Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/98 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL cALL ALTERNATE: Thursday, October 1, 1998 5:30 p.m. JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BO YLE MA THEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TA VORN RON SPRAGUE NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. = PUBLIC STATEMENTS ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. A NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAl Planning COmmission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative SubdivisiOn maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No perm t shall be ~ssued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $330 non-refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $330 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appea! is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, Thursday, October 1, 1998 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) These item{ will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyOne wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) wili be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened andthe items acted on as a group. RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan Amendment File No. P98-0493 - Fruitvale Properties L.L.C. to amend the Specific Plan to allow vehicular/pedestrian access from two HMP,/R-2 lots to Coffee Road on property located west of Coffee Road between Olive Drive and Hageman Road, specifically along lots 4 and 8 of Tract 4263 Phase 1. (Negative Declaration on.file) (Continued from September 17, 1998) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Roll call vote. Deny General Plan Amendment File No. P98-0475 - Martin-Mclntosh requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan to change the designation from OS-P (Parks) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 2.38 acres and from LR (Low Density Residential) to OS-P (Parks) on 2.44 acres located south of Chamber Boulevard between Buena Vista Road and Grand Lakes Avenue, north of StOckdale High School. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from Septembei' 17, 1998) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny Roll call vOte. PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON ADEQUACY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE SOUTH BELTWAY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND SPECIFIC PLAN LINE. The South Beltway Transportation Corridor Project is a Circulation Element Amendment and Specific Plan Line. It is proposed to preserve a 300-feet-wide-right-of-way transportation corridor for a freeway alignment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive comments and refer to staff. Roll call vote. Agenda, PC, ThUrsday, October 1, 1998 Page 3 o 10. 11. 12. ..... P_UBLIC_HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIMF Tentative Tract 5846 - Vesting (Martin-Mclntosh) Located south of Harris Road, west of Ashe Road consisting of 97 lots on 23.11acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling). (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT Tentative Tract 5921 (Porter Robertson, Eng) Located west of Calloway Drive, south of Norris Road consisting of 196 lots on 57.48 acres zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling). (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Group vote. PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change Approve with conditions Zone Change P98-0589 (Porter-Robertson, Eng) Located south of west of Highway 178, east of Morning Drive from an A (Agriculture) zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone on 20 + acres to allow development of single family residential homes. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions Roll call vOte. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF 13. NEXT PRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT pjt September 28, 1998 Planning Director I ~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING' OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held October 1, 1998, City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. ~ 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: ALTERNATE: Absent: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN RON SPRAGUE MATHEW BRADY ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: STAFF: 'CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV = Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS Bill Johnson and Larry Buss had filled out a speaker card to speak on the RiverLakes Specific Plan Amendment. They were asked if they would like to speak now or wait until the Amendment came up on the agenda. They both responded they would wait. Notice of Right to Appeal was read by Chairman Tkac. = CONSENT CALENDAR None Commissioner Tavorn stated that he was not at the Monday pre-meeting but he had listened to a copy of the tape and would be participating in tonight's meeting. Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 1, 1998 page 2 4. RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan Amendment File No. P98-0493 - Fruitvale ........ P reperties-L~-L--,C ~-to-a m e n d-~he .SpeCifi¢.Plan-.to-allow vehicular/pedestrian .access .from two HMR/R-2 lots to Coffee Road on property located west of Coffee Road between Olive Drivel and Hageman Road, specifically along lots 4 and 8 of Tract 4263 Phase 1. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from September 17, 1998) COmmissiOner Dhanens declared a conflict of interest on this item. A staff report Was given. Mr. Grady gave a slide presentation of the RiverLakes area to help orient ithe Commission in the decision before them in respect to this project. Chairman Tkac reopened the public hearing and asked that anyone in opposition to staffs recommendation come forward to speak. Mike Callagy from Cornerstone Engineering representing the RiverLakes Master Association expressed their concerns of high density residential projects located behind single family residential communities. They would like to have the traffic from those communities exit off Of Coffee Road as opposed to the interior of this project. Mr. Callagy gave a demonstration of location and geometry of access with residents on the east side. ~ David Stant°n, President of the RiverLakes Master Association, spoke in opposition of staffs recommendation. He stated that 10 years ago when the agreement was made no one livedin the area. It Was made without input from any resident who lives there today. His association has looked for a configuration anywhere else in the city and found that there were no multi-family taking access through a single family residential area when there is access that can easily-be done through an arterial street. Mr. Paul Kay, Planning and Development Director for the applicant, Fruitvale Properties, stated that the request is simply to allow access from Parcels 16 and 18 to Coffee Road. He stated that the parcels had not been sold that it wasn't known what would be built there. If apartments did go on these parcels the density would be no more than 90 units for the northern piece and the southern piece no more than 113 units. That makes the trip generation 527 for the northern piece and 662 for Parcel 18. A single family project with 90 units woUld generate 861 trips. Judy Collie~, a resident of Northshore in RiverLakes, was concerned about the walk through in the block wall between the entrance to RiverLakes and the school site. The children use it going to and from school and the additional traffic would make it more hazardous to them. Mark AtkinS, a resident a RiverLakes, stated that it makes sense to have access on Coffee Road and hoped the Commission would approve this. Since there:was no one else wishing to speak in opposition, Chairman Tkac requested that anyone, in favor who wished to speak come forward. Gary Hungstein, a resident on the east side of OliVe Drive, stated that traffic on Coffee Road has steadily gotten worse in the 12 years he has lived there. It would be a real safety issue without a stop sign if access were allowed for theSe parcels on Coffee Road. , Vlinutes, PC, Th'ursday, October 1, 1998 Page 3 Tom Burkel who lives on the east side of Coffee Road, has worked with the RiverLakes __preject..sinCe.the.beginning._..His.memor:y..of-the.project. Js that. the-plan-has ~been..there ~ -- from the start. The use of Coffee Road and the landscaping in place is like a family park and two additional openings on Coffee Road would spoil that. Traffic flow at this time seems quite good. Vikki Moore, a resident on the east side of Coffee Road, sees no reason to change the plan. One .of the conditions of the original project when the multi-family was approved for Coffee Road was that no ingress or egress on Coffee Road would be allowed. HenTM BroUghton, who lives east of Coffee Road, Stated that he and two others gathered over 200 signatures on petitions against the access on Coffee Road. He also stated that the neighborhood on the east side of Coffee Road is 100 percent opposed to the amendment. . Bill Johnson, a resident on the east Side of Coffee Road, stated that a lot of their residents 0n the east side bought their homes from 10 to. 14 years ago and feel that there is a real safety issue if this project were approved. There are a lot of heavy equipment vehicles that use Coffee Road and he feels that would be more dangerous with additiOnal access. The linear park on Coffee Road is heavily used and with acceleration and deceleration lanes and access points off of Coffee, the entire nature of the linear park would be changed. Bill Cates, Larry Buss, Dallas Moore, Harold Sugden, homeowners, all expressed their concerns Over increased traffic and expressed support of staff's recommendation. The public hearing portion of this item was closed. Commissioner Boyle stated that he wanted everyone in the audience on both sides of the issue to understand that whatever they decide is not the final decision on the project. