Loading...
PC MINS 20121113Approved December 11, 2012 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Emenhiser at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Absent: Chairman Tetreault was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Senior Planner Schonborn, and Associate Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their October 16th meeting the City Council accepted a public trail easement on the Salvation Army property and approved the content of a memo clarifying the policy on how Council direction is given to the City’s Committees and Commissions. He noted that this memo was forwarded to the Planning Commission the following day. Director Rojas also reported that at the November 7th meeting, the City Council accepted the Planning Commission’s code amendment recommendation for establishing a procedure for allowing hedges over 42 inches in height within the front yard setback. The City Council also adopted an Emergency Ordinance imposing a moratorium on the replacement and repair of fences and walls along arterial streets and initiated a code amendment for regulations for the repair/replacement of solid walls and fences along the City’s arterials. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2012 Page 2 CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00295): 100 Terranea Way Vice Chairman Emenhiser and Commissioner Nelson recused themselves from this item as they live within 500 feet of Terranea, and both left the dais. Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the request is by both AT&T and T Mobile to install additional antennas and equipment on the roof top of the existing main hotel building. She stated there will be no aesthetic changes as a result of these requests. She stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings, and given there are no aesthetic changes, staff is recommending approval of the project. Commissioner Tomblin opened the public hearing. Rich Grimes (applicant) explained there will be no aesthetic change to the site and was available for any questions. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the chimney in question will look exactly the way it looks now, or will it be identical to the other chimneys on the property. Mr. Grimes answered the chimney will look exactly the way it looks now, as there will be no exterior change. Commissioner Tomblin asked what will happen at this site if T Mobile merges with another company. Mr. Grimes answered that T Mobile is in the process of merging with Metro PCS, and Metro PCS does not have an existing site anywhere near this location. Therefore, he did not foresee a duplication or decommissioning of the antennas at this site. Commissioner Tomblin asked if there is any type of dismantlement provision in the agreement with Terranea in the event the antenna is abandoned or decommissioned. Mr. Grimes stated that in the lease agreement with the carriers there is a very strict provision for decommissioning and the removal of all equipment from the existing wireless communication facility. Commissioner Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve staff’s recommendation and adopt PC Resolution Nos. 2012-17 and 2012-18 thereby approving the Conditional Use Permit Revisions, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. The motion was approved without objection, (5-0) with Commission Nelson and Vice Chairman Emenhiser recused. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2012 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioner Nelson and Vice Chairman Emenhiser returned to the dais. 2. Conditional Use Permit (Case Nos. ZON2012-00067 & SUB2012-00001): 5601 Crestridge Road Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, briefly explaining the scope of the proposed project and the necessary entitlements for the proposed project. He stated that in looking at the Conditional Use Permit and the entitlements, staff felt the necessary findings can be made. He noted that one of the findings within the CUP is if there is an adverse impact. Therefore, when looking at the development staff took into account views from surrounding neighborhoods, noting concerns with some of the proposed buildings that are over 16 feet in height as measured from existing grade. He showed photos from a variety of residences on Mistridge Road, and explained that staff worked with the developer and architect to minimize the view impairments. He briefly explained some of the modifications that will be made to address the view issues. He discussed some of the concerns raised by the public during the public comment period, including foliage and landscaping height and trails. He noted that the consultant has included mitigation measures to address these concerns. In regards to the grading, he noted the 147,000 cubic yards of grading will help reduce the height of the existing topography and lower the overall height of the project. He briefly discussed the issues analyzed in the EIR, including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas, noise, and traffic and circulation. Mr. Schonborn explained that with any EIR there are certain significant impacts that are identified, and with this proposed project there is one unavoidable significant impact that was identified, which is aesthetics. He explained that this is a vacant piece of property and there is a development proposed on this parcel, which is an unavoidable aesthetic impact. With that, the City Council will have to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which specifies their reasons for