[1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL]
[00:02:08]
GOOD EVENING.I'M THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR CITY OF INDIO AND I'LL BE
[5.1. Coco Palms Project - Resolution No. 2018 - Coco Palms Tentative Tract ...]
DOING THE STAFF PRESENTATION THIS EVENING ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT.THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CALLED COCO PALMS. ITS A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE PRACT TRACT.
AT 30072 ALONG WITH AY DESIGN REVIEW AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.
AND JUST TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE ITEMS BEING CONSIDERED THIS EVENING, THE ENVIRONMENTALLAL ASSESSMENT AND THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP WILL BE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION AND THE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION WILL BE A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ONLY UNLESS APPEALED.
SO THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED NORTHEAST OF AVENUE 50 AND JACKSON STREET.
IT IS ACTUALLY ON A SITE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED AND THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY GRADING WORK DONE CALLED LAS PLUMAS.
THIS PROJECT DID NOT PROCEED AND THE MAP EXPIRED, THEREFORE, THE NEW PROJECT IN FRONT OF YOU IS CONSIDERED A NEW TENTATIVE TRACT MAP THAT IS DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT FROM LAS PLUMAS.
THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FOR THIS PROPERTY IS SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH ALLOWS UP TO EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM WHICH ALSO ALLOWS UP TO EIGHT DWELLING UNITS TO THE ACRE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TOTAL OF 173 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH A DENSITY OF 4.5 DWELLING UNITS TO THE ACRE.
SO SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW WHAT IS PERMITTED.
AS I NOTED PREVIOUSLY BUT JUST TO REITERATE, THE APPLICATIONS IN FRONT OF THE
[00:05:01]
COMMISSION CONSISTENT A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 173 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS COMPRISED OF ONE STORY AND TWO-STORY HOMES.A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION TO CONSIDER THE MODEL HOUSE PLANS AND FRONT YARD TYPICAL LANDSCAPING FOR THE PROPOSED 1773 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TO CONSIDER THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR COCO PALMS. SO THE MAP IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION IS THE PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP.
AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS COMPRISED OF 173 LOTS, AND THE OVERALL PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT IS AN OVERALL GRID NETWORK.
THERE IS A CUL-DE-SAC PROPOSED.
LOT BLOT LENGTHS ARE RELATIVELY SHORT WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE GENERAL PLAN WHICH TYPICALLY CALL FOR LENGTHS TO BE IN THE RANGE OF 400 TO 800 FEET.
PRIMARY ACCESS WILL BE OFF OF JACKSON STREET, AND YOU WILL NOTE TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH THAT AVENUE 49 IS ALSO AN ACCESS POINT, HOWEVER, THIS ROADWAY IS NOT CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT A HALF WITH A PORTION OF THAT ROADWAY AND THE CITY OF INDIO AND THE CITY OF COACHELLA AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE WORKING TO IDENTIFY THE CONSTRUCTION OPPORTUNITY FOR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF AVENUE 49.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TOTAL OF FIVE PHASES, AS INDICATED ON THIS MAP.
PHASING IS A NORMAL PROCESS, AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THIS PHASING PLAN UNLESS AND IF THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFY IT, WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS IS A -- THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED SITE PLAN.
THIS SHOWS THE LAYOUT OF HOMES ON THE LOTS.
AND AGAIN, A FAIRLY TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH THE ALREADY IDENTIFIED STREET, BLOCK LAYOUT.
THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES I'M SHOWING TO THE COMMISSION ARE A PART OF THE APPLICANT AS SUBMITTAL PACKAGE.
THESE ARE THE VARIOUS ELEVATIONS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT.
THIS ELEVATION IS THE SINGLE STORY PRODUCT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT ONE OF THE SINGLE STORY PRODUCTS.
THIS IS ANOTHER SINGLE STORY PRODUCT.
AND THEN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED TWO-STORY HOUSING PRODUCT.
THESE ARE THE MODEL HOUSE PLANS I MENTIONED EARLIER IN MY PRESENTATION.
WE'RE NOW GOING TO COLORED ELEVATIONS.
THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THESE TO GIVE KIND OF CONTEXT AND TEXTURE TO THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURES.
AGAIN, THESE ARE THE SINGLE-FULL NAME RESIDENTIAL ONE-STORY HOMES.
THIS IS ANOTHER MODEL THAT IS SHOWN.
AND THEN WE PROCEED TO THE REPRESENTATIVE TWO-STORY MODEL, ONE OF THEM.
AND THEN ANOTHER TWO-STORY MODEL.
AND THEN A THIRD TWO-STORY MODEL.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S VARIOUS MODEL TYPES, BUT ALL DESERT APPROPRIATE AND DESERT CONSISTENT.
THE NEXT SLIDE IS SHOWING THE FRONT YARD TYPICAL LANDSCAPING.
THE APPLICANT HAS CHOSEN TO GO WITH A DESERT FRIENDLY LANDSCAPE MOTIF, AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL GOALS OF THE CITY TO BE A WATER FRIENDLY AND DESERT APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPING IN PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, PARTICULARLY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
AGAIN THESE ARE THE FRONT CARD YARD TIP CAPITALS.
THE APPLICANT CAN USE THEIR DISCRETION BASED ON CLIENT EXPECTATION FOR THE REAR YARDS.
SO WITH THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2018, APPROVING THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP WITH A PROPOSED AMENDMENT WHICH I TRANSMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION EARLIER TODAY.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL BE CAN CONDITIONAL APPROVAL NUMBER B5C.
THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE THAT WAS INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT OF THIS CONDITION AND STAFF IS REQUESTING THIS AMENDMENT TO ADD THIS LANGUAGE.
I WILL READ IT AS IT IS PROPOSED TO BE READ.
MAINTENANCE OF ALL FRONTAGE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 49 AND THE LANDSCAPING ALONG JACKSON STREET.