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. There will be another opportunity to have a public hearing with the City Council on this matter. He stated that he has decided to support staff in their decision to deny the project as he feels that traffic is not really the issue. Traffic would only be increased by 2.3 percent and would not be an impact. Mr. Boyle feels that the general plan says to limit access and he feels there is no compelling reason to change that at this time. The most important issue Mr. Boyle feels is a position of trust. The City made a commitment to the people east of Coffee Road 10 years ago to limit access to Coffee Road. If the City Council chooses to breach that trust is one thing, but Mr. Boyle feels that the Planning Commission should not. .CommissiOner Kemper agreed with Mr. Boyle and feels that each of the neighborhoods have valid arguments but agrees with staff that there would not be a big impact as multi- family is lessof an impact than single family. Commissioner Kemper asked if there is a speed limit decrease in the works for Coffee Road? Ms. Shaw said "no" not at this time. Ms. Shaw is not aware of any request for one. COmmissiOner Tavorn agreed with Mr. Boyle that based on technical information he requested from staff, he agrees with staff. The plan has been in effect for ten years and everyone Should have been aware of the street design when purchasing their homes. If Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 1, 1998 Page 4 the homeo~wners have a complaint about not being made aware of the high density .......... zeni~gfor-these-areas-when-theypurchased.their-.homes-then-they should, contact-the Department of Real Estate. Commiss~°ne~ Sprague stated that he thinks it is very poor master planning to have high density baCked up to Coffee Road and flow through a subdivision. The Planning Commission should look at future development for this reason. Commissioner Sprague also suppdrted staff. CommissiOner Tkac Stated that he also supported the denial but wanted the audience to realize the City Council will make the final decision. Commissioner Tkac also thanked the audienCe for coming out and taking an active role in City planning. A motion Was made by Commissioner Boyle and seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt the resolution making findings as set forth in staff report approving the Negative Declaration and denying the requested RiverLakes Ranch Specific plan Amendment to allow vehiCular pedestrian access from Coffee Road to Lots 4 and 8 of Tract 5363 as shown in Exhibit "A" and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Boyle, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn, Tkac None Commissioner Brady A five minute break was taken and Commissioner Tavorn left the meeting at 7:35 p.m. General plan Amendment File No. P98-0475 - Martin-Mclntosh requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan to change the designation from OS-P (Parks) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 2.38 acres and from LR (Low Density Residential) to OS-P (Parks) on 2.44 acres located south of Chamber Boulevard between Buena Vista Road and Grand Lakes Avenue, north of'Stockdale High School. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from September 17, 1998) Commissioner Boyle declared that he does not have a conflict of interest on this project and although he did not participate in Monday's pre-meeting he did sit in the audience and listen to the testimony~ A staff report was given recommending a land use change on the park site from OS-P to LR but no change to the site they want to switch it to. The public hearing of this portion was opened, no one in opposition spoke. ROger Mclntosh, representing Castle & Cooke, CA spoke in favor. Mr. Mclntosh stated that Castle and Cooke and the City met and the proposal is to build the park in its location in accordance with the Agreement 96-81 or pay an in-lieu fee and amend the agreement. The public Portion of the meeting was closed. Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 1, 1998 page 5 6emmissioher. Ohanens.asked. Mr._..MclntoSh.just. to.clarify4he.point whether. Agreement 96-81 did not allow them to pay in-lieu fees. Mr. Mclntosh said he does not think it allows for in-lieu fees. But by amending the agreement the park could be built in an R-1 zone With aConditional Use Permit, Commissioner Dhanens stated that with the amended motion the Commission received on' Monday he could support staff's recommendation. A motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens and seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt the resolution making the findings as set forth in the attached draft resolution approving the negative declaration and approving the general plan amendment to change the land use designation from OS-P to LR on 2.3 acres and deny the change from LR to OS-P on 2.44 acres and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: ' CommisSiOners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tkac NOES: ABSENT: None Commissioner Brady PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON ADEQUACY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE SOUTH BEL'rWAY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND SPECIFIC PLAN LINE. The South Beltway Transportation Corridor Project is a Circulation Element Amendment and