Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 20, 2003Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac, None Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Jim Movius, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Craig Smith, representing the Bakersfield Bluffs and Open Space Committee, spoke regarding the northeast bluffs. He expressed their concerns about the on-going development on the bluffs. They feel that the city should study the composition of the bluffs and have some development standards just for the bluffs. The committee feels that the trails that are there now are being lost to development without the proper consideration to keeping them when the development is made. They requested that the City and the Commission use staff and committees to study the issue and make recommendations. The committees should include the current landowners, the users of the bluffs and future homeowners. They would like a recommendation based on science and the will and want of the people of Bakersfield. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on Tract 5430, Phases J & K (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4) Motion was made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to approve the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items None Minutes, PC, February 20, 2003 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS 5.1) Vestinq Tentative Parcel Map 10927 (Hopper Properties) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Lee Jamieson, representing the applicant, said they accept and agree to all the conditions. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay asked if streetlights will be installed on Maurice Avenue? Ms. Shaw said that she did not have time to look at that prior to the meeting. Commissioner Tragish stated he has concerns about the traffic and unsafe access and based on prior testimony during the EIR and GPA hearings, he will not support approval of this application. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the Vesting Tentative Map 10927 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Tragish ABSENT: None Commissioner Tragish said that the basis of his objection is that he believes the access to this property is insufficient, inadequate for the buildings that it is going to serve as was revealed during the GPA and zone hearings as well as creating an unsafe traffic situation. 5.2&3) Vestin,q Tentative Parcel Map 10938 & 10340 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 5) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions and memorandums dated February 18 from Ms. Shaw and one from Mr. Grady dated February 20. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Roger Mclntosh, representing the applicant, stated they have read the staff report and concur with the two memos. He is here to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10938 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution and incorporating the Planning Director's memorandum dated February 20, 2003 and the Public Works memorandum dated February 18, 2003. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, February 20, 2003 Page 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac None None Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10940 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution and incorporating the Planning Director's memorandum dated February 20, 2003 and the Public Works memorandum dated February 18, 2003. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) Vestin,q Tentative Tract Map 6149 (Phased) (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 3) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions. Public portion of the hearing opened. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, and Harry Love, a resident of the northwest, spoke in opposition to the project. They feel that cumulative impacts to traffic and air quality are significant and should be considered as there are many houses being built in the area. Mr. Love said that this is a chance that the northeast not become the northwest. This is a chance for the northeast to become a model community - to do something about air quality and transportation. Mr. Love feels that from the tracts that have been approved, there is not going to be a difference between the northwest and northeast. Air quality and traffic concerns are not being considered. He feels that an EIR should be done and it should look at the cumulative effects of this project and other projects on air quality and transportation. Matt VoVilla, representing the developer, spoke regarding some of the traffic concerns. He said that along with this project two additional lanes will be added to State Route 175 on the south side plus transitions at either end. He also pointed out that improvements to 178 are included in the transportation impact fee program. They prepared a traffic impact study at the request of CalTrans and their analysis showed that State Route 175 with just one additional lane is each direction will function at a level of service A and B through the year 2030. In their study they used the Kern COG Traffic Model and added their project to it. Mr. VoVilla said that they have read the conditions and agree with them but there are some they would like to clarify for the record. Eric Powers, a commercial real estate broker in Bakersfield, said that he along with five other investors are currently purchasing Rio