WHAT WAS MISSING FROM WHAT WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE COMMISSION AND THE STAFF REPORT AND THE RESOLUTION WAS "ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 49 AND THE LANDSCAPING ALONG JACKSON STREET." SO THOSE WORDS WERE MISSING, SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMISSION SEEKS TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2018, THAT IT BE WITH AN AMENDMENT AS NOTED IN THE MARCH 23RD MEMORANDUM FROM THE DIRECTOR
[00:10:06]
TO THE COMMISSION.STAFF IS ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVE RESOLUTION 2019.
THIS WOULD APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW.
AND AGAIN, RESOLUTION NUMBER 2018 IS A RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL.
RESOLUTION 2019 IS A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL THAT WOULD STAY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNLESS APPEALED.
AND THEN STAFF IS ALSO RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL RESOLUTION NUMBER 2020, RECOMMENDING THE COUNCIL ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE DECLARATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT, AND IT ALSO IS ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW PORTION OF THE PROJECT.
WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I WILL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES ARE HERE TO PRESENT AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION MAY.
IN ADDITION TO MYSELF, ROLDAN LOPEZ, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER, IS ALSO PRESENT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE THROUGHOUT TONIGHT PROCEEDING.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: KEVIN, HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
SO THE AMENDMENT TO CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WAS EMAILED THAT IS IN REGARDS TO NUMBER 2018.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: THAT IS CORRECT, CHAIR.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: AND I HAD ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE PROPOSED AVENUE 49 IS GOING TO BE BUILT OUT FROM JACKSON STREET.
WILL THAT BE GOING ALL THE WAY ACROSS TO CALHOUN OR IS IT ENDING AT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SECOND QUARTER OF THAT?
>> KEVIN SNYDER: THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, CHAIR.
LET ME GET BACK TO THE LAYOUT.
SO THE APPLICANT WILL BE CONDITIONED TO IMPROVE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 49 ALONG THEIR FRONTAGE ONLY.
THAT IS BASED ON THE LEGAL NEXUS TEST THAT THE CITY HAS TO APPLY REGARDING WE CAN ONLY ASK THE APPLICANT TO CONDUCT IMPROVEMENTS ALONG WHAT THEY CONTROL.
SO THE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO CALHOUN WILL BE CONDUCTED BY OTHER PROJECTS AS THEY COME ALONG, BOTH IN THE CITY OF -- WELL, PRIMARILY IN THE CITY OF COACHELLA.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
RODRIGUEZ CEJA: CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: OF COURSE.
KEVIN, I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW, WHEN THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED, HOW IT WILL AFFECT OUR TARGET NUMBERS FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLE 6.
LIKE HOW THIS CONTRIBUTING TO THAT? AND WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING WOULD WE BE ADDRESSING?
>> KEVIN SNYDER: IT'S A GREAT QUESTION, VICE CHAIRPERSON.
SO THIS WILL BE POSITIVELY CONTRIBUTING TO OUR HOUSING NEEDS AS IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE.
AS A REMINDER TO THE COMMISSION AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, COUNCIL RECENTLY ADOPTED A HOUSING ELEMENT THAT HOUSING ELEMENT PLANS FOR 7,812 HOUSING UNITS OF WHICH 2,963 ARE TO BE AFFORDABLE, AND THAT PLANNING PERIOD IS 2021 TO 2029.
THESE, AND THE APPLICANT CAN CERTAINLY ELABORATE BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THESE WILL BE CONSIDERED, THESE WILL BE MARKET RATE BUT THEY WILL BE ON THE MORE AFFORDABLE SIDE OF MARKET RATE AND WILL HELP, I THINK, ASSIST IN APPLYING TO A PORTION OF THE MARKET THAT IS LOOKING FOR AFFORDABLE MARKET RATE HOUSING.
BUT CERTAINLY WHEN THE APPLICANT STEPS FORWARD, THEY CAN GIVE YOU MORE ELABORATE DETAIL IF THEY HAVE IN IT TERMS OF THEIR PRICING STRUCTURES.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: ESPE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR KEVIN? OTHERWISE, WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE APPLICANT.
>> CHAIRPERSON VALDEZ: I'M NOT SURE FIGHTS A QUESTION FOR KEVIN OR THE APPLICANT, BUT AS FAR AS MAINTAINING THE COMMUNITY, IS THAT GOING TO BE THROUGH AN HOA OR IS IT GOING TO BE APPLIED ANSWER ASSESSMENT TO THE TAX BILL FOR THE RESIDENT? THE COMMON AREAS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED IN THE EXTERIOR AND THE INTERIOR?
>> THIS IS ROLDAN LOPEZ WITH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
THEY ARE CONDITIONED TO DO A HOA, HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ALL COMMON LOTS AND ALSO FOR ANY FRONTAGES ON THE STREETS.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: LET'S GO AHEAD AND BE IF WE COULD, LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: CHAIR, I THINK YOU HAVE TO OFFICIALLY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[00:15:04]
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: I THOUGHT WE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE STAFF REPORT, BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK, PLEASE.
>> SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING, AND I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THE FACT THAT ONE OF YOU WOULD TAKE TIME FROM THE EMERGENCY ROOM TO BE WITH US.
I'LL TRY TO MAKE THIS BRIEF BECAUSE I KNOW TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE IN THIS VERY INTERESTING EVENING.
I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING AS CITY ATTORNEY HERE IN INDIO FOR FIVE YEARS FROM 1998 TO 2003.
SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE APPLICANT BECAUSE WE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT WHEN I WAS CITY ATTORNEY.
I'LL TRY TO KEEP THIS VERY BRIEF.
THE TARGET IS MARKET AFFORDABLE, BUT THERE ARE STUDIES THAT ARE BEING DONE NOW TO ANSWER A MORE PRECISION THAT QUESTION.