Specific Plan Line. It is proposed to preserve a 300-feet-wide'right-of-way transportation corridor for a freeway alignment. Commissioner Boyle declared a conflict of interest on this item. A staff report was given. The primary purpose of the meeting tonight was to take public comments On the adequacy of the EIR. Not to make a decision on the alignment and the alternatives. Marian Shaw, Engineer with the Public Works Department, gave a brief project description~ Jeff Zimmerman, representing consultants Woodward-Clyde, gave a presentation on the EIR. Mr. Grady wanted to remind the Commission that the.final decision would not be made until December 17. The review period in which time staff would be receiving comments would not close until October 19. The public hearing portion of this item was opened. Anyone wishing to speak on the project Was invited to speak. Commissioner iBrady was seated at 8:17 p.m. He mentioned he had not attended Monday's Pre-meeting but he had listened to the tape. Minutes, PC, ThUrsday, October 1, 1998 Page 6 Linda Alge~ stated that the Hosking Road alignment would not be the better one as it ........ would LhaVe~a. great-deal~of~impacton..the.neighborhoods, just.being built.now....In 15 or~ .. 20 years it would have major impact on ones who want to sell. The Taft Highway alignment Would be a better one because of the access to Highway 99 and I-5 and it would affect commercial property that "are not what you might call booming businesses." .The Taft Highway alignment would also be built on mainly farm land not residential. Steve LewiS, staff engineer for the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, noted that the district's written comments from last December were incorporated into the text of the DEIR and woUld like to express the district's willingness to remain active in this process and to wore through the issues that are a concern to them. He stated that he would like to emphasize three issues tonight. First, the preferred alignment on its eastern route runs through roughly seven miles of the district and will impact various systems including a canal, emergency facilities, pipelines and possibly pumping plants. His district was designed 30 years ago to provide surface water service to specific parcels laid out in specific configurations. Disruption of the infrastructure has the potential to affect dramaticallY district operations and mitigation costs may be substantial. Second, Arvin- Edison is under obligation to deliver an average '150,000 acre feet of water per year to their surface water service area. Their water district was formed to mitigate severe ground water overdraft. Implications of the preferred alignment may include a water redistribution plant 'and/or a redesign of primary and alternative distribution systems. ^rvin-Edison thinks that this warrants a close look. Lastly, agricultural lands with water delivery contracts with the district have an obligation to pay annual fees in order to support the distriCt facilities as well as their water and power contracts. These obligations were formed prior to the implementation of the district project and they provide the means to ensure the feasibility of the district project along with the benefits that the project generates. These obligations run with the water surface contract lands and would Continue to br an obligation to the lands after being converted to freeway use. Otherwise, there would be a financial shortfall to the district and a corresponding increase to the cost of Surface water to the remaining land owners. Teri Bjorn, representing Enron Oil and Gas, noted two issues that were concerns of Enrons' on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR states that oilfields make up the largest percent of the existing uses in thearea. Secondly, a large portion of the western area of the alignments are a great interest to Enron and other oil companies. Enron has two existing 3D iseismic surveys and a third one planned in the immediate vicinity of the preferred alignment. Enron also has drilled two wells in the immediate vicinity and its important to note that one of the wells is to the north and one is to the south of the preferred alignment. Enron also has a leasee with a producing well in this area. Five other oil companies are actively involved in this area. With these issues in mind a representative of Enron and herself met with Stanley Grady on September 16, 1998. Ms. BjOrn stated that Enron wanted to know what the impact of "business as usual"' would havei In other words, its right to continue drilling in areas zoned agriculture or mineral resource within the corridor prior to commencement of construction. One other Concern Enron has is once Construction commences would Enron be compensated for loss of its surface development rights within the corridor and will it receive severance damages when the mineral' state is split by the corridor? Minutes, PC, ThUrsday, October 1, 1998 Page 7 Enron 1) 2) w°uld like the following issues clarified in the EIR: A description of the mineral resources in the final EIR be expanded and corrected. Particularly, pages 3-18, 3-23 and 3-110 of the Draft EIR. The' Draft EIR on page 3-106 notes that agricultural uses will be allowed to continued pending commencement of construction but there is no discussion of oil development activities that are currently permitted as a matter of right in the agriCultural and mineral resource zones. 