Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 5, 2003Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Gay, Tragish, Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac Commissioner Tragish Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Dennis Fiddler Staff: Jim Movius, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Commissioner Tkac stated he had listened to a tape from Monday's pre-meeting and is prepared to participate in tonight's meeting. Commissioner Blockley stated he had been briefed regarding Item 5.1 from the April 28, 2003 pre-meeting and is prepared to participate in that item. There were no public statements. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of March 31, April 3 and April 17, 2003. Motion was made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time for Vestinq Tentative Parcel Map No. 10781 (Mclntosh and Associates) (Ward 4) 4.2b Approval of Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 5997 (SmithTech USA) (Ward 3) 4.2c Approval of Vestinq Tentative Map 6190 (Porter-Robertson Eng) (Agenda Item 5.3) (Ward 6) Minutes, PC, June 5, 2003 Page 2 4.2d Approval of Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6186 (Phased) (Pinnacle Engineering) (Agenda Item 5.4) (Ward 4) Public portion of the hearing opened. Commissioner Spencer requested that agenda item 4.2d removed from the Consent Agenda. Public portion of the hearing closed. There were no other comments from the public or Commission. Motion was made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the remaining items on the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Tract Maps 5.1) Vestinq Tentative Map 6148 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 3) Public portion of the hearing was opened on May 1, 2003. Mr. Grady pointed out a memorandum from the Public Works Department dated May 27 revising certain conditions of approval for this project and one from himself dated June 3 revising some conditions of approval and contains the motion that staff is proposing be made for this project. The Commission also received a copy of an extensive response to correspondence received from Mr. Nipp of the Sierra Club. Staff proposed the Commission approve the project subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, spoke against the project. Mr. Nipp said he had only two days to respond to the responses to his letter and requested the hearing be continued to a later date so that he could more adequately prepare his comments to the city's responses. He then responded to several points in the letter he received from the city. Comment four said "the proximity of a fault rupture hazard zone is not necessarily relevant to the potential of strong ground shaking." Mr. Nipp said it would be interesting to know under what conditions such proximity to an earthquake fault would be irrelevant for ground shaking and it would be of interest to know whether those conditions are satisfied for this project. Mr. Nipp said that in comment five the city argues that in spite of being next to the Kern River the project is not in the Lake Isabella Dam Failure Inundation Zone. Mr. Nipp then showed a map on the overhead which showed the area and a bend in the river which he feels will make the water go straight down to where the project is. He admits that this has a very small chance of happening but he feels that an issue like this should be discussed in a full fledged EIR. Comment six said that the project "would have no impact on the existing wildlife or the wildlife corridor." Mr. Nipp said the conclusion is essentially unsubstantiated. There is no discussion of the affect of how dogs or cats from the houses will have on the wildlife corridor or the affect of the park. Also, what the noise and light would do to the wildlife corridor. He feels this also should be discussed in a project EIR. Regarding comment 8 having to do with bus turnouts and rideshare lots, the city says "that no evidence has been submitted to indicate the need for mitigation measures that would require these facilities..." Mr. Nipp said the city could be pro-active. They should be actively looking for such evidence. Mr. Nipp said that comment 14 says that they feel strongly that new houses should be situated to Minutes, PC, June 5, 2003 Page 3 maximum solar efficiency. Comment 15 states they would like to urge that the streetlights be flatlands, full cutoff, cobra head fixtures installed in a level position. Signs should be lighted from below. They are concerned about light pollution. Mr. Nipp went on to say that the firm doing the air quality study only analyzes the final build out year - eight years in the future. They don't do the analysis for the year nearest to the mid-point of the projected buildout. (Comment 19) Mr. Nipp continued discussing air quality and the cumulative effects. He also talked about traffic and feels there should be a comprehensive traffic study for the northeast. He suggested strongly that an EIR should be prepared for this project. Robert Allison, a resident of Cattle King Estates, expressed a concern about traffic. He asked the Commission to require that Lake Ming Road be expanded to four lanes from the Kern River Golf Course turnoff to Alfred Harrell Highway and that Alfred Harrell Highway be expanded to at least four lanes from Lake Ming Road to Highway 178. Mr. Allison said the 8,000 square foot lots proposed are too small. They are too small to preserve the open and scenic nature of that area. He feels that it is in the financial interest of the developer to