THERE ARE FIVE PHASES, AS WAS DISCUSSED.
THE SIZE OF HOMES IS GOING TO RANGE FROM 1600 TO 2785 SQUARE FEET.
WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS, AND I HAVE TO RAISE THEM AND HOPE YOU'LL BEAR WITH ME.
ONE IS A29, CONDITION OF APPROVAL A29 WHICH TALKS ABOUT HAVING SIDEWALKS WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY.
AND THE SIDEWALKS REALLY DON'T ADD TO THE WALKABILITY OR THE CONNECTIVITY OF THIS COMMUNITY.
AND I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT THE ORIGINAL MAP, THE LAS PLUMAS MAP THAT KEVIN REFERRED TO WAS 33875.
IT HAD NO SIDEWALKS AND IT WAS GOING FORWARD WITH NO SIDEWALKS.
OUR TENTATIVE MAP 38072, WE THINK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE IDEA THAT THIS SHOULD BE A COMMUNITY THAT HAS CONNECTIVITY AND SUSTAINABILITY BUT WITHOUT SIDEWALKS.
I'VE CHECK, AND THERE ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE AREA, THESE ARE HOMES BEING ONE OF THE MORE NOTABLE THAT HAVE NO SIDEWALKS AND VERY SIMILAR TO OUR PROJECT.
SO WE WOULD ASK RESPECTFULLY THAT THERE BE CONSIDERATION TO WAIVE A29.
THERE WILL BE SIDEWALKS COMING INTO THE PROPERTY AND IN ALL OF THE ENTRANCES, BUT THEN WITHIN THE INTERIOR, THERE WOULD BE NO SIDEWALKS.
THE OTHER CONDITION THAT WE WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER FOR US IS THE CONDITION INVOLVING THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT AVENUE 49 AND JACKSON.
I WONT GO INTO THE HISTORY OF THIS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY NOBODY WAS CONDITIONED WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO PUT THAT TRAFFIC SIGNAL IN, AND SO WE ARE REQUIRED TO PUT AND BEAR THE WHOLE COST OF THAT SIGNAL.
THAT'S, I THINK, CONDITION C1 AT PAGE 13.
AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR REALLY IS WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE SIGNAL BEING TWO YEARS TO BE IN, BUT WE DO HAVE A REQUEST THAT INSTEAD OF AT THE 100TH BUILDING PERMIT THAT IT BE AT THE 100TH OCCUPANCY PERMIT.
BUILDING PERMITS DO NOT GENERATE TRAFFIC BUT OCCUPANCY PERMITS DO.
THE OTHER CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE IS WHEN YOU READ OUR TRAFFIC STUDY, THERE ARE QUESTIONS AND CONFLICTS WITHIN THE STUDY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD HAVE JUST BEEN PAYING A FAIR SHARE FOR THE SIGNAL.
WE REALIZE THAT CAN'T BE DONE, AND SO WE ARE GOING TO BEAR THE COST, AND THAT'S OKAY, BUT WE WOULD LIKE A LITTLE HELP HERE TO MAKE THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONDITIONED ON THE 100TH OCCUPANCY OR TWO YEARS.
WE'RE HAPPY WITH THE TWO YEARS.
WE'RE, OF COURSE, GOING TO BOND FOR THE IMPROVEMENT, AND WE'VE WORK THAT OUT.
SO WITH THOSE TWO OBSERVATIONS, WE'D LIKE TO SUPPORT STAFF AND MOVE FORWARD.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: ANY COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> CHAIRPERSON VALDEZ: I HAVE A QUESTION.
IN REGARDS TO THE SIDEWALK COMMUNITY, I KNOW THERE IS COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF INDIO THAT TONIGHT ON THE HAVE SIDEWALKS INSIDE -- DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS INSIDE THE COMMUNITIES, BUT THERE'S KIDS OUT RIDING BIKES, RIDING SKATEBOARDS, PEOPLE WALKING THEIR DOG.
IF WE SAY, OKAY, NO SIDEWALKS, ARE YOU WILLING TO PUT UP EXTRA LIGHTING
[00:20:01]
JUST SO IT'S SAFE FOR THE PEDESTRIANS THAT ARE OUT WALKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? BECAUSE IT IS DANGER IN THE EVENING.>> SPEAKER: YOU KNOW, THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION.
I CAN'T ANSWER IT RIGHT NOW BUT I THINK WE'D BE WILLING TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WE COULD DO, AND LET ME EXPLAIN.
REMEMBER, THIS IS A GATED COMMUNITY, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INTERIOR OF THE COMMUNITY BEING ONLY OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE TO THE RESIDENTS REALLY UNLESS THEY'RE A GUEST.
I ASKED ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT I KNOW THAT LIVES IN THIS AREA, AND I SAID, "HOW DO YOU DO YOUR PROJECT?" HE SAID, "WE DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS" AND HE SAID, "WHEN I RUN, I RUN TO THE STREET, AND WHEN I WALK MY DOG, I WALK MY DOG ON THE STREET.
THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY DOES." SO I WOULD IMAGINE PEOPLE NEED TO BE SENSITIVE ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORS AND I THINK THAT YOU COULD PROVIDE IN THE HOA DOCUMENTATION THIS IS THE WAY WE CONDUCT OURSELVES, THIS IS HOW WE DO IT, AND BE VERY SENSITIVE TO THAT ISSUE.
IT'S A GOOD ISSUE AND I APPRECIATE YOU BIG HAVE BRINGING IT UP, BUT I THINK IT CAN BE HANDLED.
>> YES, AND THE REASON THAT I DO BRING IT UP BECAUSE I DO LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT DOES NOT HAVE SIDEWALKS SO I'VE SEEN WHERE THERE'S IN CARS COMING IN CONTACT WITH THE PEDESTRIANS WALKING THEIR DOG, THEY ARE RUNNING, SO IT'S A LITTLE UNSAFE.
THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO ASK IF THERE WILL BE SOME ADDITIONAL LIGHTING THAT WOULD HELP WITH JUST PREVENT ANY ACCIDENTS.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO GET APPROVED OR NOT U.S.
BUT JUST IN CASE I THINK ADDITIONAL LIGHTING WOULD DEFINITELY BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IF WE'RE ASKING FOR NO TALKS WITH.
ANOTHER QUESTION I HAD -- I'M NOT SURE WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS -- IS AS FAR AS THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL THAT IS REQUIRED TO GO ON JACK AND 49TH, IS THERE GOING TO BE LIKE A THREE-WAY STOP OR A FOUR-WAY STOP UNTIL THAT TRAFFIC SIGNAL GETS PUT UP FOR TRAFFIC? OR HOW IS THAT GOING TO GET HANDLED?
>> SPEAKER: I HAVE TO DEFER TO ROLDAN ON THAT.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: ROLDAN -- CHAIR, WHY WITH YOUR PERMISSION,AL ROLDAN LOPEZ CAN RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION.
>> YES, BEHIND JACKSON STREET THERE STILL CONTINUES TO FUNCTION AS CITIES WITH NO STOP SIGNS.
THERE WILL BE A STOP SIGN ON AVENUE 49 BUT WE WILL NOT STOP THE TRAFFIC ON JACKSON STREET.
>> CHAIRPERSON VALDEZ: ON AVENUE 49, THAT WOULD BE THE ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNITY? THE COMMUNITY OFF OF 49?
>> THERE'S TWO ENTRANCES TO COMMUNITY.
ONE IS FROM AVENUE 49 AND ANOTHER ONE IS FROM JACKSON STREET, BUT THE SIGNAL WILL GO RIGHT UP THE INTERSECTION OF AVENUE 49 AND JACKSON STREET.
HOWEVER, PRIOR THE SIGNAL THERE WILL BE A STOP STEIN ON AVENUE 49 BUT NO STOP SIGNS ON JACKSON STREET.
>> SPEAKER: COMMISSIONER, I WANT TO THANK REALLY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DID A GREAT JOB BECAUSE THEY MADE US DO TWO TRAFFIC STUDIES, AND THE STUDIES AND THE ANALYSIS AND THE -- WHAT'S CALLED VMT ALL SUPPORT THE WAY THAT THE CITY IS APPROACHING IT AND I THINK THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB.
>> CHAIRPERSON VALDEZ: THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER CEJA, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
RODRIGUEZ CEJA: I WANTED A CLARIFICATION.
WHEN YOU SAY MARKET RATE, WHO IS THE MARKET? WHAT INFORMATION LEVEL ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
>> SPEAKER: I THINK THAT'S BEING STUDIED.
I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANALYSIS DONE, BUT WHAT WE ARE WORKING WITH IS TRYING TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE AREA IN WHICH WE'RE CONSTRUCTING THESE HOMES.
AND I'M SORRY I CAN'T GIVE YOU A MORE DETAILED ANSWER, BUT IT'S ALL PART OF THE ANALYSIS AND STUD US THAT ARE DONE BY PEOPLE SMARTER THAN ME.
RODRIGUEZ CEJA: HAVE YOU DONE THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ANYWHERE NEAR THE CITY OR IN THE CITY BEFORE?
>> SPEAKER: YEAH, I'VE DONE MANY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY.
AS I SAID, I WAS CITY ATTORNEY FOR ALMOST SEVEN YEARS -- SIX YEARS, AND I'M REAL FAMILIAR WITH HOW THINGS GET DONE AND WHAT THEY SHOULD BE AND HOW THEY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED, AND I THINK IF YOU WERE TO TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS WHO KNEW ME, THEY'D SAY I DID A LATEST PRETTY GOOD JOB AS CITY ATTORNEY.
I HOPE I'M DOING A GOOD JOB TONIGHT.
I'M NOT TRYING TO NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
I JUST CAN'T ANSWER IT UNTIL I SEE STUDIES.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: AND I COULD SUPPLEMENT, VICE CHAIRPERSON, IN THE STAFF REPORT, NOT THAT THIS IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT, BUT BASED ON THE CURRENT REVIEW OF THE APPLICANT'S WATERMARKE HOMES' WEBSITE CURRENT COMMUNITIES, THOSE CURRENT COMMUNITIES HAVE PRICE RANGES HAVE $300,000 AND $400,000.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THOSE WILL BE THE PRICE RANGE OF THIS COMMUNITY, BUT JUST AS AN ANECDOTAL NOTE OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY EXHIBITED ON -- AND OBVIOUSLY, AS THE
[00:25:03]
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE INDICATED, THEY'RE DOING A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE PRICE RANGES THAT THEY WILL BE OFFERING, BUT THAT IS JUST, I GUESS, SOME CON DECKS FOR YOU IN TERMS OF WHAT THE PRICES ARE IN OTHER COMMUNITIES THEY'RE WORKING THROUGHOUT THE MARKET AREA.RODRIGUEZ CEJA: THANK YOU, KEVIN.
THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT CONTEXT IN.
I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: CHAIR, COULD I INTERRUPT? I APOLOGIZE.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO RESPOND TO -- ROLDAN HAD RESPONDED TO THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONCERN.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO RESPOND TO PROVISION OF SIDEWALKS BE WITH CONCERN THAT THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE RAISED AT THIS TIME OR WAIT UNTIL AFTER YOU'VE RECEIVED FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT?
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: NO, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND RESPOND AT THIS TIME AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT IF THERE'S ANY.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: WHAT I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD IS THAT THAT REQUIREMENT CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS BASED ON GENERAL PLAN 2040 THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2019.
THE ACTUAL POLICY IS POLICY LU-7.