3) The Draft EI'R oh pages EF-3 and 3-106 discusses the relocation of and compensation to homes and businesses when construction commences. Enron would like it noted that it supports the preferred alignment including the alternatives that vary slightly. Enron does not support the 3 and 4 or the two southerly alignmentsibecause they are more directly in the heart of on-going operations and explorati0neffOrts. Phil Beglin addressed his concerns that he saw in the Draft EIRi The area of the preferred a!ignment is not primarily agriculture as stated in the Draft EIR but growing so rapidly thatvarious major improvements are not referenced in the EIR which should affect the DEIR's use as a planning document. For example, there is a high school (Ridgeview) and a Park not even mentioned in the document. Noise and dust are also a concern during construction to the high school and the noise after the freeway is put through. The long term choice would be to select the Taft Highway alignment as it would affect less people. Eileen Mathis a resident of the Rose Marie subdivision, stated her concerns that the proposed beltway along Hosking would be 1/4 mile from her house. She stated she thought the Bear Mountain alignment should be preferred but if not that one then the Taft Highway alignment would have a much less impact with regards to noise, dust and less disruption to the high school. Lisa PhillipS, a resident of Kings Road, is concerned that if there is 270 residents that would have to be displaced as opposed to less than a dozen businesses along Taft Highway it seems to her that Taft Highway would be a much more likely choice. Agriculture Would be less affected by the Taft Highway alignment also. Peggy Whitaker, a business owner on Taft Highway and a resident on Hosking Road, stated her Preference for the Taft Highway alignment. The residence is much more important that the business in Pumpkin Center. She would gladly move her business if it meant saving her residence. Robert Pratt, Jan Hueling, Michael Lehman, Roberta Holtzman, Andy Cadena and Phyllis Gaffing, residents of StoneCreek, Sierra Meadows and RoseMarie, spoke in opposition to the preferred alignment. Dennis Fox stated that he objected to the term "beltway" as this doesn't connect to anything. Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 1, 1998 Page 8 Alan Holtzman mentioned that congestion would be really bad with the new beltway as it is-on,.Highway 99.and..White. Lane John Garone spoke in opposition to the preferred alignment as it is going through current development. It makes more sense to him to take it farther out such as Taft Highway or:further. The public portion of this item was closed. Commissioner Dhanens asked what the projected traffic volume year is based on. He' also wanted to discuss another issue about the relief of congestion off of arterials in the immediate neighborhood and the regional and interstate traffic that would be using these alignmentsand not just traffic diverted from arterials or diverted from State Route 58 or 99 on a local basis. Commissioner Dhanens also needed some clarification on one of the mitigation measures regarding "equal value habitat" and hOw that would take place. He stated that he would like some historical information about beltways and how they worked in Other.places. COmmissiOner Brady commented that the NOP stated that the alignment would pass within one mile of Ridgeview High School and the project could potentially affect access from existing neighborhoods to local schools and recreation facilities. He wanted to know if the Kern High School District or any other school districts were notices. He has seen a letter from the Greenfield Union School District. If the school districts weren't noticed, could staff notify them so that they might have the opportunity to comment. Mr. Grady mentioned that Kern High School District was notified but staff had not received anything in writing. Commissioner Brady asked if the impact on schools would be addresS in the Response to Comments of the FEIR and Mr. Grady responded with a "yes." CommissiOner Dhanens asked staff if the Planning Commission at anytime could play around with some of the alternative alignments and select combinations of them to satisfy some of the concerns. Mr. Grady responded by saying absolutely, that's part of the action in December. CommissiOner Kemper asked how far on either side of the alternative routes were people noticed? Mr. Grady stated that an expanded notice, about % mile for each alignment Was given. Commissioner Sprague commented that this beltway system should come in further to the south as 20 years from now Bear Mountain may be a really good corridor for this. Engle Road and Bear Mountain coming to the east and going up Vineland or Comanche to Highway 178 at Alfred Harrell Highway instead of