preserve those values for the potential buyers of that property. They are asking for lot sizes of 10 to 12,000 square feet. Steven Smith, a resident of Cattle King, said that one of his concerns about this development is the issue of drainage. It is not clear how the drainage will be handled. The developer has stated that they will prepare a drainage plan and obtain necessary approvals from Government agencies only after the Planning Commission has approved the project. There is a concern that drainage may affect Cattle King property and they feel it is critical that drainage water not be allowed to spill in the Kern River and/or to damage water quality. He asked that a drainage plan be approved by relevant government agencies before the project is approved. Arthur Unger, Sierra Club, said that photovoltaic panels should be an option on all homes in this development. Photovoltaic panels enable utility bills to be cheaper. Most electricity is from natural gas and prices are going up. If a person is above the baseline and puts in solar, they will usually fall below the baseline, and will pay less per watt. A volume discount is given for an area where many solar houses are built. Mr. Unger said solar increases the value of the home, there is no tax on that increased value and is solar is exempt from CC&Rs. Mr. Unger then gave some assumptions and calculations for a solar house. Mr. Unger presented the Commission with a copy of his remarks. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Unger if he understood correctly that the mortgage rate would be approximately $60 more a month and the savings on the utilities would be $40 per month? Mr. Unger said the difference in the mortgage rate between a $100,000 mortgage and a $112,000 mortgage is $68 per month and that you make about $40 to $50 off of your electric bill. California will pay half the cost of the solar and he claims that even without that, solar will get cheaper in the future. Mitchell Bolt displayed his PG&E bill from last year which was $65. After solar panels were installed, the bill for the next month was $10. A reduction of $55. Mr. Bolt said that Bakersfield is a perfect place to offer these panels and when the house is being built it is even cheaper to put them on. Dave Moore, a resident of Cattle King, said he supports the comments from the other residents Minutes, PC, June 5, 2003 Page 4 of Cattle King. He also stressed that any traffic plan and road improvements in the area include bike lanes or alternate routes on bike paths be made available. Mark Van Voorhis, 5701 Roundup Way, said that when he purchased his home six years ago, he was impressed with the view. It had a lot to do with the decision to buy his house. He said if houses are put up on top of the ridge, his view of the mountains will be obscured. There are about five or six houses who will be affected by that. Mr. Van Voorhis said there is a tremendous beauty to the hills. Mr. Van Voorhis asked the Commission to consider the recreation facilities in the area along with the increased traffic from this project. He also asked consideration be given to the air quality. He feels that until we get a handle on how to control air pollution, we should slow down development of these areas. When emissions from cars and trucks are decreased, then further consideration could be given. Jim Foss, representing the Kern River Golf Course, said he is not opposed to the project but he has some concerns. He has a driving range to the north of the project. There is some netting there that is approximately 50 feet high and he feels the netting would not be sufficient to the buffer zone they currently have. He feels something needs to be done - either higher netting or a bigger buffer zone - he does not want the liability. Robert Odel, representing Sage Community Group, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Odel said the tract has been prepared in accordance with the general plan and the zoning ordinance. In addition the map complies with park development standards and the trail plan standards that have been adopted by the City Council. They have completed the following site specific studies: air quality, traffic, biota, noise, and phase one environmental. The studies have been included in the environmental review prepared by Planning staff. It is their position that the Negative Declaration recommended by staff is the appropriate environmental action and document. Roger Mobley presented a power point presentation on the computer. He explained the concept of the development and how they designed the plan. Fred Woody, Manager of WZI, conducted an air quality impact analysis for this tract. They followed the approved protocol established by the California Air Resources Board and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The analysis concluded that the impact for the project as designed and mitigated is less than significant because it is below the district's threshold of ten tons per year for ROG and NOX. There were three levels of analysis on air impact that was conducted in the study: the individual project level, the local area level and the city-wide level. The cumulative impacts were contained in the both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR. Both documents state that buildout of the general plan could have significant impacts on air quality. Both documents were approved with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The cumulative impacts were not reanalyzed in the air quality analysis. Mr. Woody said that the air quality