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.