Bravo Golf Course and they have looked at the plan and do not have a problem with it. They need people out there to support the golf course. Minutes, PC, February 20, 2003 Page 4 Mr. VoVilla asked about Public Works condition number three requiring that State Route 178 be improved to City and CalTrans requirements. They want to clarify that that improvement is to full arterial standards on the south half of the roadway within the project limits plus appropriate transitions to the existing typical and either end of the project. Mr. VoVilla also asked about condition $ that requires the project to construct a facility which is on the Metropolitan Transportation Impact Fee list. It is his understanding that that facility is additional lanes on State Route 175 within the project limits. Mr. VoVilla had additional concerns on conditions 25, 26 & 27 which require construction of masonry sound walls along the project frontage. The condition states that the sound walls will be constructed prior to the first final map being finalled. They would like that condition modified to allow the developer to construct sound walls concurrent with the phase of development. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Grady to comment on Mr. VoVilla's comments regarding the conditions. Ms. Shaw said that his understanding of condition number three is correct. The boundary of the map would be to the centerline of State Route 178. Regarding condition number 8 Ms. Shaw said they will get traffic impact fees for the project. Mr. VoVilla said they have received credit for one lane. The project would be obligated to expand 178 to three full lanes, plus a bike lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. There is funding in the fee program for one lane. The developer will receive credit for that. Commissioner Tragish asked if 178 is ultimately going to be a six lane highway? Ms. Shaw said that it is shown on the Circulation Element as an arterial which is six lanes with a landscape median. Commissioner Tragish asked if staff has a problem with Mr. VoVilla's request for conditions 25, 26 & 27? Mr. Grady said this is a phased map and he doesn't know how the phases will line up and what affect that will have on how the wall will be constructed. If the Commission is inclined to provide that flexibility, his recommendation is that a condition be put on that states that it will be determined through negotiation with the Planning Director prior to submitting the final map. Mr. VoVilla said they have no objection to adding that clause to the condition. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. VoVilla if their improvements will handle the traffic on 1787 Mr. VoVilla said that they have great faith in the Kern COG Traffic Model and that is what they used to generate year 2030 traffic volumes. They took those traffic volumes and added project traffic to it. Commissioner Tragish asked staff if we know what the time table is for the widening of 175 or how the money for traffic impact fees is going to be used to develop that particular highway? Ms. Shaw said that 178 has been a concern for a number of developments that have shown up before the Planning Commission for a number of years. Ms. Shaw said that the City in the Hills project has a requirement to widen 175 to four lanes from Morning to Masterson by half buildout. Ms. Shaw said that 178 today has 3,800 cars a day on the two lanes. If we add the traffic for Mr. VoVilla's tract and for Mr. Carter's tract across the street, it would bring the traffic up to a grand total of 10,000 ADT. A two lane arterial at level of service A can handle 12,000 cars a day. Level of service A represents "free flow." The traffic level at this portion of 178 in the year 2030 is 13,000 ADT which would be level of service C for a two lane arterial. The City, through its Traffic Impact Fee program, has been very aggressive in doing the improvements as they are required. Once State Route 178 reaches a point where the level of service C is being approached for the two lanes, the City will be very aggressive about making sure it is four lanes from Morning to Miramonte. State Route 175 does not have a problem at this time. It is level of service A. Minutes, PC, February 20, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Tragish asked if there is an application to develop the property across the street next to Mr. Carter's property? Mr. Grady said he believes there is one pending. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission has the power to request an EIR? Mr. Grady said that if the Commission believes they have heard evidence to suggest that the environmental presentation that staff has provided them in their staff report is lacking and they have information to suggest that there would be a significant unmitigated impact as a result of approval of this project as presented to them, the Commission does have the authority to request that evaluation be done. Staff is submitting to the Commission that this project is a re-subdivision of an existing area that was part of the evaluation of the 2010 General Plan Update. It is not a new land use designation or zone district. It had an expired map on it. This is just a re-subdivision of that property. The finding in the EIR during the general plan stated that even with the application of feasible mitigation, the impacts would still not be able to be mitigated to less than significant. As a result and because the project is of value, staff made a Statement of Overriding Considerations which says they are doing all that they can but that's not enough. The EIR has been prepared and certified, the issues have been raised. They have been evaluated. The plan was approved. For this project, you can't go back and try to invalidate the EIR because the issues you raised during the hearing process were not acted upon and approved as part of the process. Staff believes that this project can be approved with the environmental analysis that has been supplied to the Commission. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Tragish asked why the park has been reduced in size and if the developer will put in improvements? Mr. Grady said that is providing an opportunity to have a completed park at a point of time sooner than the city would be able to under the city's ordinances. Commissioner McGinnis asked if there is an EIR for City in the Hills and if so would it be applicable for this project? Mr. Grady said yes there was one but the EIR would not do for this project. The general plan EIR is the most recent one that would be applicable. Commissioner McGinnis asked Ms. Shaw about Table 6 on Page 12 of the traffic analysis they received. The chart says State Route 178 would be a level of service D. Mr. VoVilla said that those levels of service are without any mitigation. It is just one lane in each direction as it exists now. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. VoVilla when the extra lanes on 178 would be constructed? Mr. VoVilla said they would be constructed concurrent with each phase. Each phase contributes its pro-rata share to improvements on 178. Commissioner McGinnis asked if the money is going into an escrow account or will 178 actually be improved? Mr. VoVilla said the phases that front 178 will be required to widen 178. Phases that do not front 178 will contribute money into an escrow account. At the completion of the project, two additional lanes will be added. CalTrans has no objection to this or to the addition of a signal light on Miramonte. Commissioner McGinnis asked Ms. Shaw if this applicant will contribute to the signalization and will that take place anytime during the construction of this project? Ms. Shaw said that a signal will go in at Miramonte when it is warranted. It is not warranted today or expected to be warranted any time soon. Commissioner McGinnis said that he has an uneasy feeling about 178. It is not a safe road. Commissioner Ellison asked staff if they have identified any potential design hazards at 178 and Miramonte? Ms. Shaw said that in her discussions with the Traffic Engineer he has not mentioned or identified any hazards. Commissioner Ellison said he sat at the intersection of 178 Minutes, PC, February 20, 2003 Page 6 and Miramonte and noticed that if you tried to do a left turn out and head west on 178, the cars coming from the east come up a severe grade and there is a perception of a limited line of sight. It is about nine seconds when the cars come up the grade to when they pass the intersection. That is a rough estimate but he has very serious concerns about traffic safety at that intersection. Commissioner Ellison asked how the warrant process works regarding traffic signals? Ms. Shaw said that she is not involved in the priority list and determination of whether or not warrants have been met. She has the signal priority list for 2003 and 2004 and a traffic signal at 178 and Miramonte does not show up on that list. She does not know the answer to that question. Commissioner Ellison asked if the Commission has the authority to require a signal there as part of the conditions of approval? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Ellison asked if the Commission has the authority to increase the width of the bike lane to five feet? Mr. Grady said increasing the width would have implications on the pavement width for the roadway and he is not sure if the ability exists to widen the bike lane and still accomplish the required lanes at ultimate buildout of the arterial. Commissioner Ellison asked what the recommended bike lane width is adjacent to a state highway? Ms. Shaw said that the minimum width for a Class II bike lane is four feet. On streets with curb and gutter, it would be three feet from the lip of the gutter. Commissioner Ellison asked if the bike lane will continue further to the west according to the Specific Trails Plan? Mr. Grady said that according to the land use map for the bike plan, it goes west to Morning Drive. Commissioner Ellison asked Mr. VoVilla if the applicant would have a problem installing a traffic signal at 178 and Miramonte? Mr. VoVilla said they would have no objection to a signal being tied to a later phase of the development if that signal can be funded by the fee list. The developer would construct a signal at a time when it is warranted. Commissioner Ellison said he has a concern with the steep grade to the east of the project and line of sight. He said they might want to have that evaluated as part of conditioning the placement of the signal at the intersection. Ms. Shaw said she cannot guarantee that this signal will have funding through the transportation impact fee. The Commission needs to consider that in their deliberations. A five minute recess was called. Commissioner Gay said he supports the project but has a very strong concern on the safety factor - not the level of service. He would like to see a