IT READS, "EXCEPT WITHIN DESIGNATED RURAL ESTATE AREAS, OF WHICH THIS PROJECT IS NOT, REQUIRING YOU CAN HAVE A SIDEWALK OF AT LEAST 5 FEET IN WIDTH ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE OF PRIVATE AND BOTH SIDES OF PUBLIC STREETS IN NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROHIBIT OBSTRUCTIONS SUCH AS UTILITY BOXES, TELEPHONE POLES, STREETS SIGNS, ET CETERA THAT WOULD IMPEDE SIDEWALK USE." SO THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR YOU TO RECONSIDER IS BASED ON THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN.
THE PROJECTS THAT HE REFERENCED AROUND THE AREA, INCLUDING THE SPECIFIC ONE HE REFERENCED BARCELONA, THOSE WERE CONSIDERED UNDER A PRIOR GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY THAT DID NOT HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT.
SO AS TENTATIVE MAPS ARE REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE AND CONSISTENCY WITH AN ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN, THAT WAS THE REASON BEHIND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR INCLUSION OF THAT CONDITION.
IT IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW AND THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING MISSION TO DECIDE NOT TO APPLY THAT CONDITION.
AND YOU MAY, AS COMMISSIONER VALDEZ WAS TALKING ABOUT, PROPOSE AN ALTERNATE MEANS, SUCH AS THE PROVISION OF MORE STREET LIGHTING TO OFFSET THE LACK OF SIDEWALKS, BUT I WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS BASED ON THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY AND THAT'S THE BASIS FOR THAT CONDITION.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR CLARIFYING.
MAY I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THE SECOND CONCERN THAT THEY HAD ON THE SIGNAL, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY VERSUS BUILDING PERMITS?
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO:, PLEASE, ROLDAN, IF YOU WOULD.
>> YEAH, WE DISCUSSED IT AMONG OURSELVES AND WE ACTUALLY DISCUSSED IT WITH THE DEVELOPER, AND THE REASON WHY WE WANT THE SIGNAL TO BE, RATHER THAN THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WE WANTED TO BE AT THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
LET'S SAY THE BUILDER IS 99, 99 PERMITS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN HE PULLS 20 PERMITS MORE, SO THEY'RE ALL UNDER CONSTRUCTION, AND NOW HE'S GOT PEOPLE THAT WANT TO BUY THOSE HOMES.
HOW CAN WE STOP THEM FROM LETTING THESE PEOPLE MOVE IN? HOWEVER, IF WE RESTRICT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT, THEN WE HAVE CONTROL AS TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE SIGNAL.
SO WE DISCUSSED IT WITH THEM, AND WE ARE VERY FIRM AS TO STAYING WITH THE WAY THE CONDITION WAS WRITTEN BECAUSE IT GIVES -- IT GIVES BETTER CONTROL OF THE CITY.
HOWEVER, THE BODY CAN CHOOSE TO, YOU KNOW, TO TAKE THE DEVELOPER'S CONCERN.
BUT AS ENGINEERING, WE DEFINITELY WANT THE CONDITION TO REMAIN AS THE WAY THAT IT WAS WRITTEN.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: AND, CHAIR, I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS RETURNED TO THE PODIUM.
I BELIEVE HE WANTS TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS WHEN YOU BELIEVE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ACCEPT THEM.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ROLDAN LOPEZ, THEN CERTAINLY YOU WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO DO THAT FIRST.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: ROLDAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CLARIFYING THAT FOR US AS WELL, AND WE CAN GO AHEAD AND HEAR BACK FROM THE APPLICANT IF HE HAS ANYTHING
[00:30:02]
TO CONTEST THAT WAS JUST SAID.LET ME TRY TO ANSWER THAT BECAUSE -- AND I RESPECT ROLDAN AND I RESPECT JUAN.
THE ISSUE THAT THEY RAISE IS ONE OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH AND WHAT HAPPENS IF.
I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT IF YOU WANT TO PUT IN AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT SAYS THAT WE WILL NOT PROVIDE OCCUPANCIES OVER THE 100 UNITS UNTIL WE HAVE THE SIGNAL IN, WE WILL DO THAT.
WE'RE NO TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT SOMETHING.
THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT IS WHEN YOU HAVE A SIGNAL LIKE THIS, IT HAS TO BE DESIGNED, THERE HAS TO BE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION, AND IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT, SO WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING ON THAT AND WE CAN GIVE THEM A SCHEDULE OF HOW WE'RE DOING THAT SO THAT THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE.
WE ALSO HAVE A BOND ISSUE, A BOND FOR THAT, AND I AM SENSITIVE TO WHAT THEY JUST SAID, BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY THAT THIS COMPANY OPERATES.
THEY HAVE BUILT OVER 2,000 HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY, AND THEY NEVER HAD A CHALLENGE LIKE THAT.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN OF ROLDAN, AND I THINK THAT WE CAN GIVE THEM ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF WHEN WE'RE DOING THE DESIGN AND WHEN WE'RE GOING TO RELEASE FOR CONSTRUCTION SO THAT THEY HAVE ADEQUATE ASSURANCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO KEEP OUR WORD.
IT'S A MATTER OF KEEPING YOUR WORD.
AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS COMPANY.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT WE'LL GET IT DONE ON THE 100TH OCCUPANCY.
IF IT NOT YOU CAN STOP FURTHER OBJECT COMPANIES UNTIL THE LIGHT IS OPERATIONAL.
SO I THINK THERE'S PLENTY SUPPORT FROM US AND WE DON'T INTEND ON TRYING TO MAKE -- YOU KNOW, BE CAGEY OR ANYTHING.
SO AS AN ATTORNEY, NOW, I'M GOING TO SAY THERE IS SUPPORT TO SAY IT'S THE 100TH OCCUPANCY.
