetreault noted that the City Council already has designs to do something with Grandview Park and are trying to do it consistent with its current passive designation. Commissioner Gerstner stated that if the designation is passive on the General Plan Land Use Map, then he has no hesitation that it will stay passive in Table A. Commissioner Lewis' motion to approve Table A and the recommended designations from Ryan Park down to the City's 1,400 acre preserve, and that staff include in their report to the City Council an explanation as to why staff is recommending to keep the designation at Wallace Park as residential was approved, (7-0). Chairman Tetreault stated that he felt there was some confusion or ambiguity in regards to the first motion that was voted on in regards to Hesse Park. He asked the Commission if there was anyone who wanted to reconsider the motion. Commissioner Leon asked staff if it was their intention to show two rows for Hesse Park on Table A, with blank boxes after each. Deputy Director Pfost explained it was staff's understanding that there would be two rows on Table A, one for upper Hesse Park and one for lower Hesse Park, with the boxes filled in with recreational active and a note to the Council that the Commission wished the Council to review this matter in more detail. Commissioner Lewis stated that was the intention of his motion. Ranning Commission Minutes October 9,2012 Page 8 Commissioners Leon and Tomblin and Vice Chairman Emenhiser agreed that was their understanding as well. Chairman Tetreault stated his vote was against the motion as he did not think the park should be bifurcated and he was not addressing the use designations for either upper or lower Hesse Park when he made that vote. He added that he was not in favor of changing the General Plan designations as they currently stand. Chairman Tetreault asked that the Planning Commission now discuss Table B. Deputy Director Pfost explained Table B, noting that it consists of Upper Point Vicente Park and civic center. He noted in the text of the existing General Plan there is reference to both active and passive and the existing General Plan Land Use Map has the Recreational Passive and Institutional Public land use designations. He stated staff is maintaining those designations, adding Open Space Preserve since a portion of the City Hall site is in the preserve property. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked staff to discuss Ladera Linda and the change at that site. Deputy Director Pfost explained that for the school district owned areas of Ladera Linda staff is not proposing any change from the current Institutional Educational designation. For the City owned property at the site staff is proposing a change from Institutional Educational to Institutional Public, which is a similar use as the City Hall site. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if the land use is defined by the use in the existing buildings. Deputy Director Pfost explained that it is the type of use in the buildings, which is similar to the type of use of the buildings at City Hall, Commissioner Gerstner asked if city purposes exclude educational or does educational exclude city purposes. Deputy Director Pfost answered that in Institutional Public there can be educational type uses, but not solely educational uses, as they are in Institutional Educational, Chairman Tetreault noted that until recently a Montessori School was located at the site. He asked staff if this type of use would be allowed in an Institutional Public designated site. Director Rojas answered that educational uses are allowed in an Institutional designation with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Deputy City Manager Petru added that the City Attorney's office is currently doing extensive amount of research regarding the City's various lease agreements at City Planning Commission Minutes October 9,2012 Page 9 properties, She noted that there may be a problem with a lease to an educational use that provides exclusive use to public land, which may be an additional reason the City would not want to zone the area Institutional Educational, Deputy Director Pfost clarified that Table B being displayed says Recreational Passive or Residential for, Martingale Park, but it should just be Recreational Passive, as noted in the staff report. Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendations for the first page of Table B (page 11 of the staff report), Upper Point Vicente through Eastview Park, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the Commissioners felt Ladera Linda should be changed from Institutional Educational to Institutional Public. Chairman Tetreault felt that, if there is a difference at all, and given its current use and projected use of the property, it will be used as Institutional Public and not Institutional Educational. Commissioner Tomblin pointed out that, as a matter of consistency, the Commission has not been voting to make any changes to the General Plan. However, with the situation with Ladera Linda, the Commission is making a recommendation to change the General Plan. Director Rojas explained that the original General Plan identified all of the school sites as Educational. If staff takes the same approach today that every school site is Educational, Ladera Linda is no longer a school site and should be taken off of the Educational. Therefore, he felt this was an update of the General Plan. The motion to approve staff's recommendations for Table B, Upper Point Vicente through Eastview Park, was approved, (5-2) with Commissioners Gerstner and Tomblin dissenting. In continuing with Table B, Deputy Director Pfost explained that on page 12 of the staff report, from Clovercliff to the