impact of this project is not peculiar to this parcel or the project and has been substantially mitigated as contemplated in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR which considered the impact of development of additional housing in the city limits. CEQA states if an impact is not peculiar to a parcel or a project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR or can be substantially mitigated by imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards as contemplated, an additional EIR need not be prepared solely on the basis of that impact. Mr. Woody went on to discuss some of the mitigation measures of the project which the developer has agreed to. Dean Alexander, engineer, said there is a fault approximately one mile from the site. This fault is not really the controlling factor regarding ground shaking intensities. A fault ten miles away actually creates more ground shaking. They used the Uniform Building Code and took into account the design of the structures for ground shaking intensities. Minutes, PC, June 5, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Odel stated that as Mr. Woody indicated and staff has recommended there are various conditions of approval that relate to many of the comments that have been made. Specifically, into air quality mitigations. The conditions have been crafted based upon existing regulations and models and Sage Community Group willingly accepts these conditions. They have reviewed the staff report and all related documents and they concur with staff's recommendation. They asked the Commission to approve the project. Randy Steinert, a resident of northeast Bakersfield, said that he is in favor of the development particularly with the mitigation that staff has directed. He has lived in the northeast for a long time and is looking forward to the developments and the bike lanes and road widening that will take place with it. Public portion of the hearing closed. A ten minute recess was taken. Commissioner Blockley asked if the fire break is maintained by the Homeowners Association? Mr. Mobley said yes. Commissioner Blockley said he thinks this is a wonderful project. It has been well designed and is better than tearing up farm land. Commissioner Ellison said he concurs with Commissioner Blockley but he also has a few concerns about the project concerning air quality and drainage. Commissioner Ellison asked if the homes on the western edge in the gully are in the intermittent stream bed? Ms. Shaw said she did not think so but could get verification from the engineer. Matt VoVilla, Pinnacle Engineering, said the streambed does run through that location. They will construct a detention basin upstream from those homes. Commissioner Ellison said the staff report says the drainage from the tract map and the natural drainage will be potentially entering into the Kern River and asked if it was normal to approve a tract map before the permit is obtained? Ms. Shaw said yes. Commissioner Ellison asked if there are other tracts of homes discharging into the Kern River? Ms. Shaw said Cattle King and Tract 6149 that was approved recently will also drain into the Kern River. It is all part of the same drainage basin as is the country club off of Miramonte that also drains into the Kern River. Commissioner Ellison asked if the Commission can change the density at this point in time. Mr. Grady said the Commission is obliged to review this map under the rules that are on the books at the time the map was deemed complete. The map as it is presented to them complies with the density that is allowed for this site. If the Commission can make the findings that there is some issue that needs to be addressed by requiring some different lot sizes or something to that effect, then the Commission would be able to make those findings and then add the condition that they think will be reflected by the findings. As it sits in front of the Commission now, it does comply with the density for that particular zone. Commissioner Ellison asked if it would be possible to eliminate the row of homes that is located in the natural drainage basin? Mr. Grady said it depended upon what basis there is for eliminating it. If there is some issue that he thinks can only be addressed by eliminating that Minutes, PC, June 5, 2003 Page 6 bank of lots, then it would need to be put into the record to support the motion to require those lots to be deleted. Commissioner Ellison asked if it was sufficient to say that he is not satisfied with the condition requiring a drainage plan at a later date and wondered if that is sufficient to eliminate that row to eliminate his concern? Mr. Grady said his question to him would be: "What is it about the condition as it is written that would require that issue be addressed by the staff that the city has hired to evaluate that issue? Who would share his concern about whether or not they would be putting people in the position of hazard? What is it about that condition that he thinks is being solved by deleting those lots?" Commissioner Ellison said the row of homes appear to be a flood hazard and without a drainage plan to prove otherwise, he has a concern but if Public Works has dealt with this type of situation before and could tell him they see no difficulty in solving this problem, it would go a long way. Ms. Shaw said that her staff reviews all of the drainage studies that are submitted to the City of Bakersfield. They are very competent and follow the standards that are in place. The concern that the houses might be flooded