YOU DON'T GET ANY MORE OCCUPANCIES OR YOU DON'T GET ANY MORE BUILDING PERMITS -- HOW ABOUT THAT? -- IF THAT SIGNAL ISN'T IN ON THE 100TH OCCUPANCY.
I MEAN, THERE ARE WAYS TO PROTECT THE CITY THAT WE CAN DO, AND WE CAN DO THAT THROUGH LETTER AGREEMENT.
SO I REALLY FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THIS, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU LETTING ME SPEAK.
>> NICCO, THIS IS ROLDAN AGAIN.
>> ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THEM.
ONCE YOU USUAL A BUILDING PERMIT, YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY IS GETTING READY TO CLOSEST CROW, HOW CAN YOU TELL THAT PERSON, YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU CANNOT MOVE IN.
HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T ISSUE THAT PERMIT, THEN NOW YOU HAVAL CONTROL.
AS FAR AS THE DESIGN OF THE SIGNAL, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
THEY HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO DO THAT.
THE ISSUE IS HAVING CONTROL AS TO WHEN THE SIGNAL GETS INSTALL.
I MEAN, IF THEY ARE -- LIKE -- SAID, IF THEY HAVE THEIR WORD THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THE SIGNAL, THEN WHY DO THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE WORDING? SO TO ME AND TO JUAN, WE FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT THE CITY IS TO STAY WITH THE CONDITION THE WAY IT IS.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: AND ALSO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, THEY CAN HAVE UP TO 99 PEOPLE MOVED IN BEFORE THE LIGHT WERE TO GO IN IF WE WENT WITH WHAT THEY WERE REQUESTING, CORRECT?
HOWEVER, NICCO, IF WE GO WITH THE WAY THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING, THERE'S GOING TO BE OTHER -- YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE'RE NOW -- WE'RE NOT RESTRICTING THE ISSUANCE
OF THE BUILDING PERMITS, SO TECHNICALLY THEY CAN -- >> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THERE COULD BE 100 TO 200 CARS IN AND OUT OF THAT COMMUNITY WITHOUT THE LIGHT, BEFORE THE LIGHT'S PUT UP, CORRECT?
[00:35:05]
>> THAT IS CORRECT, BUT WE WANT TO HAVE -- WE WANT TO HAVE CONTROL, AND THAT'S WHY THE CONDITION WAS WRITTEN THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
IT SHOULD BE THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: CHAIR, I THINK THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: VERY BRIEFLY, PLEASE.
>> SPEAKER: WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
YOU DO NOT JUST SAY AT 99TH OCCUPANCY YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE SIGNAL IN BECAUSE YOU'RE PLANNING THAT SIGNAL WAY BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, SO THE CONTROL IS VERY SIMPLE.
THE CITY SAYS NO MORE OCCUPANCY PERMITS UNTIL THAT SIGNAL IS OPERATIONAL.
AND YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT TO DO IT.
BELIEVE ME OTHER JURISDICTIONS DO NOT TO IT.
IF THERE'S NOT SOMETHING FULFILLED, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S IN ESCROW OR NOT BECAUSE THOSE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRE THAT THAT SIGNAL BE OPERATIONAL.
AND SO I THINK YOU HAVE THE CONTROL.
IF IT'S THE ISSUE OF CONTROL, CERTAINLY THE CITY DOES HAVE CONTROL.
THERE'S A DIFFERING OPINION HERE, AND IT HELPS US MANAGE OUR CASH FLOW, TOO, SO I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER THIS AND AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY DOES KEEP CONTROL, THAT THE CITY CAN SAY, NO MORE OCCUPANCIES UNTIL THAT SIGNAL IS IN.
BUT REMEMBER THIS, THE SIGNAL DOESN'T GET IN ON THE SAME-DAY AS THE 100TH OCCUPANCY.
THAT SIGNAL IS PROBABLY IN BEFORE THEN ANYWAY.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU, SIR.
CLEMENTINA, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM?
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: NO PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME, SIR.
>> A CLARIFICATION THERE'S NO MEMBERS IN THE PUBLIC ONLINE AND NO SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM?
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGAN: THAT IS CORRECT.
>> ZACH HEINSELMAN: THANK YOU.
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGAN: YOU'RE WELCOME.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, ROLDAN, FOR ALL YOUR COMMENTS.
KEVIN, IS THERE ANY FURTHER STAFF CLARIFICATION ON ANY OF THESE TOPICS?
>> KEVIN SNYDER: NO, CHAIR, THERE IS NOT.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: LET'S GO AHEAD.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LET'S TALK WITHIN THE COMMISSION.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY THOUGHTS? ANY QUESTIONS?
RODRIGUEZ CEJA: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY IN REGARD TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, IT SEEMS THAT STAFF IS ASKING FOR A VERY REASONABLE THING, AND IF, ACCORDING TO THAT LAST STATEMENT ABOUT THE TRAFFIC LIGHT BEING PUT UP WAY BEFORE THE 99 ANYWAY, THEN IT SEEMS LIKE THE CONDITION THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, IT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TRULY.
SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I WOULD NOT BE INTERESTED IN ENTERTAINING CHANGING THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CEJA.
ESPE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY ON THIS?
>> CHAIRPERSON VALDEZ: JUST THAT I SUPPORT THE TRAFFIC LIGHT SITUATION THAT MR. ROLDAN LOPEZ THAT THE CITY HAS PUT IN PLACE FOR THE APPLICANT.
I KNOW THAT THAT AREA IS A VERY HIGH TRAFFIC AREA.
I'VE DRIVEN DOWN THAT STREET PLENTY OF TIMES WHEN I'M OUT WORKING AND SHOWING PROPERTY, AND CARS DO NOT FOLLOW THE SPEED LIMIT AND IT'S A STRAIGHT SHOT, AND I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE DANGEROUS FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE DRIVING OUT OF THE COMMUNITY, TRYING TO GET ONTO -- DRIVE ONTO JACKSON STREET, SO I THINK THAT A TRAFFIC LIGHT THERE IS DEFINITELY BENEFICIAL TO THE RESIDENTS AND TO THE DRIVERS DRIVING DOWN THAT STREET.