parcel on East Crest Road adjacent to the California Water site, the Commission has already acted upon these parcels at a previous meeting, and pointed out the comments in the note section of the chart. He reminded the Commission that staff had been recommending changing the designations of these park sites to Recreation Passive, however the Commission voted to deny this change and maintain the park sites as Residential 1-2 dwelling units per acres. He explained staff was bringing all of the park sites back to the Commission to see if the Commission wanted to reconsider their vote on these park sites based upon what has been heard tonight, and change their designations to Recreational Passive, Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked staff to remind him what concerns the Commission had when deciding to leave the park sites as Residential 1-2 dwelling units per acre. Planning Commission Minutes October 9,2012 Page 10 Deputy Director Pfost recalled the Commission expressed concern about possible spot zoning. He explained staff does not share this concern, since the problem of spot zoning occurs when the zoning designation is changed for personal use, He did not think changing the zoning for public use was an issue in regards to spot zoning. He stated that in staff's opinion, these are park sites and should be designated as such. Vice Chairman Emenhiser felt it was bad public policy to leave the door open for park sale in some point in time, and in spite of the circumstances of the May 22nd meeting, he would be in favor of zoning these sites exclusively as Recreational Passive. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the Commission were to do nothing with these sites and leave them as they currently are, would staff's recommendation to the City Council that it be changed to Recreational Passive. Deputy Director Pfost answered that would be staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with staffs recommendation, however he explained his conflict was actually changing of the General Plan. Chairman Tetreault compared these park sites to Ladera Linda, explaining the General Plan had the area as an active school site. It no longer is, and he felt it was appropriate to treat it as it is being used today. Commissioner Lewis moved that the properties identified on page 12 of the staff report, Clovercliff Park through East Crest Road be designated as Recreational Passive, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Commissioner Leon noted that while the Commission may be recommending these parks be designated Recreational Passive, the Commission has not received any public input on the subject. He was therefore a bit reluctant to vote on making all of these parks passive. Vice Chairman Emenhiser agreed, however reminded the Commission that this is just a recommendation to the City Council, and the public can speak before the Council with their opinions before a decision is made. Deputy Director Pfost added that staff was seeking direction from the Commission before notices are sent to the residents. These park sites will come back to the Commission for consideration after the public notices have been mailed. Commissioner Lewis' motion was approved, (7-0). Deputy Director Pfost continued explaining the remainder on page 12 and the parks listed on page 13 of the staff report the Commission has already discussed and has approved the designation change as shown in the staff report. He stated that staff Planning Commission Minutes October 9,2012 Page 11 supports the designation change the Commission has made, and staff did not feel any action was needed by the Commission. He stated that the final park that staff is seeking direction for is Gateway Park. Commissioner Gerstner moved that for the remaining items, Shoreline Park through Gateway Park as listed in the staff report, that the Commission approves staff's recommendation, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Chairman Tetreault re-opened the public hearing, John Freeman referred to page 11 of the staff report, and noted upper Point Vicente Park was shown as passive and active and the recommendation was to change the designation to Recreational Passive. He asked if that meant the Commission's intention was to remove the volleyball court and tennis court. Deputy Director Pfost explained the text description in the original General Plan for upper Point Vicente is a bit confusing, as there are references to passive and active use. However, the actual General Plan land use designation is Recreational Passive and Institutional Public. Staff is recommending maintaining that same designation of Recreational Passive and Institutional Public, however adding the Open Space Preserve, since part of the area is in the NCCP Preserve. Therefore, staff is recommending consistently maintaining what the existing General Plan Land Use Map says today. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon asked if Institutional Public could play tennis and volleyball. Deputy Director Pfost answered that volleyball and tennis are uses allowed in Institutional Public. Commissioner Gerstner noted that Recreational Passive specifically excludes active activities, and is therefore more restrictive. It was not his understanding that it was the intention to have no active recreation at upper Point Vicente Park. Commissioner Tomblin agreed. Vice Chairman Emenhiser suggested addressing the motion before moving on to other subjects, and Chairman Tetreault agreed. He asked for any additional discussion or comments on the motion. Commissioner Lewis noted that in voting yes for this motion, he was assuming staff will correct the typo in the notes in the table before presenting the table to the City Council. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the typo in the table will be corrected. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2012 Page 12 The motion to approve staff's recommendation for Shoreline Park through Gateway Park, as listed in the staff report, was approved, (7-0). In returning to the discussion of upper Point Vicente, Commissioner Gerstner did not think it was ever anyone's intention to exclude active use from the park, and this designation does that. Chairman Tetreault felt that staff's recommendation of Recreational Passive was foreclosing some rather ambitious plans that have been suggested for this property. He felt this designation in the General Plan would be an impediment to these plans. He asked staff why they were in favor of this recommendation. Deputy Director Pfost explained that staff is proposing maintaining the same map designation that is currently in place, which is Recreational Passive and Institutional Public. He explained that if in the future the City Council decides to do something with City Hall there will then be General Plan amendments depending what uses go where on the property. Commissioner Lewis moved that the proposed draft General Plan Land Use map designation for upper Point Vicente Park read Recreational Active, rather than Recreational Passive, as well as Institutional Public and Open Space Preserve, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Director Rojas displayed a picture of the upper Point Vicente site, showing the areas of Recreational Passive, Institutional Public, and Open Space Recreational. Deputy City Manager Petru explained that the Program of Utilization, which is the agreement with the Federal Government when the land was deeded to the City, calls for certain areas to be Recreational Passive, There is a 6.6 acre area that is designated for the property for active recreation, however that area is down by the Villa Capri condos, which is now part of the NCCP preserve, The thought has been that it may be possible to negotiate an amendment to the Program of Utilization to unlock that active area and possible move it up to the upper plateau. Staff does not know if this is something the City may want to do in the future or if it is something the Federal Government would approve. Commissioner Gerstner stated he was generally in favor of the motion, but asked staff where in the General Plan this upper Point Vicente is reference as Recreational Active, Deputy Director Pfost referred to an area in the General Plan that discusses Active and Passive Recreational areas which indicates the General Plan at this time does not designate specific additional active recreational areas in the City unless the General Services Administration accepts the City's proposal for desired uses of the upper and lower Nike site. He explained the lower Nike site includes both upper and lower Point Vicente. Planning Commission Minutes October 9,2012 Page 13 Commissioner Gerstner asked if that is the totality of the active reference to lower Point Vicente. Deputy Director Pfost stated that was the extent of the reference. Commissioner Gerstner suggested that changing the designation to active would be supporting what he considers to be a fairly loose text reference and inconsistent with the deed restriction. Deputy City Manager Petru felt the designation would be consistent with the designation on the property that is currently outside of the NCCP. She added that the area outside of the NCCP currently is not designated for Recreational Active according to the current Program of Utilization but there is the possibility of amending it to allow such use. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion to still change the designation in column B from Recreational Passive to Recreational Active, but to give the City Council additional information in that when the staff report goes to the City Council staff's discussion in the text of the staff report include an additional discussion on this issue in terms of the current use, the Program of Utilization, and possible future action, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (6-1) with Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Deputy Director Pfost stated that the final item staff was recommending was for the Commission to recommend to the City Council that after the General Plan update has been concluded that a code amendment be initiated to, amend the Zoning Code to replace the existing "Open Space Recreation District" with the new "Passive Open Space Recreation District and "Active Open Space Recreation District" which will describe the allowable uses within the district along with the associated development standards and permitting processes. Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation regarding recommending to the City Council a code amendment to the Zoning Code, which is recommendation No. 3 in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Minutes of September 11, 2011 Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre Agenda for the meeting on October 23, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes October 9,2012 Page 14 Vice Chairman Emenhiser noted that with the one item on the agenda he would have to recuse himself from this meeting. Chairman Tetreault noted that there is onI one item on the agenda and asked if this item could be moved to the November 13t meeting, Director Rojas stated there a few items on the November 1Stn agenda, however the Terranea item in question may be a fairly quick item, Commissioner Tomblin moved to cancel the October 23rd meeting, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved without objection. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Ranning Commission Minutes October 9,2012 Page 15