going up through a subdivision to intersect with Mesa Matin. CommissiOner Tkac stated that there is no way to make everyone happy and thanked everyone for coming out. commissioner Dhanens made a motion and Commissioner Kemper seconded it to refer the comments presented this evening to staff in the preparation of a Final EIR. Motion carried by tthe following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 1, 1998 Page 9 = AYES: Commissioners Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tkac NOES: ~ None ABSENT: Tavorn PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIMF Tentative Tract 5846 (Martin-Mclntosh) Located sOuth of Harris Road, west of Ashe Road consisting of 97 lots on 23.11 acres, zoned R-1 =(One Family Dwelling). (Negative Declaration on file) Nothing Was added in the staff report since Monday's meeting and staff was recommending approval. The public Portion of the meeting was opened and no one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh, representing Castle and Cooke, CA, concurred with the staff report. The public Portion of the meeting was closed. CommiSsioner Dhanens made a motion and Commissioner Brady seconded it to approve a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5846 to expire July 31, 1999, with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A." Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT Tentative Tract 5921 (Porter Robertson, Eng) Located west of Calloway Drive, south of Norris Road consisting of 196 lots on 57.48 acres zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling). (Negative Declaration on file) Commissioner Dhanens declared a conflict of interest on this item. A staff report was given, staff recommends approval subject to conditions with a change in two conditions delivered by memo from the Planning Director to the Planning Commission. The applicant coUld construct a block wall on the northwest portion of the tract and the canal fencing along the west portion of the tract juSt prior to recordation. There is also an amendment we received from the Fire Department that is included in the memo requesting you refer to the revised motion. There was also a question Monday regarding the canal fencing. The standard calls for a six-foot chainlink with three strands of barbed wire bringing the total height to seven feet on that canal fence. City ordinance reads that barbed wire cannot be used on the sites rear or front Yard fencing. It Can be three feet away from either of those fences. The canal fencing could be installed at the tallest slope. Staff is recommending approval with those changes. The public hearing portion of this item was opened. No one spoke in opposition of the item. Harold Robertson spoke about the modifications in the conditions. Mr. Roberts0n referred the Planning Commission to Planning Department condition 4 which is addressed to the construction of a chainlink fence along the right-of-way of the Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 1, 1998 Page 10 Friant-Kern Canal which bounds this development on the west. Condition No. 5 has to ...... do-with-constructio~of-a-six.-foot masonr:y_wall .along-.the~nor/hJine.of P_base.2 which would create a barrier from the northwest corner of Phase 1 to the Friant-Kern Canal. He stated that they do not have an objection to building the block wall nor the chainlink fence. Its a matter of timing. The Planning Department recommended that they be constructed prior to recordation of a map. They would like to propose that be changed to prior to iSsuance of a Certificate of Occupancy as prior to the Certificate of Occupancy there won't be any families exposed to the Friant-Kern Canal. Mr. RobertSon proposed that conditions 4 and 5 be amended to read instead of "prior to recordation of any map", "prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy." Mr. Robertson spoke with Marian Shaw, Engineer with Public Works, and the first condition he wanted to address was Public Works Condition No. 4 which has to d° with construction of a median island in Norris Road immediately west of Calloway. He believed it had been modified but did not have a copy of that. Ms. Shaw commented that the Traffic Engineer sent a memo to the Commission in regards to this but the coPies were never made. ^ two minute recess at 9:21 p.m. was requested so that Ms. Shaw could get the memo to the Commissionl Ms. Shaw read the condition change which said instead of "eliminate the median island shown," it says "design the median shown in Norris Road to accommodate a future median modification so that dual left turn lanes can be provided." Ms. Shaw said the memo went on to say that the requirement for dual left turn lanes is unlikely but we needed to have the flexibility to be able to provide that should it become necessary. Mr. RobertSon said that was acceptable to them. Public Works Conditions 6 and 7 were the next conditions Mr. Robertson wanted to discuss. Condition 6 reads: "the median island shall be constructed in Calloway Drive at San Ysidro Lane to.allow only northbound to westbound left turns into the subdivision. The island shall extend a minimum of 