I HAD A QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE SIDEWALK.
NOW, IF WE AGREE TO NOT REQUIRE, TO LET THEM NOT PUT SIDEWALKS INTO THE COMMUNITY, THERE A MINIMUM -- I'M SORRY -- A MAXIMUM OR A MINIMUM WIDTH THAT THE STREET NEEDS TO BE OR ARE THEY JUST GOING TO TAKE THAT EXTRA SPACE AND AND MAKE THE LOTS LARGEER? HOW DOES THAT WORK IF THE SIDEWALK IS OUT, AS FAR AS THE STREET WIDTH AND THE LOT WIDTH?
>> KEVIN SNYDER: I BELIEVE THE SHORT ANSWER, HOWEVER, ROLDAN MAY WANT TO CLARIFY IT FURTHER, IS THAT THE CITY HAS AN ENGINEERING STANDARD FOR PRIVATE STREETS THAT
[00:40:05]
THEY WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, AND THE PROVISION OF SIDEWALK, IF THAT IS REQUIRED, WILL HAVE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED AS PART OF THAT OVERALL DESIGN WHEN THEY BRING THEIR DESIGNS INTO ENGINEERING.BUT, ROLDAN, DO YOU WANT TO CLARIFY ANY FURTHER?
THE MINIMUM STREET WIDTH THAT'S DOES NOT CHANGE FROM CURB FACE TO CURB FACE.
THE ONLY THING THAT WILL CHANGE IS THE, YOU KNOW, THE WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE WE ALSO HAVE A CONDITION FOR A 10 FEET PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, AND THAT'S TYPICALLY WHERE THE SIDEWALK WOULD GO, SO WHETHER THE SIDEWALK GOES IN OR NOT, IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE WIDTH OF THE STREET.
>> CHAIRPERSON VALDEZ: SO WHAT ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS THAT WOULD -- AND I WASN'T SURE IF HE WAS TALKING WITH THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE OR IS THIS JUST A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE UTILITY AREAS INSIDE THE COMMUNITY? LIKE WHAT SIDEWALKS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE THAT HE IS ASKING TO WAIVE?
>> KEVIN SNYDER: SO THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS BASED ON A GENERAL PLAN POLICY, POLICY LEU-7.5 THAT SPECIFIES THERE SHOULD BE FOR PRIVATE STREETS, WHICH THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSE, THIS YOU HAD THERE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM 5-FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, AND THAT WOULD BE DESIGNED IN ACROSS ALL FRONTAGES, WHETHER THEY BE COMMON OPEN SPACE OR HOUSE LOTS, BUT AGAIN, ROLDAN, IF YOU WANT TO EXPAND ON THAT ANY FURTHER, PLEASE DO.
>> ROLDAN: NO, KEVIN, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
>> CHAIRPERSON VALDEZ: SO IF THERE IS NO SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY GET TO SELL A LARGER LOT? WHAT DO THEY DO WITH THE SPACE IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK.
>> ROLDAN: NO, THE SIZE OF THE LOT WOULD REMAIN THE SAME WHETHER YOU HAVE A SIDEWALK OR NOT BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK WILL BE LOCATED ON AN AREA THAT IS CONSIDERED A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT.
A PUBLIC ALL THE EASEMENT IS NOT TRUE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
IT'S STILL OWNED BY THE RESIDENTS, HOWEVER, THE UTILITY COMPANY AND THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO USE THAT 10 FEET.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE SIDEWALK WOULD BE.
SO WE'RE NO TALKING ABOUT A SIDEWALK THAT WOULD BE IN FRONT OF A RESIDENCE, THEN.
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT A SIDEWALK WOULD BE WHERE ANY PUBLIC UTILITY WOULD BE TAKING PLACE.
>> ROLDAN: NO, THE SIDEWALK WOULD BE IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE, BUT ALL ALONG THE STREET THERE'S THAT 10 FEET PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF ALL THE RESIDENCE HOMES.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: COMMISSIONER, JUST TO EXPAND QUICKLY, THAT MEANS THAT IF YOU APPLY THIS CONDITION, THAT WITHIN THAT 10-FOOT EASEMENT AREA, I BELIEVE, ROLDAN IS SAYING 5-FOOT OF THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY UTILIZED FOR THAT SIDEWALK.
>> CHAIRPERSON VALDEZ: THANK YOU.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ROLDAN.
MY THOUGHTS ARE ALSO THE SAME IN TAKING THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF IN REGARDS TO THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND THE 100TH OCCUPANCY, AND ALSO AS FAR AS THE SIDEWALKS GO, BEING THAT THAT'S PART OF OUR NEWLY APPROVED GENERAL PLAN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ADHERE TO THAT, SO ME PERSONALLY, I'M NOT IN THE OPINION THAT WE SHOULD GRANT EITHER OF THOSE.
BUT IF ANY OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS WANT TO TAKE AN ATTEMPT AT ANY OF THESE
APPROVALS, ANY OF THESE RESOLUTIONS -- >> KEVIN SNYDER: AND, CHAIR, WE'RE BRINGING UP THE RESOLUTIONS RIGHT NOW SO THEY SHOULD BE ON YOUR SCREEN AS A REMINDER.
RESOLUTION NUMBER 2018, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, A, AMENDMENT TO CONDITION B5C AS SPECIFIED IN THE MEMORANDUM THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSION.
>> ZACH HEINSELMAN: ONE OTHER SUGGESTION WOULD BE IF YOU INTEND TO TEAK THESE SEPARATELY CONSIDER STARTING WITH RESOLUTION 2020 AND MOVING TO 2018 AND THEN 2019.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: OKAY, CERTAINLY.
