PC 032719 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Allen commented that Golden Eagle had a guard at the gate and there was full security with a sign-in list versus it being more secure, and she recognized those differences. Commissioner Brown referred to Parcel C on page 22 and the long-term funding on page 23. He presumed there would be a more refined plan that includes a funding discussion if the applicant was insisting on retaining ownership of Parcel C. He noted that the Lester family has a vested interest in maintaining control for better, long-term maintenance than EBRPD. The District is concerned at some point in the future people may not be as willing and they would rather it be part of the City's or the Park District's control. He asked if this was the crux of the discussion. Ms. Amos said they are having conversations about whether that parcel should be included in the EBRPD dedication. No change to the General Plan designation is proposed, and would be kept as an open space designation to prevent development on that parcel. If it were to be sold to another private party, it would be limited to the General Plan land use designation and property owner would have to be responsible for maintaining it as a private ownership. Staff has encouraged the applicant to consider including the parcel in the dedication. Commissioner Brown asked if the two items were tied to each other in terms of whether Parcel C remained in private control and whether they would seek long-term funding to help. Ms. Amos stated it is a private piece of land and the City would not provide funding for maintenance; it would be maintained by the private property owner, the Lester family. Mr. Beaudin said the Lester family is assuming the liability and responsibility that comes with maintaining their property like most other private property owners. Chair Allen referred to the questions asked of the Commission and suggested going through them individually. Question 1 a: Would the Commission interpret Measure PP such that the Shriner's property would be exempt from Measure PP based on the fact it would individually have fewer than 10 lots? Commissioner O'Connor said he would not consider it separately since it is one, 31-unit development. The way it is proposed, the access road is supporting the development as well as the EVA. Commissioner Ritter agreed and said if done in stages he would question it, but it is all inter-connected. Chair Allen and Commissioner Balch both said they also would not consider it separately. Commissioner Brown said he would say it is definitely not exempt from Measure QQ. He can understand the applicant's position based on the language but was not sure from a legal end that it was clear. However, when talking about voter intent, he was siding more with the majority and thinks it should be treated as one project. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 22 March 27, 2019 on Minutes Page 7 of 22 March 27, 2019 project. She expressed the desire for her 80-year-old mother to be able to see the project completed and for her to be able to move back into the replacement home. She stated they are giving up two of their homes for the staging area, said they do not believe wildlife will be disturbed and believe the park will provide great benefits to the community. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 22 March 27, 2019