out should the drainage sweep along that ditch, would be an item of concern for them as well. They will make sure that the standards of the city with regard to 50 and 100 year flows are met by whatever mechanism they come up with to contain that flow. Usually a storm drain or an open channel. They look at a number of things and they share the concern and would never allow a housing tract to put homes in the way of harm in that matter. Commissioner Ellison asked someone to comment regarding the concern of Mr. Smith who requested that the drainage study needed to be in the open and approved by a public review process. Ms. Shaw said that a drainage study is an engineering document. Public comment received is considered but a drainage study that is designed by a committee of non-engineers is not something she is confident of. Commissioner Ellison said he agrees that the experts need to solve these problems. Commissioner Ellison asked Mary Jane Wilson, WZI, about cumulative impacts. Ms. Wilson said that the cumulative impact study in this case is done in three basic phases. That is, that the cumulative air impact is looked at first of all from the general plan and the general plan update EIR for the City of Bakersfield. The number one stage is that this is zoned R-1 and the air impacts for all of the housing for the City of Bakersfield was considered and it was considered cumulatively significant. The number two stage goes down to the individual project stage. They looked at the air impacts of the project by itself and could it be mitigated to less than significant? They determined that it could. Then they looked at the cumulative air impacts that might be locally significant to this project with the other projects around it. They looked at pollutants that could be cumulatively locally significant to this area. When they looked at the hazardous air pollutants and the C-O which can be locally cumulatively they found that in this area it was locally less than significant. There is nothing in this project that is so unusual that would make you think from an air perspective this project is so different. Ms. Wilson said there is a mis- perception that our air quality has gotten worse and worse and worse with all the population. That is not true. Our air quality as far as ozone, smog and PM10 has actually gotten better in the last twenty years. The issue of air quality is that we haven't gotten in the valley as a whole good enough, fast enough to meet the standards that the State of California and the Federal Government has put before us. We have gotten better even though we have been building more houses and having more industry in our air basin. That should be factored in the Commission's thought process. Commissioner Lomas, having not heard of them before, asked for an explanation about the street lights that offer less light pollution. Mr. VoVilla said that as part of the project they have Minutes, PC, June 5, 2003 Page 7 requested the use of custom street lights that will satisfy Mr. Nipp's concerns. They are shorter and they do direct light downward. They are 16 feet instead of 25 feet tall. They have no objection to the HPS lighting. Commissioner Lomas commended the applicant for the stewardship of the land. They took the time to address preservation of open space. Commissioner Lomas said she is in support of the lot sizes. They seem reasonable to her. Commissioner Lomas asked the applicant if they have talked to Mr. Foss and if the redesign is sufficient? Dave Dmohowski, with Project Design Consultants, said the redesign shows an additional buffer between the screen and the first row of homes. They are willing to continue their discussions with Mr. Foss and the County of Kern who is the lessor of the golf course regarding design issues. Commissioner Lomas said she had a concern about the southern entrance to the project. There are three roadways that will have to be crossed with the new 178 alignment. She sees that as being very expensive. The entrance road is quite close to Alfred Harrell Highway and it would be very expensive to build a large bridge over it. Commissioner Lomas wondered if it would be possible to eliminate that access point and bring the entrance to the park road? Ms. Shaw said that State Route 178 is an approved specific plan line and the design must accommodate that. Ms. Shaw said the city is intending to buy the entire first phase and she has discussed with the applicant taking the private entrance road off of the public road that goes to the park. They see that as a viable option. The way the condition is written is the street access to Old Walker Pass Road within Phase 1 may be reviewed and being mutually agreed upon by the developer and the Public Works Department the street layout may significantly change from what was submitted within Phase 1 but the intent would be to minimize future crossings and interference with an interchange within that area. Ms. Shaw asked Commissioner Lomas what wording she would like to see in this condition? Commissioner Lomas said she would like to see the condition utilizing the park road so that we are dealing with one access point. The goal is to eliminate crossings and future expense. Commissioner Gay asked if Ms. Shaw is working on a modification to the conditions? Ms. Gennero said she has not had an opportunity to run this by the applicant but suggested that condition 8.2 read as follows: "Subdivision design and street access to Old Walker Pass Road within Phase 1 may be revised as mutually agreed to by developer and the Public