traffic signal at 178 and Miramonte. Commissioner Gay asked if we normally allow phasing when building a sound wall? Mr. Grady said that option is available. Staff hasn't had a chance to study what affect it would have on the potential for noise to bleed around into the neighborhood based on phasing installation of the wall. If the Commission is inclined to approve that request, then the condition should say that it would be on review and approval of the Planning Director. Commissioner Gay asked if CalTrans has to approve any modifications on 1787 Ms. Shaw said yes it is under their jurisdiction. Commissioner Gay suggested that an acceleration lane be put in Minutes, PC, February 20, 2003 Page 7 by the developer west bound at Miramonte until a traffic signal can be installed. Ms. Shaw said she cannot address that this evening. Ms. Shaw suggested this item be continued so that the applicant, Mr. Walker and herself could meet to discuss some of the points the Commission has raised to see if a conclusion can be reached to satisfy the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gay said that if he were voting tonight he would vote no but suggested that the project be continued. They need to address the safety issue on the left turn lanes at Park Palisade and Miramonte before it is approved. Commissioner Blockley said he also likes the project but has the same concerns that the other Commissioners have regarding the safety issues. Commissioner Blockley asked if there is any assurance that 178 will be realigned to a different location by 2030 when the stoplight, mentioned in conditions 6.1 and 6.2, will be required by the traffic studies? Ms. Shaw said there is no funding in place to construct 178 as a freeway along the adopted specific plan line. There is none slated for the next seven years. Commissioner Blockley asked, in that case, if there is a contingency plan to put another signal in a Park Palisade if necessary before 2030? Ms. Shaw said it would have to be done as an encroachment permit for CalTrans. Commissioner Blockley asked if it is possible to get the widening of 178 done at a certain time in the development as one improvement rather than phasing it and, if not, what happens to the widening requirement if not all phases are completed? Ms. Shaw said that, for instance, if only two phases are completed and that portion of 178 is widened and the remainder of the map expires, the remaining improvements would not go in unless there were sufficient funds in the escrow account that the city could use to put it in. The escrow account would have to be set up to allow the city to do that. Commissioner Blockley said he would support the recommendation to continue this project to work out some of the issues. Commissioner Tragish said he would prefer the sound wall built out now rather than in phases. He feels it wouldn't be as effective built in stages. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission has the power to impose a condition requiring a traffic signal at 175 and Miramonte no later than when half the project is completed? Mr. Grady said with respect to the timing of the improvement, the Commission has some discretion. The Commission needs to place some evidence in the record to support the decision. The question about rather or not there should or should not be a signal has already been addressed. The question is when the signal will be placed in operation. Commissioner Tragish said he would like to hear from staff when that would be appropriate. Commissioner Tragish said he agrees with the other Commissioners comments that there is a substantial concern regarding the safety of that street. He would support a motion to continue this project. Ms. Shaw said that April 3 would be the first possible meeting it could be heard. Two weeks is too soon and the following meeting (March 20, 2003) is a general plan hearing only meeting so that leaves April 3. Mr. VoVilla said they have had additional discussion regarding the intersection of Miramonte and 178 and they feel the safety concerns are valid. The developer is willing to install that signal at a time that staff feels is appropriate. The developer would also like additional tracts that contribute traffic to that intersection to pay a proportionate share of that signal. The details and design of Minutes, PC, February 20, 2003 Page 8 the signal would be worked out with staff. The developer is also willing to install interim measures to enhance the safety of that intersection until the time the signal is warranted. That may include the left turn acceleration lane and also advance warning for westbound 178 traffic. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission has the power to request other developers to help pay for the signal? Ms. Shaw said that most of the intersection has tracts approved on it. They cannot go back on the tracts that have been approved and place a condition on them now to pay for that signal. There is one remaining tract that might contribute to the signal. That is the only option. It is not currently on the impact fee list but she will try to put it on the list but cannot guarantee that that will be done. Ms. Shaw said that Mr. VoVilla's client would have to agree to a traffic signal with no strings attached or the item will have to be continued. Mr. VoVilla said the developer was willing to fund the installation of the signal. They requested a threshold of 150 dwelling units (or something like that) that would allow the developer to collect some costs for the installation of that signal. They would also include some advanced warning for westbound traffic and the left turn acceleration lane. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is enough room for the acceleration lane? Mr. VoVilla said yes because there is 110 feet of right- of-way right now and the median won't be installed in the near future. Commissioner Tragish asked if Mr. VoVilla's client agrees to signalize the corner of Miramonte and 178, place warning signs east of there before the signalization goes in and the signal will be installed at a time determined by the City Planning Department no later than the final map and completion of the project. Also, that staff will try to put conditions on any subsequent tracts to be submitted to share in the cost. Ms. Shaw said they cannot promise to place a condition on a subsequent tract for this signal. Commissioner Tragish said he would delete that from his last sentence and asked if Mr. VoVilla's client agrees to rest of his statement? Mr. VoVilla said that yes except they desire the signal be installed either as determined by warrant by city staff or 150 dwelling units be the threshold for signal installation. Commissioner Gay said this is a very serious issue and talking about a significant amount of money they are asking the developer to do. His recommendation on the acceleration lane would be a painted, paved temporary one. Commissioner Gay said he would rather have a solid written commitment on the developer's part. He said he would support a motion to continue this so that the applicant and staff can go over the issues and get the developers agreement in writing. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to continue Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6149 until the April 3, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to give the applicant and staff time to work out the conditions of approval. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.2) Vestinq Tentative Tract 6165 (SmithTech, USA, Inc.) (Ward 7) Commissioner Ellison declared a conflict of interest on the following project. Staff report given recommending approval with conditions. This was pulled off of the consent Minutes, PC, February 20, 2003 Page 9 agenda at the pre-meeting. Diane Bart, representing her parents Mr. & Mrs. William Slikker who have mineral rights in the area, stated they have a concern that no one has come forward to offer them compensation to waive their rights. She has talked to a representative at SmithTech who then sent her a report saying that it was improbable that there are minerals under this area. She said that her concern is that her parents need compensation for their waiver or she would like 120 days before okaying this project so that she can do some research on her own. Bob Smith, engineer for the project, said they are in agreement with the conditions and said that Donna Thompson is present as the expert on the extraction of minerals and the probability thereof. Donna Thompson, a licensed geologist in the State of California representing the applicant, said she looked at a number of different sources before she gave her opinion. She looked at five wells and found that none of the wells she looked at had any oil and gas shows that appeared to have any commercial petroleum in them. She also looked at the recent exploration activity in the area and found no new wells drilled or proposed to be drilled in this area since 1988. That tells her that operators have looked in this area, explored it and moved on. This is supported by a letter from Channel Exploration. The letter says that based on their data it is extremely unlikely that there would be petroleum accumulations in this area. Based on all of this information she believes that there is minimal petroleum potential in this area. The potential would be improbable and not of a commercial nature. Commissioner McGinnis asked Ms. Bart if the project was continued if she would be willing to go out and retain a geologist to report back to the Commission on what he finds? Ms. Bart said she would like some time to do some research. The letter her parents received dated 30 days prior went to a wrong address and they received the letter only two weeks prior to the meeting. She said she would need a lot more time than that to research the issue. Commissioner Tragish said that it is his understanding that if there is not a waiver of mineral rights that the Bakersfield Municipal Code would require either a drill island or that the mineral production is unlikely and/or economic from the project site. Mr. Grady said that if the waivers are not provided at the time the map is submitted, they can provide a drill island, or they can also indicate their intention is to provide those waivers prior to or with the recording of the final. If they are unable to do that then there would be a second public hearing in front of the Planning Commission to address their solution to the mineral rights issue or they could do what the applicant has done which is to provide evidence that they believe extraction of the minerals is not probable. Commissioner Tragish said that he would go along with a continuance until April 3, 2003 to give Ms. Bart time to research the issue. