Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/00AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Thursday, October 5,~ 2000 5:30 p.m. MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice-Chairman MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A 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. 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 permit shall be issued 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, c/o Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $334 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 $334 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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 5, 2000 Page 2 = CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) These items 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) will be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. 3.1) Agenda Item 7.3 - VTT 6013 (Porter Robertson) 3.2) Agenda Item 7.4 - VTT 6015 (The Lusich Company, Inc) (Ward 3) PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - Mountain View Bravo, LLC Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR for General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P99-0647 which has been completed in'compliance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures. {Continued from September 21, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: CERTIFY Roll call vote. (Ward 3) PUBLIC HEARINGS ' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ASSOCIATED REZONING,. ORDINANCE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: 5.1.a) General Plan Amendment File'No. P99-0647 - Mountain View Bravo, LLC has proposed to amend the land use designations from MUC (Mixed Use Commercial), LR (Low Density Residential) and HR (High Density. Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 96.90 acres and from MUC and LR to HR on '65.50 acres, and amend the Circulation Element establishing new arterial and collector street alignments within the development site, located between Paladino Drive, State Route 178, Masterson Street and Vineland Road. (EIR on file) (Continued from September 21, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll call vote; Agenda, PC, Thursday, OctOber 5, 2000 Page 3 5.1.b) .(Ward Zone'Change P99-0647 - Mountain View Bravo, LLC has requested a change in zoning from an A (Agriculture) and R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zones to a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone on 96.9 acres; from an A to R-1 zone on 500 acres; and from an A and R-1 to R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zones on 65.5 acres~ located between Paladino Drive, State Route 178, Masterson Street and Vineland Road. (EIR on .file) (Continued from September 21, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Parcel Map 10726 (Lee Jamieson, Hopper Properties L.P.) Containing 20 parcels on 53 acres, zoned C-2 (Regional Commercial) to be zoned PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for development of a 440,306 square foot commercial shopping center, commonly known as "Northwest Promenade Phase 2"; located on the northwest corner of Rosedale Highway (SR 58) and Main Plaza Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) (Ward 4) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group vote. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 7.1) (Ward 7) Vesting Tentative Tract 6006 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 309 lots for single family residential purposes, one drill site lot and one sump lot on 80.49 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow a reverse corner lot and to reduce lot width; and a waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.3 by reserving a drill island for mineral access; generally located west of Highway 99 and north of McKee Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (continued from August 17, 2000 and September 9, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group vote 7.2) (Ward 4) Vesting Tentative Tract 6003 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 207 buildable lots and one sump lot on 53.9 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling); located east of FrUitvale Avenue on the south side of Krebs Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Groupvote Agenda, PC, Thursday, October 5, 2000 Page 4 7.3) (Ward 4) 7.4) (Ward 7) Vesting Tentative Tract 6013 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 187 buildable lots, two sump lots, and one lot for a water well on 84.75 gross acres for single famiJy residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); located on the north side of Hageman Road and the west side of Knudsen Drive, about % mile east of Fruitvale Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Continue until October 19, 2000' Group vote Vestina Tentative Tract 6015 (The Lusich Company, Inc.) Containing 112 lots for single family residential purposes and one sump lot on ~38.83 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); located on the north side of Hosking Avenue,.and.east side of Akers Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group vote 10. 11. 12. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ORDINANCES AND POLICIES GOVERNING LANDSCAPE STANDARDS: COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION ANDACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT October 2, 2000 Planning Director REGULAR MEETING '~;':! ' ' il;'i:~i!: ' · ~'-::OF;THE CITY OF.BAKERSFIELD Held October 5, 2000 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. COMMISSIONERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC AD VlSORY MEMBERS: Present: ANDREW THOMSON, Deputy City Attorney JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal = CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) 3.2) Agenda Item 7.3 - VTT 6013 (Porter Robertson) Agenda Item 7.4 - VTT 6015 (The Lusich Company, Inc) Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the consent agenda items. Motion carried. -i Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 2 Commissioner Tkac was seated at this time. PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - Mountain View Bravo, LLC (Continued from September 21, 2000) (Ward3) Staff report given recommending approval. Mr. Grady reported that one of the questions asked at the pre-meeting was what type of wall and landscape plan would be along Paladino? Mr. Grady showed the Commission a slide of the city's typical landscape and median island treatments along arterials. The hillside area where a lot of hiking and trail activity occur is not within the project boundaries of this site Mr. Grady stated. Deputy City Attorney Andrew Thomson provided an answer to the question posed by Mr. Boyle on Monday. Commissioner Boyle wanted to know if the Commission has the authority to adjust or change the lot size in the general plan amendment that is proposed? Mr. Thomson said that the Commission does have that authority pursuant to their "police power to zone" but it would require a reasonable finding that it would benefit the health, safety and welfare of the people in the affected area. The consultant, Michael Houlihan, gave an overview of the project. Jacques LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager with the Public Works Department, gave a talk about freeway planning in general and how we as a city have dealt with that over the years and also the question with respect to the Freeway 178 extension and the actual construction of that facility in future years and how that will be accomplished. Mr. LaRochelle could not stay for the rest of the meeting so he entertained questions from the Commissioners at this time. Commissioner Boyle asked how the city is going to get the money to widen the existing 178, which is supposed be widened to two lanes each way from Fairfax to Alfred Harrell Highway, at the time the project is half completed since the developer is not