Works Director to accommodate potential future freeway improvements and so that access across 178 is limited to one location." Commissioner Lomas said that would solve her concern. Mr. ©del also agreed. Commissioner Tkac said he likes this project for its positive use and not taking farmland out of production. Commissioner Tkac asked if there are any big differences about how the drainage will work now versus completion of the project? Ms. Shaw said that right now the drainage is confined to a couple of draws. The difference in the now condition and the future condition is mainly in an increase in runoff because of an increase in impermeable area. One of the basic laws of drainage regards not allowing an increase in the upstream water overwhelm the natural flow that exists today. One of things that would be required in the drainage study is to contain and detain water in a detention basin. The water would be held there and let out in a controlled manner so that it would not overwhelm the downstream capacity. Additionally, this entire area would be subject to the requirements of the National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Their requirements are pretty stringent with regards to use of best management Minutes, PC, June 5, 2003 Page 8 practices both in the construction stage and the completed stage. Commissioner Tkac requested that Ms. Wilson go over once again her statement that air pollution has really gotten better in the area. Ms. Wilson did so with some graphs she showed on the overhead. Commissioner Gay said he likes this project and would like the public to be aware that there are 52 conditions of approval placed on the project by staff. Commissioner Gay asked if tract maps are submitted to GET for review and comment during this phase? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Gay also asked if park and rides were usually handled by Caltrans outside the scope of the city? Mr. Grady said he believes so. Commissioner Gay asked why we would not take the open space now prior to the recordation of the first phase instead of at each phase? Mr. Grady said that because at the time of the tentative tract they couldn't identify exactly what the configuration of the open space is going to be. Therefore, we were in agreement to have them give us the open space in phases as they begin to finalize the design and have a more accurate layout of what the open space is going to look like. If we took it all right now, we might have to give pieces back and forth as the final phases of the maps are drawn based on the topography. Commissioner Gay asked if there is a future plan to enhance Lake Ming Road? He feels there may be a need for a decel lane to make a right turn to swing around Cattle King and asked if the intersection is up to full city standards? Ms. Shaw said she hasn't reviewed the intersection design as it is with regards to a full expansion. However, there is in the traffic fee impact fee program, a signal for that location. When the signal is put in, part of the cost of the signal is to make sure the intersection will have the appropriate right turn lanes, left turn lanes, etc. Commissioner Gay asked about the wording "if necessary" in revised condition number 13.1.1 as stated in Public Works memorandum dated May 27, 2003. Ms. Shaw said that this refers to whether or not the existing road would have to be ripped up and rebuilt. They have to provide documentation as to whether or not it would be necessary. Commissioner Gay asked if there is any desire on the city to have a standardized landscape plan along Alfred Harrell Highway (an irrigated system on the hillside)? Mr. Grady said this project does not have any double frontage lots on an arterial or collector road, so they are not required to have a wall and landscape plan. Commissioner Gay asked if Alfred Harrell Highway from Lake Ming Road to 178 is a collector or just the right-of-way and not paved to arterial standards? Ms. Shaw said that Alfred Harrell is an expressway. We have the right-of-way. A slight widening will be necessary. Commissioner Gay asked about the timing for this and Ms. Shaw said that the timing has not been set for this yet. Commissioner Lomas asked if there is a map showing all of the roads and future roads in the northeast including arterials and collectors? Ms. Shaw said that the Circulation Element of the general plan shows the locations of all of the arterials, collectors and expressways. The concerns expressed have been when the roads will be built. The roads are built by the developers at their pace. The sections that will be done by the city will be done through the annual review of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This years CIP includes several planning documents for the northeast that have been approved that will be worked on that will handle quite a few of the major roadways in that area. Commissioner Lomas said she would like to see a document similar to the trails document that a Minutes, PC, June 5, 2003 Page 9 layman could easily understand containing the budgeted items that are already in a time line that they could reference on one sheet of paper. Ms. Shaw said that Mr. Jacques LaRochelle suggested that he could give a presentation to the Commission at one of the future meetings on the northeast - which would include all the information she is looking for. Ms. Shaw said she could schedule a workshop if the Commission desires. Commissioner Spencer said he has looked at the environmental document and is satisfied that the project appears to be prepared very well and he has no qualms with it. Commissioner Gay asked if there is any flexibility to use mitigation 41 .a money in another area if a signal is not needed in this vicinity? Mr. Grady said the way the mitigation would be applied it would not have to be immediately adjacent to this project. It could be anywhere where it improves traffic flow through an intersection that would generate an air quality benefit. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Mobley the approximate separation between Cattle King and the elevation difference between Cattle King? Mr. Mobley said the Cattle King lots are higher than either the trail and the proposed lots in the subdivision. They are perhaps 10 to 20 feet higher. He wasn't sure about the horizontal separation but it is probably about 30 feet plus a street. Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6148 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution and incorporating the Planning Director's memo dated June 3, 2003 and Public Works memo dated May 27, 2003 and to include the memo from Jim Holladay on the revised conditions dated May 27, 2003. Revised condition number $.2 should read "subdivision design and street access to Old Walker Pass Road within Phase 1 may be revised as mutually agreed to by developer and the Public Works Director to accommodate potential future freeway improvements so access across 178 is limited to one location." Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Gay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish 5.2 Vestinq Tentative Map 6155 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) (Ward 7) Public portion of the hearing opened. Mr. Grady said staff has received a request to continue this item until June 19, 2003 and is recommending approval of the request. Motion made by Commissioner Spencer, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to continue this item to June 19, 2003. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Gay None Commissioner Tragish 5.3 Vestinq Tentative Map 6190 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) (Ward 6) Minutes, PC, June 5, 2003 Page 10 See Consent Agenda 5.4 Vestin,q Tentative Tract Map 6186 (Phased) (Pinnacle Engineering)(Ward 4) Commissioner Ellison declared a conflict of interest on this project. Public portion of the hearing opened. Mr. Grady said this project had been requested by the applicant to be on the consent calendar. There is a letter from both Coleman and Mr. Eton saying they are in agreement. The drilling island has been reworked. Commissioner Spencer requested this item be pulled from the consent calendar. No one spoke in opposition. Mr. VoVilla, representing the applicant, stated they are in agreement with the staff report, the conditions and the memorandum dated May 15, 2003. Public portion of the hearing closed. Commissioner Spencer said his main concern is to protect the Westside Beltway and the way it is projected to be shown on this tentative map, it would be difficult for him to accept the way it is pertaining to Johnson Road. How would it be constructed and how would it be terminated at the Westside Beltway? Would it go under or continue westerly? There should be a tentative map or a map that is recorded to actually show how these roadways would either be developed or not developed. Commissioner Spencer said it needs to be addressed now at this stage, rather than later on. Commissioner Gay asked Commissioner Spencer if he would be satisfied with a covenant on lots 94 through 100 that would identify a potential future impact with the construction of the Westside Beltway? Commissioner Spencer said he finds it difficult for any homeowner to look at a map and not show how the roadways would be developed. He thinks the map should be redesigned at this time rather than at a later date. Commissioner Gay asked if at this time if we have any diagram or idea whether this will be grade, below grade or below grade? Or is this just a reservation to give notice to the public that we have a potential right-of-way through there? Ms. Shaw said that is correct. The reservation gives the city and the county the opportunity to purchase the right-of-way when the land is being subdivided through the provisions of the map act. There have been no engineering studies regarding the vertical alignment. The preliminary concept plan that is being proposed by the county is that the collector streets would continue through. The West Beltway would go over the collector streets, come down and touch ground in the vicinity of the arterials. There would be signals at these arterials. The current proposal is that it will be a limited access expressway. Commissioner Gay said he would be satisfied if this was covered in the motion with a covenant. Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6186 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A and incorporate the May 15 memo from the Public Works Department including a covenant on lots 94 through 100 that would run with the land on the title report that notifies a buyer of those lots that at some future date the development and construction of the Westside Beltway may affect their property. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, June 5, 2003 Page 11 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Gay None Commissioner Ellison, Tragish COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on June 16, 2003. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Ju~y 7, 2003 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director