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Smith if the notification included a copy of Ms. Thompson's report or did he just send a notification of terminating the minerals? Mr. Smith said it was notification of the meeting and request to waiver. She then asked for a copy of the report and they gave it to her last week. He agreed with a continuance until April 3 to give the applicant and the Slikker family time to work something out. Motion made Agenda Item south side of by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to continue 6.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6165 for SmithTech USA, Inc. located on the Harris Road, east of Akers Road and Challenger Park until April 3, 2003. Motion Minutes, PC, February 20, 2003 Page 10 carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac None Commissioner Ellison PUBLIC HEARINGS - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLANS 7.1) Comprehensive Siqn Plan 03-0116 (Panama and 99 Property, LLC) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Lee Jamieson, developer of the project, stated they agree with all the conditions and he is available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay said he had a concern about the easterly sign on the service station and asked if staff is aware of how much distance there is from the drive aisle and the sump and the residents to the east? Mr. Grady said that according to the sign plan there is 185 feet of separation between the canopy and the property line of the nearest residence. Commissioner Tkac asked Mr. Grady if the actual sign could have been bigger than it is? Mr. Grady said that a pylon sign on a C-2 zone could be 240 square feet. This one is larger at 256 square feet. It is the same height at 35 feet. The other basic dimensions are similar to a C-2 zone. There were no other Commission comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by McGinnis, to adopt the attached resolution with all findings and conditions and approving Comprehensive Sign Plan 03-0116. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: None 7.2) Comprehensive Siqn Plan 02-1155 (Nadel Architects, Inc.) (Ward 5) This item was withdrawn by the applicant. COMMUNICATIONS: None Minutes, PC, February 20, 2003 Page 11 ~COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Ellison suggested, as per Craig Smith's request during Public Statements, that a committee be formed at the Planning Commission level to study issues in the north Bakersfield open space area such as revising and adding to the Specific Trails Plan, look at some Planning issues for open space and possibly some setback from the steep slope areas. 10. Mr. Grady said the Commission should know that the City Council has referred this matter to the Urban Development Committee. Should an ordinance or any particular policy direction be forth coming from that, the result would be hearings in front of the Planning Commission. It would be premature for the Planning Commission to establish a committee to address something that is in committee with the Council. Commissioner Ellison said to narrow it down what he would like to see is a committee to focus in on the Specific Trails Plan and some planning for the westward extension of these trails. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Grady to clarify Mr. Ellison's comment and asked if that was not referred to the Urban Development Committee to be studied along with the hillside or would it be a separate issue? Mr. Grady said the question regarding the bluffs and the setbacks has been referred to the urban development committee. The question regarding trails is a planning project that staff is currently working on which would be coming before the Commission for review and approval and recommendation to the City Council. If the Commission desires to have a workshop to let them know where we are, and if the Commission desires a committee after that, they can then make that decision. Commissioner Gay said he would like to have a workshop and asked if the city should determine where the trails should be and not just base it on where they were historically? Mr. Grady said that would be part of the presentation they could make to the Commission with respect to the work that staff is doing. Staff used the information from the trails group which identified where people are walking now. Staff's refinement of that would be based on where it is practical to place the trails in concert with some of the other elements that staff is trying to bring into focus to make this trail plan a reality. One of them includes the use of funding to preserve some of the property up there as part of the Habitat Conservation Program as well as looking for other funding sources to maintain and develop trails and develop our parks in concert with some of the subdivisions that are going to be built. Mr. Grady said he feels like a workshop would be beneficial to the Commission. Commissioner Gay agreed. Commissioner Tkac said he also agreed that the Commission could benefit from some updating and they could base whether or not there is a need for a committee after the workshop. Commissioner Tragish said he is in agreement. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: Commissioner Tragish said he finds the pre-meetings beneficial and requested that there be one. It was decided to have one on March 3, 2003. Commissioner McGinnis requested the workshop be presented on the 6th if possible. Mr. Grady said he would try to have it done then. Minutes, PC, February 20, 2003 Page 12 11. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director