100 feet on each side of the intersection." Condition No. 7 reads: "on and off-site road improvements are required from any collector or arterial street to provide left turn channelization into each street or access point within the subdivision or development. Such channelization shall be developed to provide necessary transitions and deceleration lanes to meet the current CalTrans standards fOr the design speed of the roadway in question." In discussing these two conditions with Public Works staff, they came to a resolution that instead of putting a median island in there, they would put a right turn median on San Ysidro Lane that would allow:on y right turn traffic out of the subdivision. The intent of these conditions was to allow people as they exit San Ysidro to turn left and go north to Calloway. By putting the median in now it prevented future public criticism when the entire median was built and left turns were restricted at that time. This was acceptable to the Public Works Department: The public portion of the meeting was closed. Dennis Fidler, Building Director, mentioned that rather than issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, he would rather it said "first issuance of a permit" so that it would not fall through the Cracks. Mr. Robertson agreed. Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 1, 1998 Page11 --Ms.- Shaw-Suggested-.additional .language-toCondition-No:-6.~to~r-ead after-the, median island "or other traffic diversion structure acceptable to the City Engineer." Mr. Robertson said that was agreeable except he wanted to modify it to say for other than a model home. Mr. Fidler said he would rather leave it at the first issuance but would leave it up.to the Commission. Mr. Robertson stated that the builder is Kyle Carter who has a reputation for being very reputable. Commissioner Sprague concurred with Mr. Robertson as long as the models were self- contained and fenced, he did not see anything wrong with it. Mr. Robertson suggested additional wording could be modified to read prior to issuance of a building permit on other than a model home or the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. CommissiOner Boyle asked Mr.' Fidler how often do we make exceptions as to when improvements need to be put in? Mr. Fidler responded by saying that was up to the discretion of the Planning Commission. They normally like to have them before the issuance of a permit for safety. Commissioner Boyle stated that his preference would be~ on the issuance of first building permit. Commissioner Boyle made a motion and Commissioner Sprague seconded it to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve the vesting tentative traci 5921 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with changes referred to in the memo from the Planning Director dated October 1, 1998, with a change to Condition 4 and 5 of the Planning that it wOuld be prior to the issuance of a building permit and ,On Public Works Condition 4 would be to design a median as pursuant to the memo that was read to them on the record dated September 29 and also on Public Works Conditions 6 and 7 are being modified to read a median island or other traffic diversion structure acceptable to the City Engineer which would allow for right turn from San Ysidro to go southbound on Calloway and eliminate a left turn going northbound. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change- Zone change P98-0589 (Porter-Robertson, Eng) Located south of west of HighWay 178, east of Morning Drive from an A (Agriculture) zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone on 20 + acres to allow development of single family residential homes. (Negative Declaration on file) A staff repdrt was given and staff said that after field checking the site no evidence could be found that should be a concern over environmental cleanliness of the Site so staff recommends approval with conditions. The public hearing portion of the item was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson stated that he was here for any questions anyone might have. The public hearing portion of the item was closed. Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 1, 1998 Page12 ........ -A-motiorVWas-made-by-Cemmissiener Dhanens ,and.sec, onded~by-Sprague-to apProve. -- and adopt the negative declaration and to approve zone change P98-0589 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A" and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: None 10. 11. COMMUNICATIONS There were no written or verbal communications. COMMIssiON COMMENTS Commissioner Dhanens reported that a meeting was held with staff and developers regarding the Hillside Ordinance. Another meeting will be held October 5 at 4 p.m. Commissioher Boyle thanked staff for the presentation on RiverLakes Ranch. He thought it Was extremely well done. 12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF NEXT PRE,MEETING. 13. A motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens and seconded by Commissioner Brady to cancel the pre-meeting on October 15. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. pjt October 26, 1998