accepting that unavoidable significant impact. With that, he reiterated staff’s recommendation, which is to review the project and recommend to the City Council certification of the final EIR and approval of the entitlement applications. With that direction staff would come back with the appropriate Resolutions at a future meeting. Vice Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. James O’Malley (Trumark Homes) stated they are in full concurrence with the staff report and the draft conditions of approval. He gave a brief detail of the overall project, showing how the project is set on the property. He discussed the community service center and how important he felt it will be to this particular community. He discussed the architecture of the project, showing pictures of the style of the design. He concluded with a short video simulation of the proposed project. He felt this will be a very attractive community and bonds very well with what is in existence today and the entire theme of the City. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2012 Page 4 Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. O’Malley if he could show the elevation of the units from along Crestridge Road, as he was concerned about how close they appear to be to Crestridge Road and the associated bulk and mass issues. Mr. O’Malley displayed a computer simulation of the project from Crestridge Road, but said he would get the plans with the actual elevations and setbacks. Commissioner Tomblin noted that there did not appear to be any walls separating the units and asked Mr. O’Malley if there were walls proposed for the area. Mr. O’Malley answered that there will not be any perimeter walls associated with this project. Dan Withee (Withee Malcom Architects) stated there will not be a perimeter wall around the property, however at each patio there will be a low wall just to separate the units. Commissioner Leon stated that one of the areas of greatest concern to him is the massive quantity of grading that is proposed. He was not sure that Highridge Road or Crestridge Road are well suited for the number of truck trips that are anticipated, and it appears the math is rather optimistic for getting all of the trucks in and out in the 80 days specified. He asked Mr. O’Malley what he has done to try to minimize the amount of grading required. Mr. O’Malley explained that at this particular site they are in a bit of a frame or a box, explaining Belmont and Mirandela are on either side of the property and at the rear of the property is an OH boundary with geologic issues. With that and the City’s building restrictions and height limitations he has maintained the slopes at a minimal proportion where possible, minimized retaining walls where possible, and has designed buildings that adhere to the grades. He also pointed out that Crestridge Road and Highridge Road have both survived the construction of the Belmont facility as well as Mirandela and to his knowledge the trucks created no damage to the streets. He also noted that he has met with the principal at Peninsula High School to discuss the issues and will be working with her to make it safe for her students and parents dropping off students. Commissioner Leon asked if having a bit more building height variation within the project that adheres more to the sloping topography would decrease the amount grading. Mr. O’Malley answered that they were very much focused on adhering to the drop of the overall height of the buildings. He also pointed out that they wanted to make the community as flat as possible since the community will be for ages 55 and over. Bob Washington (RBF Consulting) explained the site is not flat by any means. He stated that the grade for the road that runs from east to west is about at the maximum grade possible, which is 5 percent, to get the driveways to work properly. He stated they tried to adhere to the shape of the site as much as possible. He noted the grading Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2012 Page 5 for this proposed project has been significantly reduced when compared to projects previously proposed for this site. Commissioner Lewis noted a comment in the EIR from Rolling Hills Estates that they would like to see a condition of approval limiting the activities in the community center. In his review he did not see such a condition of approval, and asked the applicant if he would be amenable to such a condition being added. Mr. O’Malley answered he would be agreeable to such a condition. Commissioner Lewis asked the applicant if there has been any discussion with the City in terms of naming the main street leading into the development. Mr. O’Malley stated he would be open to anything that would be in concert with the theme of the City. Robert Rockoff (5525 Seaside Heights Drive) stated he submitted a letter to the City, and in that letter there are questions in regards to the landscaping plan, landscape maintenance, lighting and glare, roof top equipment, vehicular entry gates, and on-site trash collection sites. He felt the developer has answered most of the questions in a positive way, however he had an additional request. He asked that items be considered in the proposed project’s requirements homeowners association CC&Rs. Further, he asked that the CC&Rs be made available for public comment to ensure the requirements are enforceable through the life of the project. Linda Davis stated she moved to her home for the view and the rural aspect of the wildlife that is there. She felt the proposed project is very dense