paying the full cost? Mr. LaRochelle said that when we make a commitment to widen the road through the traffic impact fee program, the city must ensure that it is done either by not allowing anymore development to occur until the road is widened or we have enough time to plan out our own widening project within our own capital program and then we do it ourselves. It works quite well with that flexibility. Commissioner Boyle said that it was his understanding that when a specific plan line is adopted we have a certain amount of time to purchase the land or the builder has a right to subdivide the property. He wanted to knoTM if that applied to this project and if so what is the period of time? Mr. LaRochelle said the subdivision map act says that we are to purchase the land within two years of completion of all improvements. Commissioner Brady said the traffic study made an assumption based on Kern Cog and their traffic studies that this new freeway extension 178 would be completed by 2020. Mr. LaRochelle said he was not aware of that. Commissioner Brady asked when r Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 3 the soonest the section of the freeway of the 178 extension could be put on Kern Cog's list for funding? Mr. LaRochelle said what we plan to do is initiate the necessary project study reports. That should be happening within the next five years. Where it lines up within the Cog's funding source he doesn't know. We do have a commitment through 2014 to fund the Route 58 project which includes the downtown area. Mr. LaRochelle foresees that one of the next major projects they will want to look at funding is the 178 project. Mr. LaRochelle said it is entirely possible to have the freeway constructed within a 20 year time frame. Mr. LaRochelle stated that they will make every effort to see the freeway is built to meet the traffic demands. Commissioner Brady asked how long the Kern River Freeway has been on the top of the list for funding at.Kern COG? Mr. LaRochelle said it has been on the list for a long time and it is funded. Commissioner Brady asked if outlying areas of the county were competing with the funds to build freeways and upgrade their roads? Mr. LaRochelle said not necessarily except for any additional funds outside the Route 58 project. Commissioner Brady asked if that includes this section of 1787 Mr. LaRochelle said yes that is correct. Commissioner Brady asked why Kern Cog would assume this particular freeway is going to be built even when it is not on the list for funding? Mr. LaRochelle said that we as a Cog region have to deal with air quality and conformity. If there are some issues occurring with air quality in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area that need to be dealt with on a transportation level, it doesn't matter if another project is a higher priority or been waiting in the wings for a while, if it is out of conformity then the whole county would lose money. We have to look at it as a group effort and that is the reason the Route 58 project is the number one project. Commissioner Brady asked what goes into the decision to put a freeway on the list? Is it just the air issue? Mr. LaRochelle said that he can't answer that. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. LaRochelle about the alteration in funding that occurred this year where monies were taken and put towards a couple of freeways in the northern part of the county and if that may have affected the funding for the rest of the projects locally? Mr. LaRochelle said there was a commitment made by COG to accelerate construction of widening of Highway 46 from the San Luis Obispo County line to I-5 that was moved forward. The net result is that it won't change our project construction very much. The Commissioners had no more questions for Mr. LaRochelle. Ms. Shaw, from the Public Works Department, said that the Commission was given a memo answering the questions from Monday's pre-meeting. Then she went over the memo briefly. Public portion of the hearing was opened for the EIR only. The following people spoke for and against the project. Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 4 Sharon Johnson, area resident, asked Mr. Grady the calculations for park land. Mr. Grady said that park land is required at 2-1/2 acres per thousand. It was calculated at 28 + acres for this project. Ms. Johnson said that Mr. Houlihan did not project the traffic impact on Panorama Drive at half buildout and completed. Commissioner Dhanens said those figures are contained in the Environmental Impact Report. Ms. Johnson said her three concerns are: 1) the sound-safety issue, 2) the conservation element in the EIR and 3) relating to the views in the EIR. Ms. Johnson said that it says in the EIR that sound walls could be built and she is very interested in what is projected for Panorama. She doesn't see how sound walls could be built in front of homes on Panorama Drive. Ms. Johnson said that she noticed that at the base of Panorama Drive there is a commercial site where a six story building could be built. She thinks it would hurt the city to cut off the view. Discussing point two Ms. Johnson said the EIR said there would be a major loss of habitat for Raptores. She would like the Commission to encourage the developer to build trails and greenbelts. Ms. Johnson stated that she would like the developer to include some sort of triple setback along 178. Any buildings along the freeway would restrict the view unless they were setback further from the roadway. Gordon Nip, representing the Sierra Club, said that generally speaking they are supportive of development in this area but made some suggestions as how the city could do some long 'range planning to preserve the quality of life in the region. They recommended that the city direct staff to study the possibility of incorporating an open space, trail and parks plan in the Kern River bluffs into the 2010 General Plan. And as far as the present and future developers are concerned, that the city require that these developers contribute funding for park land purchases in the nearby bluffs. Mr. Nip also said that there is no mitigation measure in the EIR to reduce cumulative air quality impacts. They suggest that this project and other future developments in the area be planned with a large public transportation component in mind. Transit oriented development is a large focus of the current smart growth sustainable development movement. Mr. Nip was concerned about the lighting from the ball field. The glare from the ball fields lights up .the area for miles around. He suggested that the developer get with the owners of the ball field to shield the lights. John Ciceroni, the project applicant, talked to the Commissioners about their concerns regarding traffic. He went through the traffic mitigation they are required to perform and showed some slides of what each mitigation will accomplish. Matt Vovilla, a civil engineer experienced in traffic engineering, said that over the course of this process the question that arose several times is would State Route 178 function adequately if the freeway was not built? Mr. Vovilla said that if the freeway was not built and the traffic was 'put on State Route 178 alignment as it exists now, with Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page $ the proposed mitigation (which is two additional lanes of pavement from Morning Drive to Alfred Harrell Highway) that State Route Highway 178 would operate at a Level of Service C and better. Michael Farber, a resident in the area, had a question about traffic. If they are expecting to have a total population of 11,500 people in this area, with 2,750 homes and 1,300 apartments with only four intersections with 178, how will traffic flow during rush hour in an orderly fashion without looking like Rosedale Highway? Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw if staff and Mr. Vovilla agreed on their being an estimated 24,000 trips a day? Ms. Shaw said that Mr. Vovilla has been discussing this with the City's Traffic Engineer and they did agree on the number of trips. Commissioner Boyle said that Table 1 of the report says the project will produce 24,000 trips a day after taking out the fifteen percent of capture trips. He assumes that if there are only 24,000 vehicles a day on 178 that there is no one using 178 right now? Ms. Shaw. said that it is 24,000 trips a day for the entire project and she doesn't know if all of them were using 178. They split the trips out in various directions. Not all of them go directly 178 from this development. Commissioner Boyle asked what the current volume is on 178 from Masterson to Fairfax? Mr. Walker said it is his understanding from Cal'l'rans that it is around 6,000 cars a day. Mr. Walker said that about 25 percent would be using Highway 178 after the capture trips. The worst case scenario at the western end of the project would adequately serve the traffic demand as it will be four lanes. Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw about Page 2 of the October 4 memo and if the additional language should be added to the conditions to the project? Ms. Shaw said that it is actually being proposed as language to be included in the development agreement. Commissioner Boyle asked if this language were included in the GPA as well as in the development agreement means that the builder could not build additional projects if 178 has not been widened to four lanes at the time the project has been half completed? Ms. Shaw said it would be at whatever time in their phasing plan that the level of service on 178 would exceed "C" with two lanes.' Commissioner Boyle said that the first page of the memo from Ms. Shaw under Item "E" says that "improvements expected at half buildout" is to widen 178 to four lanes from Fairfax Road to Alfred Harrell Highway, would that have to be concluded before they could exceed half buildout? Ms. Shaw said she believes so. The Traffic Division prepared the list and that is her understanding. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady what the height limitations are for the commercial area that would be along 178 in this project? Mr. Grady said that they would be able to build six story buildings in a C-2 zone. Commissioner Boyle said that he would like to restrict six story buildings out there. Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 6 Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw to explain the roadway alignment along the west boundary of the property. Ms. Shaw said that it is staff's opinion it will adequately serve the transportation needs of both Section 17 and the areas surrounding it. Commissioner Boyle asked if and when Section 18 is built out to the west, if there won't · be a problem for us in that we have failed to keep an arterial road on the section line? Ms. Shaw said that according to the Circulation Element there is no arterial road between 178 and Panorama. This developer does own a small portion of Section 18 right next to 178 so they are the adjoining property owners and the property to the north is mostly LR and Ms. Shaw feels that with Panorama Drive connecting through 178 and also connecting to the east would probably adequately serve the area. Commissioner Boyle said that Exhibit C on the GPA shows that Vineland to the south has a notation that says "proposed freeway." Ms. Shaw said that in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan a proposed East Beltway has been drawn in but it is not anticipated that that will be the final location. Commissioner Boyle said that he is concerned that there are 2-1/2 acre homes out there and is not in favor of putting 6,000 sq.ft, homes immediately adjacent to it but he is not sure it rises to the level of a health and safety issue. If it is not a health and safety issue, he does not have the authority to condition the EIR or the GPA to require the phasing of property. Commissioner Boyle said that the noise from Mesa Marin is an existing problem and he noted there is a memo with a suggestion on a condition of approval for the general plan to include some language and they will be discussing that further when they get to the general plan amendment hearing. Commissioner Boyle said that Mr. Nip has made a good suggestion and there should be some issues of public transportation addressed in terms of air quality: Staff has said that the public transportation issues will be addressed at the time that specific projects are planned and GET will then give us their comments with their needs. Commissioner Boyle stated that the light glare will be taken care of when the commercial and residential projects are built. He said he feels the EIR has given sufficient information for the City Council to make its legal decision on whether or not the project should be approved. Commissioner McGinnis asked the applicant what provisions they have made to care for any fossils or artifacts that may be found on the site during excavation? Mr. Cicerroni said there is a requirement in the findings and mitigation that they will have to satisfy if artifacts are found. They have made a further stipulation that the artifacts will be first offered to local museums. Commissioner Brady stated that on 178 near where the "green line" was drawn by Public Works on the map, there appears to be some sort of gas or high pressure lines on the south side and wondered if that would affect the proposed alignment for Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 7 Masterson? Ms. Shaw said she is not personally familiar with the facility so she can't tell him how it will affect the proposed alignment. If it is a utility that can be moved, they do that, or they design around it. Commissioner Brady asked if the issue of noise, dust, smells and everything else from ranch operations and the affect of those have been studied on the houses with 6,000 sq.ft, lots across the street? Mr. Grady said our standard ordinance requirements for 'separation between agricultural uses' and residential is 140 feet. With the street width and the depths of the rear yard I°ts, they would meet that requirement. Commissioner Brady said he would like to see the lots along the southern border of Paladino Drive be larger than 6,000 sq.ft. He doesn't know if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a health, safety or welfare issue exists. Staff has indicated that based on the current ordinances, there will be sufficient separation between the on-going "mini-agricultural" activities that will not interfere but feels that a larger lot across the street would give the future residents on the south side of Paladino Drive more protection from the noises, smells, and flies from those ranch activities immediately to the north. Commissioner Brady asked staff to identify where Vineland will come into Highway 178. He then asked what the grade is at that location? Ms. Shaw said she is not positive but she thinks it starts going up a little to the west. Mr. Mclntosh said that Vineland at that location is within about 10 feet at grade of surrounding area to the north and south sides. Mr. Mclntosh said that it is fairly flat there and it shouldn't be a problem to put a signal light in. Commissioner Brady asked the Traffic Engineer if he sees any problems on that location with a four way intersection from a traffic prospective? Mr. Walker said there is a slope in the area but it is a relatively minor slope. CalTrans has designed State Route 178 to meet their standards and considered truck type traffic. Commissioner Brady said because of past history he does not believe 178 will turn into a freeway in the next 20 years. There will always be funding problems and negative comments from residents. Because of that he has a major concern that the traffic study was flawed because it made an assumption that the freeway would be there but he feels that there will be sufficient level of service to handle the traffic for some time. Commissioner Brady said that he dislikes the fact there is not a major arterial or collector on the section line but nevertheless in light of the design of the area he is willing to support the layout. He is willing to vote to support that the EIR is adequate but Marian Shaw's memo needs to be incorporated in the motion such that there will be a requirement that the development will have to wait unless there is sufficient funding to put in the freeway. Mr. Grady said that since it directly relates to the mitigation and how that mitigation will be accounted for it should be added as a condition under traffic mitigation. Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 8 Commissioner Sprague said he doesn't believe 6,000 square foot lots are bad. It is difficult to market 1 acre lots. With the buffer zone that is there, Commissioner Sprague feels that thedeveloper will adequately buffer the existing 2-1/2 acre lots and this subdivision. Commissioner Sprague said that he would be support of a motion to approve and adopt the EIR. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Walker how many cars go through an intersection like Fairfax and 178 in an hour's time? Mr. Walker said that is a State intersection and he does not have any figures on it but one of the busiest intersections in town, such as California and Stockdale, has around 45,000 to 48,000 cars going through it a day. During a peak hour period; each lane of travel can handle approximately 1,800 cars an hour. Commissioner Boyle said that Ms. Johnson's concerns about sound walls on Panorama Drive are unfounded as there is nothing in the EIR saying they will be building sound walls along Panorama Drive. Commissioner Dhanens stated that after reviewing the Draft EIR and the Responses to Comments he feels that all of the impacts that have been identified are being adequately mitigated through the proposed mitigation, measures that will become a part of the project. The testimony tonight regarding 178 has satisfied the concerns that he has had with respect to traffic. The land use issues were addressed by the consultant from an environmental standpoint. The issues regarding noise and light have been addressed by the other Commissioners and he supports approving the EIR and sending it on to the City Council. A motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to adopt a resolution making CEQA findings Section 15091 and Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines and recommending certifying the Program Environmental Impact Report including the language in the October 4, 2000 memo from Marian Shaw of the Public Works Department. AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac Dhanens NOES: None ABSENT: None Chairman Dhanens had a family emergency and had to leave the meeting at 7:30 pm turning the Chairman duties over to Vice-Chairman Boyle. A five minute recess was called at 7:30 p.m. Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 9 · PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ASSOCIATED REZONING., ORDINANCE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: 5.1.a) General Plan Amendment File No. P99-0647 - Mountain View Bravo, LLn (Continued from September 21, 2000) (Ward 3) The discussion was combined with Agenda Item 5.1.b. Mr. Grady said there is no additional information to provide to the Commission except for a piece of correspondence that was delivered to staff and passed on to the Commission. The public hearing was continued. The following people spoke in opposition of the general plan amendment and zone change: Christy Hollis, a resident on Paladino Drive, said that her major concern is the traffic and congestion. She feels that the project will change the quality of life in the area. The addition of 11,000 people will make a huge difference. She would like the houses across Paladino be 1 to 2-1/2 acres not 6,000 sq.ft, lots. She also asked the Commission to grandfather in the right to maintain animals on all existing property so that future property owners can benefit from the special lifestyle that they have. Lynn Espericueta, a resident in the area, wanted to reiterate Ms. Hollis statements and is concerned about the future residents and whether they might complain about the animals that are there now and the things that go along with them such as noise and dust. Ms. Espericueta said that the fog is bad in the winter time and she is concerned that the hazard will be greater with the increase in traffic. John Ulman, a resident on Paladino, said his concern is. with the Circulation Element and the fact that Paladino is named as an arterial road. He thinks a better idea would be for Panorama to become an arterial and Paladino a collector. If the developer is required in his circulation amendment to make Panorama .the arterial, then his project, his lots, his increased population in the area is supported by his road, not half of theirs. John Ulman stated also that in the general plan amendment pertaining to land designations, he would suggest that none of them be appropriate. He said that he considers himself pro-growth and does not mind the development of the property but not at all costs. He is not looking forward to residential property being changed to General Commercial or the change to LR (apartments). He feels that there is an abundance of commercial property and is not sure the roads can support them. He feels the 2010 designations for the property is correct, not the changes requested. Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Pa~elO The third issue Mr. Ulman addressed is the issue of buffering and lot sizes. The wall would be a great buffer, however, he thinks tiering the lots from 12,000, 10,000 to 6,000 square foot lots going south would be much more appropriate. It would make a difference to the present property owners and it would be beneficial in reducing some of the density and it would be appealing to all of the present homeowners. Darrel Ward, a resident of the area, said he is not against growth. He is for good growth and is hoping that the same mistakes are not made in this area that has occurred in the Rosedale area. He builds apartment complexes and is not against apartments but what makes all the problems in a neighborhood is the density. He asked the Commission to really take a look at what they are approving tonight .and see if there are any conditions that could be placed on the project so that controls over what could and could not be built on the property could be made. Terry Childs, a resident in the area, said that his major concern is that an overall view of the entire Rio Bravo valley really hasn't been considered. There are many square miles out there that are going to face the same situation that they are facing now. There are 20 square miles out there and if 11,000 people are put on every square mile, they will be as big as Bakersfield. He doesn't think that is the right thing to do. The traffic situation is more serious than what most people consider. The EIR did not address that accurately. He said the city is already talking about closing a roadway that goes from Paladino over towards Alfred Harrell Highway and joins up near China Grade Loop. That could be an arterial to get you out on that side of the highway. Why hasn't anyone looked at that? He requests the Commission to deny some of the zone changes to keep the density down. Carlin Farber said that she wanted to address the development in the northeast in general. If you were to start from Panorama down you would see larger homes going to smaller homes. Even though the neighborhoods are older in the area, they have maintained their value because they are tiered or mixed. She would like to see that kind of development continued. She is not against development but she does not think 6,000 square foot lots are family oriented. They are retirement kind of homes. They are talking about homes with families and she would like to see reasonable size lots where children can play in their own backyards. She also feels that the east side already has enough apartments. Traffic is already a problem and she feels that it has not been addressed adequately.