and she would prefer the project would be lower so that it wouldn’t be so visible from the homes above. She would prefer to have more grading at the site to accomplish this, and suggested adding trees to the front of the development to help obscure the view of the condos. She was also concerned about the 55 year age limit, as she felt it was quite generous. She felt 62 is more in line with what is considered a senior. She asked the Commission consider raising the age limit to 62. She stated there will be six units above the 16-foot line which will impact her view. She stated she sees red tail hawks in the area, and would like to see more open areas and the buildings separated by more trees. Ken Dyda noted that on the northwest the property is going to be graded down by some fifteen feet. He stated that in a prior development the property was graded down to only twelve feet. At that time the geological setback line was further back and there was an intent to put a building there with 20-foot setbacks. He was not aware that there has been any new geology and he didn’t know why the geologic setback line has changed. He asked that be reviewed. With regards to the Institutional zoning, he noted that things like housekeeping and meal services should be provided, which he does not see happening at this site. Therefore, to say there is no need for a zone change or a General Plan change because it meets Institutional zoning may not be correct, and he felt the proposed project only meets the requirements partially. He felt to be consistent Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2012 Page 6 and preserve the zoning it would be appropriate to make a zone change, which would make the project not in conflict with any other provisions and would be adhering to the basic concept as to why this City was formed. Director Rojas clarified on the map the location of the geologic setback line. Steve Saporito stated his property concern is from along Seaside Heights. He stated he was always concerned when a high density development is proposed in an area of mostly single family residences. He referred to staff’s photo of the project site with a yellow line drawn on to show the sixteen foot height and proposed ridge heights. He asked that pictures taken from Seaside Heights be included to show the visual line of sight from the residences on this street. He noted that from his residence on Seaside Heights anything above the current silhouette, including rooftop equipment, flags, chimneys, and satellite dishes, will start to obstruct his view of the queen’s necklace. He felt that everyone has a right to develop their property, he just hoped this development will stay within the theme and theory of the surrounding area. Luella Wike stated she lives on Oceanridge Drive and looks down over this project. She asked that the trail plan not be changed from pedestrian to incorporate the horses. She stated there are three churches and two retirement homes where people use walkers and wheelchairs on the sidewalks and she did not feel the horse riders cleaned up after themselves. She was also concerned about the lighting and asked the lights be kept as low and as few as possible to protect the night light views of the residents above. She also asked that the age limit be raised to 62 years rather than 55. She felt the front row of the proposed condos are too close to the street and are not in sync with the other developments on the street, which are set back from the front and have more landscaping. She did not feel there was enough greenery for an upscale project such as this one, and suggested taking out a few of the condos to make a wider setback between them and adding greenery. She also mentioned the very tall tower for the gate, and felt it would be much more in keeping to lower it to a one-story level and plant greenery around it. James O’Malley (in rebuttal) stated he preferred to keep the age restriction starting at 55 years. He suggested he prepare a detailed landscape plan to help address some of the issues and concerns that have been raised. He explained that he is sensitive to the concerns, especially those along Crestridge Road, and wants the landscaping to be consistent and match the surrounding landscaping. He stated he would make a draft of CC&Rs for the development and make those available to the public, suggesting they may want to be attached to a future staff report. In regards to the geology, he noted his geologist is in the audience and will be more than happy to address any specific questions about the site. He explained the building setback line has moved and accurately matches the site plan, adding that they are incredibly advanced in regards to the soils and geology on this property. He stated that they have adhered to the support services, and the services provided to the homeowners will be fun and interesting. He noted that density was discussed, and he explained that this development will be six units per acre, while Belmont is 20 to 22 units per acre, Mirandela is 11 to 12 units per Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2012 Page 7 acre, and Mesa Palos Verdes is 4 to 5 units per acre. He supported the suggestion of keeping the trail pedestrian only, and would be very sensitive to the lighting of the community when planning for the lighting. Lastly, in regards to the tower, he agreed that it is too tall and will be adjusted. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. O’Malley if he was prepared to commit to a maximum height limit of the two towers. Mr. O’Malley answered he will present to the Commission a redesign and specific height of the new towers and gate. He stated he would be open to suggested heights and designs. Commissioner Tomblin explained he still has concerns in regards to setbacks and the density on Crestridge Road. He was concerned about noise problems between the units because there are no buffers, and could anticipate owners planting hedges and other types of noise mitigations. He discussed lighting, and was disappointed that comments and concerns expressed in regards to the lighting have not been addressed in the EIR. He asked the applicant if, other than the market, there is a reason he doesn’t want to limit the age at 62 rather than 55. Mr. O’Malley answered they do not want to limit their market. Mr. Withee explained that the setbacks are on the map, noting the minimum setback on Crestridge Road is 25 feet. The actual setback along Crestridge Road varies from 32 feet at its closest up to 56 feet at its greatest distance. Commissioner Lewis noted the condition of approval that three months from the certificate of occupancy the lighting would be reviewed by the Director. He asked Mr. O’Malley if he would be agreeable to an additional condition that one year after the certificate of occupancy lighting, noise, and all other operational aspects of this community will come back to the Planning Commission for review, giving the community an opportunity to comment. Mr. O’Malley had no objection to such a condition. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Mr. O’Malley if he was willing to have height limits placed on the trees. Mr. O’Malley had no objection, suggesting having his landscape architect discuss with the City the types of trees that would be acceptable. He also suggested that as a basic guideline there be a condition that the trees do not exceed the height of the building ridgeline. Commissioner Gerstner discussed the applicant’s proposal to subdivide the property into nine lots. He asked where the separate lots are on the property. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2012 Page 8 Director Rojas displayed a map showing the Commission where the separate lots are located on the property. Commissioner Gerstner noted that now the applicant has to comply with setback limitations for nine separate lots, and asked staff if the applicant was in compliance with all of these setback requirements. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that staff is looking at this as one large lot rather than nine separate lots for purposes of the condominium development. Commissioner Gerstner stated that there are either separate lots or not separate lots and there is either a setback or not a setback. He stated that he was a bit surprised the developer was choosing to subdivide the property, especially if they are doing so to phase the project. Director Rojas agreed that if these are separate lots they have to comply with all City requirements, and staff will look into that. Commissioner Gerstner commented on the vegetation as shown on a displayed slide, and felt that the yellow line depicting the foliage height should not have gaps. Commissioner Leon asked staff if they were aware of the grading quantities when Belmont or Mirandela was developed, and if either approached the 150,000 cubic yards proposed for this project. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that Mirandela had approximately 25,000 cubic yards of grading on their two acre site. Belmont initially had 60,000 cubic yards of grading, but submitted a supplemental application for additional grading. He pointed out that both parcels are smaller than the subject parcel. Director Rojas pointed out condition No. 33 which requires the developer to be responsible for repairs of the roadways due to any of the truck trips. Vice Chairman Emenhiser noted that Mr. Dyda had commented on the Institutional zoning, and asked staff to comment. Director Rojas stated the Code was amended by the City Council to allow these types of developments in Institutional zones. The code says that to meet the test, the project must have a city approved supportive service program, and gives examples of such programs. This project is proposing social / recreational / educational / health programs. If the Planning Commission or City Council feels that is not enough to warrant consistency with the zoning, the City can ask for more programs. Commissioner Tomblin commented on the lighting, noting the amount of lumens, the coloring of the lights, and the deflection of the light needs to be specifically addressed. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2012 Page 9 Director Rojas agreed, noting this is staff’s initial attempt at draft conditions of approval, and staff will come back to the Commission with new and more specific conditions as a result of the comments from this meeting. Commissioner Lewis did not feel the Commission had enough information to make a recommendation to the City Council, and therefore moved to continue the public hearing to allow the developer and staff to address the following issues: 1) a condition of approval preventing equestrian use of the trails; 2) either reducing the height of the tower or eliminating the tower; 3) the addition of tighter lighting conditions; 4) a one year review of the project, while retaining the Director’s three month review of the lighting on the site; 5) clarity on the issue of subdividing the property into nine lots; 6) a condition that ties the existing Indian Peak trail to the Preserve trails; 7) the opportunity for the developer to present a landscape plan if he so chooses; and 8) closing the gaps in the photograph with the yellow line. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Director Rojas noted the earliest this item could come back to the Commission would be the December 11th Commission meeting, however he did not know if that would be agreeable to the applicant. Mr. O’Malley understood the additional questions and concerns but also asked if the Commission could let him know if they are generally in favor of the project or not in favor of the project. He agreed with the December 11th continuance. Vice Chairman Emenhiser felt the applicant has been very responsive to the issues raised by the neighbors and the City. He felt that if these issues raised can be resolved at the December 11th meeting that the applicant will find some support from the Commission. Commissioner Gerstner discussed the issue of lighting, noting that staff has clearly made an outstanding effort on addressing the subject in a way that is consistent with what the Planning Commission has discussed at previous meetings and referenced condition Nos. 58 through 64. He asked that the color temperature of the lights be addressed, explaining that with the combination of street lighting, walkway bollards, and lights on buildings there will be a variety of color temperatures that may not look good. He stated he was not particular about the color temperature, although he felt it should be in the warmer range. He felt a condition was needed to define the color temperature of the exterior lights to a specific range. He also noted that staff has quite a bit of description in regards to light sources shining down and light shields. He suggested describing the lighting in a way that says an observer from off the property won’t be able to identify a light source. He explained that he was ok with light being seen from off of the property, however he felt it was best if that light was indirect by being bounced off of something else. With that he felt the developer would have a very successful project and the neighbors would have the absolute minimum amount of light from the development. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2012 Page 10 Commissioner Lewis stated he was generally supportive of the project and felt that staff will be able to craft conditions of approval that would address each of the issues specified in the motion. He added that if staff can satisfactorily address the issues in the motion he should be able to make all of the necessary findings to support the project. Commissioner Tomblin stated he is also generally supportive of the project. He added that he would support the age limit of 55 and above as the quality of this project and the price point of the homes will support a lower age limit. He was still concerned about the look of the project and the density of the condos from Crestridge, but hoped landscaping will help shield the condos from the street. Commissioner Nelson stated he is supportive of the project, and felt that staff, working with the developer, will be able to incorporate the concerns expressed in the motion into the conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Commissioner Lewis to restate his motion before the vote. Commissioner Lewis stated he would restate his motion, but would modify the motion with three new items. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to December 11th, for staff and the developer to work together to address the following issues: 1) a condition of approval preventing equestrian use of the trails; 2) either reducing the height of the tower or eliminating the tower; 3) the addition of tighter lighting conditions; 4) a one year review of the project, while retaining the Director’s three month review of the lighting on the site; 5) clarity on the issue of subdividing the property into nine lots; 6) a condition that ties the existing Indian Peak trail to the Preserve trails; 7) the opportunity for the developer to present a landscape plan if he so chooses; 8) closing the gaps in the photograph with the yellow line; and the additional items 9) a condition to discuss the color temperature range of exterior lighting; 10) a condition on how the light source will be masked; and 11) clarify how this project is going to be phased, with the inclusion of a timeline for the project. The amended motion was seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (6-0). 3. General Plan Update – Review proposed changes to the existing Land Use Map Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining that during a May 22, 2012 meeting the Planning Commission had directed staff not to change the land use designation at six specific park sites. At that time the Planning Commission had expressed that the park sites were small and felt the land use could be dealt with in the existing residential zoning designation of each. Mr. Pfost also explained that at the October 9, 2012 meeting, the Planning Commission went into a more detailed Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2012 Page 11 discussion of park sites in the City. At that meeting the Commission re-looked at the six park sites previously discussed and recommended staff change the definition to passive recreation. Because that discussion was not noticed, staff has now noticed the surrounding property owners of those six park sites. In regards to the property on east Crest Road, he noted there was discussion and concern from the surrounding neighbors in regards to the property being a nuisance. He also reminded the Commission that a speaker had suggested ceding the property over to a neighboring property owner, however he explained that is not a possibility as it would be a granting of public funds. He added that the City’s intent and purpose of purchasing the property on east Crest Road was always for a trail link, and that trail link is described within the conceptual trails plan that has been adopted by the City. He stated that the Planning Commission’s decision is a recommendation to the City Council, and noted this issue will be before the City Council and residents may speak on the issue when it is before the Council. He stated staff’s recommendation is to approve the change to passive recreation for the six sites noted in the staff report. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if there were other options available to the surrounding residents in regards to the nuisances and problems at the east Crest Road site. Deputy Director Pfost answered that he has spoken to the Public Works Department on the issue of maintenance, and they will clean up the site. He noted that residents always have the option to call the Public Works Department when the site needs to be cleaned up. He also spoke to the Deputy City Manager about the issues regarding the Sheriff’s Department and he was not sure if she had spoken to the Sheriff’s Department directly, but he would follow up with her to see if she had. Vice Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Masood Behshid discussed the problems in the neighborhood caused by the small piece of land on east Crest Road. He also pointed out that the City will have to use his private road in order to create any type of public access to the site. He understood the City could not offer the property to him for purchase, but felt something must be done with the area. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Behshid if he was saying he would be willing to purchase the property from the City. Mr. Behshid answered that he would like to purchase the property from the City. Commissioner Leon asked staff if that would be different from having the property ceded to Mr. Behshid. Deputy Director Pfost answered that purchasing the property would be different from ceding the property. He recommended Mr. Behshid contact the City Manager’s office, as that office deals with the purchase of City property. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2012 Page 12 Vice Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon asked how many notices were sent out. Deputy Director Pfost responded that everyone within a 500 foot radius of each park site was noticed. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the proposed land use changes to the General Plan Land Use Map related to the six separate City owned properties as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Leon questioned if the park property on Crest Road should be removed from the motion to allow for more research and possible negotiations to sell the property to Mr. Behshid. Commissioner Nelson stated he would be willing to amend his motion, however he pointed out that the problem in doing so would be if the negotiations failed; then this would come back to the Planning Commission as a separate item. Commissioner Nelson moved to amend his motion to remove the Crest Road parcel from the recommendations, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Leon asked staff if this amendment will help or hurt the overall goal of staff. Deputy Director Pfost reminded the Commission that this particular parcel has been designated to be used as a trailhead, has been envisioned as a trailhead in the past by the City Council, and is identified in the Conceptual Trails Plan as such. This is why staff recommended the parcel be changed to recreational passive. He added that it is possible for the City to sell the land to the neighbor, however there is a lot of time between what happens tonight at this Planning Commission meeting and when this item goes before the City Council. If negotiations did fail, this item would have to be renoticed to the public to once again discuss changing the land use designation. Commissioner Leon asked staff if it would in any way hinder the negotiations if the land were designated for passive recreational use. Deputy Director Pfost did not believe there would be a hindrance. Commissioner Nelson moved to strike his amendment to the original motion and not remove the Crest Road parcel from staff’s recommendations. He stated his motion would be to approve the proposed land use changes to the General Plan Land Use Map related to the six separate City owned properties as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (6-0). Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2012 Page 13 Deputy Director Pfost reminded Mr. Beshid that this is not the final action on this subject, as this must still go before the City Council, and he did not anticipate that happening until some time next summer. He added that Mr. Beshid should contact the City Manager’s office with questions on how to go about requesting to purchase the property. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of September 25, 2012 Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved without objection, with Commissioner Lewis abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 5. Minutes of October 9, 2012 Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-agenda for the November 27, 2012 meeting The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.