~ Steve Hollis, also a resident in the neighborhood, said his biggest concern was the density of the project and the compatibility. The density in the city is 2,079 per square mile. This is five fold that. That tells you this is not equal to what the . average density is in the city at this time. Mr. Hollis said that if yoU look at the home values Out there, most of them are in the 2 to $300,000 value range. It doesn't matter how nice the home is, if you put it on a 6,000 square foot lot, there'will be a difference in value. Mr. Hollis also had concerns about traffic. Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 11 He encourages forward thinking. Make sure the infrastructure is there so that when the people start coming, services will be there. Goal number 3 in the 2010 Plan says that "we would accommodate new development which is compatible and complements existing land use." Mr. Hollis says this would not accomplish that. Mike Farber stated that Masterson and 178 is not California Avenue and Stockdale,-he doesn't think 2,000 cars can be pushed through there. On 178 there will be people stopping at Masterson, Vineland, Morning Drive and Fairfax. It seems too much like Rosedale to him. He also questioned the density of the projects. He feels that the developer should have to stick with what they bought. They shouldn't be allowed to make such drastic zoning changes. Mr. Farber said that at one time Mr. Ciceroni proposed cul-de-sac lots against the northern wall totaling 10,000 to 15,000 square feet. Katherine Miller requested that the Commission listen to the residents in the area. The following two people spoke in favor of the project: John Ciceroni,-representing Mt. View Bravo, addressed some of the issues recently raised. With regards to the C-2 zoning near Panorama, he pointed out that the realignment of 178 will produce a freeway to an arterial intersection adjacent to the C-2 zoning. It is prudent planning to provide for the C-2 zoning in the future rather than wait until residences are built and try a zone change to commercial. The next issue he addressed is the heights of the apartments. He has a development agreement in progress whereon height restrictions or other restrictions the Commission deems appropriate could be included in the development agreement at that time. Mr. Ciceroni said that the homes existing in the development south of Mesa Marin are approximately the same distance as the R-3 north of Mesa Marin. Those homes sell with apparently no problems. The noise is adequately mitigated and it is not an issue for the residents in those communities. Mr. Ciceroni said he is not trying to change the land use designation. In the examples that was given regarding tiering of lots, in each case the developer went from a less dense to a more dense designation. Mr. Ciceroni said that a statement was made that his units will be built out at a ratio of 28 percent and what's the target? The general plan provides for a 25 percent target. They are well within the ratio. The general plan requests that 90 percent of the acres be dedicated to residential and 10 percent to multi-family. The City in the Hills project will achieve an 88 percent residential and a 12 percent multi-family mix. Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page t2 In terms of population, Mr. Ciceroni said, if they were to buildout the general plan, there would be 13,408 people there and in the City in the Hills, they will only have 11,500. In the general plan there are over 94,000 vehicle trips predicted. The City in the Hills plan contains Only.about 61,000 vehicle trips per day. Roger Mclntosh, representing Mt. View Bravo, stated that there are two specific types of infrastructure that are either extended to the site or are being extended to the site to provide urban services and those are the sewer and the water. The sewer has been extended thrOugh the property. This particular property has committed to $1.6 million to pay off the assessment in the assessment district. There is a sewer trunk line that runs down Masterson Street and the water system will be extended which is the first step in providing the needed services out to that area. Mr. Mclntosh said that he conducted some research into how far back the land use compatibility issue went. He found that in 1976 the EIR for the Rio Bravo Annexation was done. The resolution of annexation dated July of 1976 had a land use plan attached and the entire area was designated as residential. The designation of the property to the north is also LR (Low Density Residential) and they are well aware of the lot sizes as being 2-1/2 acre parcels. Mr. Mclntosh said they were concerned about that and the compatibility of those parcels so they took a closer look and he demonstrated on the overhead that it is not'just 2-1/2 acre parcels but an equal number of houses and paddocks that either face or back onto Paladino. Mr. Mclntosh stated that the vacant property to the west is owned by Dr. Reddy who sent a letter stating his support of the City in the Hills project. Mr. Mclntosh said that he has been involved in other master planned communities and he has found it difficult to have a large tier of lots within a master planned area. It is difficult to set up the neighborhoods. You almost have to continue the same lot size from that tier to the next tier across the street. You don't want to have small lots across from large lots because then there are problems with the neighbors. He feels that Paladino being a 110 foot wide arterial with the landscape buffer and th'e wall across the street from the existing 2-1/2 acrelots is an adequate buffer. He then showed the Commission a copy from the Transportation Impact Fee program which showed that the improvements that are already planned to go in are already funded and included in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee program. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady wanted to clarify that the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan can be amended four times a year. The Commission evaluates each request to change the plan on it's own merits. Commissioner Brady said that if nothing happened tonight, the applicant could put more housing in than Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page13 what he is asking for. He could have more vehicle trips than what he is asking for. It's not comparing it to what is there now physically but what the plan says can be put there. The higher density designations are put there because they have to provide a mix. in looking at the mile and mile and a half and the existing uses around them, it appears to him that the applicant has put the apartments in the most appropriate place for the area. The apartments that are going to generate a lot of trips will be between the freeway and an arterial. The type of roadways that are best able to handle the higher traffic. He does agree there should be height limitations and he would like to hear from the applicant what types of uses they are talking about for the various C-2 sites. Commissioner Brady asked the applicant what they are planning for the large C-2 area between 178 and Masterson? Mr. Ciceroni said that the C-2 in that corner is a direct response to the Project activity center that was in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. It was originally designed to be approximately a 70 acre MUC designation which would have been regional in nature but after meeting with numerous retail consultants they deemed a GC designation would be more appropriate for the overall area. Commissioner Brady said that he would like to see larger lots along the northern edge of the property. Paladino is the only arterial for this project that is going to have residential on it. To avoid the tunnel effect you get when houses are built on 6,000 square foot lots with small backyards, he would like to see Estate size lots along Paladino Drive. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Ciceroni if there is a possibility along the north line to have cul-de-sac lots or 7,200 to 9,600 square feet lots in that area? Mr. Ciceroni said that cul-de-sac loading and knuckle lots would enlarge the lot sizes adjacent to Paladino. Also, it might provide for a larger lot if they were to do a 7,200 foot standard condition. Another consideration could be that those lots on Paladino be five foot deeper and ten foot wider than the standard condition. That would also provide for a more adequate buffer. Commissioner Sprague asked if they would agree to that if it were put forward tonight? Mr. Ciceroni said that that would be acceptable. Commissioner Sprague asked if a PCD overlay could be laid over the development plan so that the Commission could have a look at it when the development comes forward to look at landscaping, heights of the building, parking lots, etc? Mr. Ciceroni said "absolutely" but the development agreement provides the flexibility to achieve all those elements. It would address the height considerations, the apartments and the commercial and the Commission's limitations. But as far as switching the zone, the plan before them is a zone change to C-2 with a land use change to GC. The project description does not provide for any other zoning. So at this point the answer would be "no" in terms of any consideration but the answer is yes because eVery element that the Commission would wish to consider within that PCD can be accomplished in the development agreement. The application is being processed at this time. Commissioner Sprague asked if the development agreement comes through the Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 14 Planning Department and if the Commission would get reports back and overviews on it? Mr. Grady said the development agreement would come to the Commission as a hearing, but he needs to keep in mind it is a negotiated document and if they have issues that the Commission needs to be addressed by the approval of the project tonight, they should be conditions of this project. Not deferred to a document that you don't have in front of you and may not encompass the things you think it is going to encompass. Commissioner Sprague said that if the developer assures the Commission that they will have feedback and be incorporated into that development so that there will be proper buildout and proper shielding and greenbelts and the right'parking lot size to the structures, then he will feel comfortable in supporting the zone change along with improving the size of the lots on the north edge of the property for more buffer and then tier down to the south. Commissioner Kemper asked staff if they may approve a PCD on the C-2 this evening? Mr. Grady said "yes." Commissioner Kemper asked if they may also request tiered lots in the residential section. Mr. Grady said "yes" but he needed to clarify how they could achieve the PCD. It is not actually a district that is put on the project tonight. They would give it the GC designation and as a condition of that, you would require a PCD for the development to get the zone change in the future. You wouldn't actually zone it tonight but you would give it the land use designation tonight. With respect to the residential, there is more than one zone classification that fits LR. If the Commission is considering doing that, then yes they would be able to zone it something other than R-1. Commissioner Kemper in response to the residents who were concerned with their rights to keep animals, wanted to assure them that the right to have animals runs with the property. It is not something that is limited to current ownership. They don't need to be concerned about losing their rights or future owners losing their rights. Commissioner Kemper said she would be more in favor of tiering the-lot sizes toward Paladino similar to the Castle and Cooke project in the Brimhall area. Commissioner Kemper said she thinks it is important to be compatible and complement the other land uses that are already established in the area. A PCD will give the Commission and the community in the immediate area the knowledge that it will be a good project that will have a lot of input from the City Planning Commission. Commissioner Boyle said this has been designated residential since 1977 and probably predates most all of the residents in the area. The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan adopted the designation LR in 1990 which gives the applicant the right to develop lots that are consistent with the current standards which is 6,000 sq.ft. Commissioner Boyle said that he doesn't particularly like 6,000 sq.ft, lots but that is the compromise between urban sprawl and higher densities. Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 15 Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw about Mr. Ulman's possibility that if we build out Paladino that you would have three lanes eastbound and then a median and only one lane westbound because the property to the north is not being developed? Ms. Shaw said that is not entirely true. Paladino as it is constructed today two lanes north of the section line. Mr. Cicerroni would be constructing his three lanes and the median to the south side. So, we'd end up with five lanes. The two lanes that are already there is the city's responsibility. Commissioner Boyle pointed out that the total number of units the applicant is asking to build is less than the total number he is allowed to have as a matter of law and a large number of these units are designed to be between what is now Highway 178 and what ultimately will be Freeway 178 if and when it is built. Commissioner Boyle said that people will not want to buy homes between a freeway and a major highway so apartments would be appropriate in there. He also said that he thinks cul-de-sac lots backing up to Paladino is an excellent idea. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady if they can make that a condition that it be included in the development agreement? Mr. Grady said "yes." Commissioner Boyle said that he would like the development agreement to include a height limitation of no more than two stories on both the high density residential and the commercial properties. He would like to see the cul-de-sac against Paladino with 7,200 minimum square foot lot size as part of the development agreement and he would like to see at least a collector designation on the west boundary line. Commissioner Boyle said that he would also like to see as a condition of the project that the development agreement contain a provision that the total number of units shall not exceed what has been approved tonight. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he thinks that in reviewing all the information that is before them and listening to all the comments he concurs with the residents who do not want a 6,000 sq.ft, lot across the street from their house but unfortunately most people can't afford 2-1/2, 5 or 10 acre lots. He would like to see cul-de-sac lots on the Paladino portion of the subdivision. He would also like to see a PCD overlay on the commercial portion of the project. Commissioner McGinnis said that in his tenure with the Planning Commission this is the first development that he has seen that did not take production farmland out of production. This is an excellent use for the property and he supports the amended zone change. Commissioner Tkac said he agrees with Commissioner McGinnis with the fact that he is happy that this development is not taking agricultural ground out of production. One of things that the community had a concern about was the buffer zone and the proposed development. As big as the buffer is going to be built and the way the buffer will be built it should not change property values. The high density residential is in the right place. If the developer wants to sell houses in the development, they are going to want to make the area look really nice in order to attract people. Commissioner Tkac said he also supports the Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 16 cul-de-sac lots on the north end. Compared to what they could do versus what they are going to do, this is going to be positive for the area. He also supports a PCD for the commercial property. Roger Mclntosh said that he would like to address the PCD issue. It is very difficult to have a plan that will stay the same from beginning to end. And in this particular case, there are no residents within 1/4 mile of any of the C-2 requested areas. So, its not like they are in an area where there is going to be a lot of light, glare, etc. He thinks its more important to address the standards that are in the C-2 zoning ordinance that covers all those types of issues and not throw a PCD on every single project that comes before the Commission. He respectfully requested that the Commission not impose a PCD on this project this evening. Commissioner Brady asked staff what is designated across Masterson from the proposed C-27 Mr. Grady said that it is LR designated so it would be R-1. Commissioner Brady said that is a lot closer than 1/4 mile. He would be more comfortable with Mr. Mclntosh's suggestion if the C-2 ordinance was already amended. The standards based on what has been developed in the past are too loose for the size of the project that is being proposed. Mr. Ciceroni said that the development agreement may very well come before the Commission in the time that this sits before it goes to Council. It provides for the flexibility to address the exact issues that the Commission has. It is really the appropriate vehicle to resolve this and provide the flexibility for them to move forward. Commissioner Brady said he had a concern about Commissioner Boyle's suggestion about putting a collector on the section line between 17 and 18 that would connect Vineland Road to Queen Street. He asked Commissioner Boyle what he would propose as a trigger for the development of the roadway? Commissioner Boyle said he was just proposing that it be shown on the general plan to be built. He would assume that all it would require the applicant to do is to buildout his half of the road. He is either going to have a local street there or he is going to have the backyard of his houses up tight against the section line. Commissioner Brady said that with the improvement that staff made to the circulation element that the traffic from the project is going to be appropriately handled with the existing roadways. His only concern about that section line is to address the traffic concerns of the next section. Because this particular applicant is going to be mitigating all of the traffic from his development, he has a concern about placing an additional burden on this applicant to build a roadway to handle traffic on the adjacent property. Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 17 Commissioner Brady stated that with regard to the tiering, he was trying to get 10,000 sq.ft, lots up at the top which would be an Estate zone. He knows that when we have projects go through and when the roadways go through sometimes you get lots that are deeper because of.a V shape or other things that can be done. He would feel more comfortable requiring an Estate designation on the top border of the project. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if Estate sizes are a minimum 10,000 or less? Mr. Grady said that it is generally 10,000 or larger. Commissioner Sprague stated that it is his feeling that the developer will make larger lots in the cul-de-sacs and knuckles and he feels that 7,200 or 8,000 sq.ft, is appropriate and adequate. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Ciceroni if the applicant owned a 40 acre portion of Section 187 Mr. Ciceroni said yes that is correct. He pointed out that the genesis of the collector road was really the loop road in the center of the map. It is their intention to have a nice village community center with a park at the junction of the modified collector and the proposed collector. Providing for a road on the west might jeopardize their planning and force them to change the element. They prefer to leave the circulation element as proposed. Commissioner Sprague said that he feels that a proper development agreement can be brought forth and complied with without a PCD overlay. Commissioner Sprague said he supports the Project the way it is with the increased lot size of 7,200 sq.ft, and cul-de-sac and knuckles on the north edge of the property and with the development agreement in the GC and HR region set forth by the applicant. Commissioner Boyle said on the issue of the park land that the Kern Wheelman Club has requested that the park land be outside of this development and he disagrees with that. We need to have park land where the people are living. Commissioner Boyle said that he feels that a PCD is'not necessary as the freeway will buffer the people to the north and there is no one to the south 'except for the highway and Mesa Marin. He feels that a PCD is necessary on the GC just to the north of the freeway at the intersection between the arterial and the freeway off ramp. By the applicant's own admission, it probably is not a project that is going to be built in the next ten years. The building of that commercial property is going to be somewhat dependent upon the freeway being built. Once there is homes there and a freeway is there. Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw about Masterson. He said the general plan amendment shows it going due south and intersecting straight on with 178. The Masterson that presently.exists before you get to 178 does a funny little squiggly to the right so that it lines up straight with the existing 184. Commissioner Boyle wants to know which is it going to be? Is it going to.be what really exists right now or is it going to be the straight line that is shown? Ms. Shaw said they were having discussions with the applicant and she can't recall what they were and asked Mr. Walker if he remembered any better than Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Parle 18 she did? Mr. Walker said that his recollection of the meeting was that they talked about how Masterson has to veer to the east to connect up with an alignment there. Commissioner Sprague asked Councilmember Maggard if he could follow-up with the county and possibly work a' cooperative effort to have a county/city cooperative regional park built within this particular subdivision which had additional facilities in it for people of all ages? Councilmember Maggard said that his intention before he came this evening was to go to the county and ask them to cooperate with us in developing a very significantly enhanced park area all along the bluffs to the north and east of the project. Commissioner Sprague said that he still does not think it is necessary to have a PCD placed on this project. Commissioner McGinnis said that in response to Vice Chair Boyle's comment, the Commission just got through looking at a similar project to this on Ming Avenue where there was a problem with condominium owners next to a commercial development that they put a PCD layover on. He notes to the west of the large General Commercial zone change they are asking for, there is high density units. He thinks it would be appropriate at this time, according to staff's recommendation, to put the PCD layover on the commercial. Mr. Grady said "yes" if that is the desire of the Commission. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Grady if the ordinance is going to be updated to bring it up to PCD standards in the future? Mr. Grady said that whatever cOmes out of the committee concerning development standards will be applicable to the C-2 zone. With that, Commissioner Sprague said that they will be covering all the items in a PCD and the upgrade of the ordinance with all the provisions that they have been discussing in the past year. At that point all the builders and developers will know what exactly has to go into a good shopPing center. Commissioner Brady said the project on Ming Avenue had apartment, s already there and another builder was coming in putting in the commercial project. Here we have one builder doing both and if he wants to destroy his apartment buildings by not taking into consideration things like speaker boxes and walls, that's his financial risk. As far as the large general commercial, it is between the highway and the freeway and more importantly the developer has hopes that the large project will end up being a school site so putting a PCD on it might be an exercise in futility. Vice Chairman Boyle stated what he thought the amendments to the motion should be: Incorporate the October 4 memorandum language on Page 2 from Marian Shaw's memorandum, that the development agreement will include as conditions height limitations of not more than two stories on the apartment property and the commercial property. That the development agreement will include cul-de-sacs against Paladino and a minimum lot size of (whatever the Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page19 figure might be) and also the development agreement include a condition that the total number of units would not be greater than what has been approved as part of this general plan amendment tonight. Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to make findings and approve the requested General Plan Amendment No. P00- 0647 to the Land Use Element with MUC, LR, and HR to LR, HR and GC on 162.40 acres as shown on Exhibit E and approving the requested amendment to the Circulation Element by establishing new arterial and collector street alignments within the development site and recommend same to the City Council and incorporating into that Commissioner Boyle's suggestions and incorporating in October 4 memorandum and the memorandum of September 25 from the Planning Department relating to the gas line that is adjacent to the property. Also, include the September 29 memorandum from Mt. View Bravo LLC by John Ciceroni. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Boyle None Commissioner Dhanens A resolution making findings approving requessted zone change P99-0647 to amend the zoning districts from A and R-1 and R-3 on 65.50 acres and to C-2 97.90 acres and from A to R-1 on 500 acres as shown on the attached Exhibit "E" and recommend to the same to the City Council and incorporating the other items in the above motion. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Boyle None Commissioner Dhanens A five minute recess was taken. 5.1.b) ZOne Change P99-0647 - Mountain View Bravo, LLC (Continued from September 21, 2000) (Ward 3) The discussion was combined with Agenda Item 5.1 .a. Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Parle 20 PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Parcel Map '10726 (Lee Jamieson, Hopper Properties L.P.) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to Exhibit A. public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Lee Jamieson, representing Hopper Properties, stated that they had reviewed all the conditions and accept all the conditions with one small change .that they have discussed with Ms. Shaw regarding increasing the bond to allow them to record the final map before CalTrans has given its final approval. Ms. Shaw said his proposal is acceptable to them. The language should be: Condition 3.5 "shall submit all improvement plans including plans for signing, striping, marking, required wall, landscaping and irrigation to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.'i Security for the improvement plans on the state road is also acceptable. Public portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commission comments or questions. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Tentative Parcel Map 10726 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the modification by adopting the language of the agreement Ms. Shaw just read. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 7~1) Vesting Tentative Tract 6006 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 7) (continued from August 17, 2000 and September 9, 2000) Nothing new was added since the Monday pre-meeting. Staff recommended approval with.conditions and stated that the Commission needed to add two memorandums from the Public Works Department dated September 22 and October 4 to the motion. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Fred Porter, representing the applicant, stated they are satisfied with staff's recommendations and conditions and requested the Commission's approval of the project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commission comments or questions. Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6006 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution and including the-memos dated September 22 and October 4 from Marian Shaw. · Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 21 7.2 Motion carried. Vesting Tentative Tract 6003 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Staff reported that an indemnification agreement has not been filed for this subdivision. Staff recommends the hearing for this item be continued until October 19, 2000. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke for or against the project. Item was continued until October 19, 2000 by group vote. 7.3)' Vesting Tentative Tract 6013 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward4) See Consent Agenda. 7.4) Vesting Tentative Tract 6015 (The Lusich Company, Inc.) (Ward 7) See Consent Agenda. 10. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ORDINANCES AND POLICIES GOVERNING LANDSCAPE STANDARDS: Commissioner Boyle gave a brief report on the progress of the committee formed to look at this matter. He said the committee has looked at a short term problem and a long term problem. The short term problem is they would like to get a quick fix. The long term problem is that they need to spend some time working on the ordinance. The short term fix they are looking at is changing the ordinance from where it requires 30 percent coverage at 90 percent of maturity to 30 percent in a certain number of years. It was the idea of the committee that by doing that it addresses a number of concerns such as the size of the trees. The other part of the ordinance is an enforcement provision. The city has not had that in the past. Right now trees can be taken out but there is nothing that requires you to put them back in. The ordinance would require that trees be put back in that would be the average of the existing trees or a maximum of 48 inch box. COMMUNICATIONS None COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Brady reported that the Canal Fencing Committee met and they have started defining some of the issues and problems. They are scheduled to meet again on October 12 and they will continue to move forward with an idea to come up with a modification to the ordinance regarding canal fencing witl~ development. Minutes, PC, October 5, 2000 Page 22 Commissioner Sprague said that about six months ago he brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and the City Council and conversed with Councilmember Maggard regarding the water quality up in the northeast area. He wanted to thank Public Works and Mike Maggard for. pushing this forward with Cai Water and getting this cleaned up. The water has been cleared up and the water quality is exceptional. 11. DISCUSSION' AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Due to the agenda being light for the next meeting, there will not be a pre-meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m. October 30, 2000