AND WHEN WE BRING UP 2018 WITH THAT AMENDMENT THAT WAS IN THE MEMORANDUM, KEVIN, DO WE NEED TO READ THAT OFF OR JUST SAY AS NOTED EARLIER?
>> KEVIN SNYDER: I THINK, CHAIR, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO SPECIFY AMENDED CONDITION B5C AS SPECIFIED IN THE MARCH 23RD, 2022 MEMORANDUM FROM MYSELF TO THE COMMISSION.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO TAKE A GO AT THIS ONE?
[00:45:02]
RODRIGUEZ CEJA: I MOVE TO APPROVE CONDITION 2020, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WITH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
>> ZACH HEINSELMAN: JUST FOR CLARIFICATION THE RECORD, THAT WOULD BE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2020 RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT MMRP AND MCHT MB AND ADOPTING MMB FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW PORTION.
CAN WE PLEASE GET A ROLL CALL VOTE.
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: CHAIRPERSON YSIANO.
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: VICE CHAIRPERSON RODRIGUEZ CEJA.
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, I'M SORRY.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: CHAIR, AS RECOMMENDED AGAIN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, IT WOULD NOW BE APPROPRIATE TO MOVE TO RESOLUTION 2018 AND THEN FOLLOWED BY RESOLUTION 2019.
>> ZACH HEINSELMAN: AND JUST JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE FIRST MOTION CARRIED 3-0, CORRECT?
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: CORRECT.
RODRIGUEZ CEJA: MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2018 WITH THE AMENDMENT B.5C AS STATED IN THE MEMORANDUM FOR MARCH 23, 2022 TO THE COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING FROM DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KEVIN SNYDER.
>> ZACH HEINSELMAN: AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION THAT WOULD BE 2018 RECOMMENDING THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP WITH THAT MODIFICATION THAT YOU NOTED, THAT DIRECTOR SNYDER NOTED?
RODRIGUEZ CEJA: THAT'S CORRECT.
>> CHAIRPERSON VALDEZ: I'LL SECOND.
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: CHAIRPERSON YSIANO.
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: VICE CHAIRPERSON ROG CEJA.
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: COMMISSIONER VALDEZ.
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: SO THE VOTE IS 3 TO ZERO.
LAST ONE, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER CEJA.
RODRIGUEZ CEJA: MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2019, DESIGN REVIEW 2 AREN'T 04487 FOR MODEL HOUSE PLANS -- EXCUSE ME.
I'M LOOKING AT THIS FROM MY PHONE.
FRONT YARD TYPICAL LANDSCAPING -- THAT'S RIGHT.
ZACH 1 I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT I.
>> ZACH HEINSELMAN: I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO CLARIFY JUST FOR THE RECORD THAT IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2019 KENNEL APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 21-04-487 FOR THE MODEL HOUSE PLANS AND FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING FOR TENTATIVE ARTIFACT TRAPT MACK 21 HAD 04-048.
RODRIGUEZ CEJA: THAT'S CORRECT, THANK YOU.
>> CHAIRPERSON VALDEZ: I'LL SECOND.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU.
CAN WE GET A ROLL CAL VOTE, PLEASE.
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: CHAIRPERSON YSIANO.
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: VICE CHAIRPERSON RODRIGUEZ CEJA.
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: COMMISSIONER VALDEZ.
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: VOTE IS 30.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: THANK YOU, CHAIR.
COULD WE REQUEST A ONE-MINUTE RECESS BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE OTHER ITEM TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT TO GO AHEAD AND DEPART JUST TO GIVE HIM ONE MINUTE TO GET OUT BEFORE WE START TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER ITEM.
RODRIGUEZ CEJA: CHAIR, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO INTERJECT AND SAY THAT I WILL HAVE TO EXCUSE MYSELF OUT OF THE MEETING OR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING TO ATTEND TO A FAMILY EMERGENCY.
[00:50:03]
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: YEAH, VICE CHAIR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR DOING YOURS BEST AND BEING A PART OF THIS.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: CHAIR, I THINK COMMISSIONER VALDEZ MAY HAVE TO LEAVE AS WELL.
I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR HER, BUT -- >> CHAIRPERSON VALDEZ: YES, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE DONE, IF THAT'S OKAY.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: YES, OF COURSE.
SO KEVIN, MOVING FORWARD, I'LL BE THE LONE PARTICIPANT IN THE STUDY SESSION.
>> SPEAKER K: WELL, WE ARE GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE
[7.1. Planning Commission Review & Discussion of Draft Articles 2 and 3 ...]
MAJORITY OF COMMISSION IS NOT HERE THAT TONIGHT'S STUDY SESSION ITEM BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE MARCH 30TH SPECIAL MEETING, WHICH IS NEXT WEDNESDAY.HOWEVER, WE ALSO ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THERE MAY BE INDIVIDUALS IN ATTENDANCE THIS EVENING THAT MAY WANT TO MAKE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT, SO WE ENCOURAGE TO YOU REACH THEM, AND I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY IS ALSO GOING SPEAK TO THAT EFFECT AS WELL.
I THINK WE CAN PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE IF THEY WANTED TO SUBMIT ANY PUBLIC COMMENT OR TESTIMONY ON ITEM 7.1, LIKING THAT THAT SAME ITEM WILL BE DISCUSSED AT A PLANNED STUDY SESSION NEXT WEDNESDAY AS WELL, AND -- -- JUST PER DIRECTOR SNYDER A REMARKS IT LOOKS LIKE WE WILL BE LOSING QUORUM SO AFTER THIS WE CAN ADJOURN THE MEETING TO THE SPECIAL MEETING SCHEDULED NEXT THURSDAY -- SORRY -- WEDNESDAY.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ONLINE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT AT THIS TIME? DO WE NEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT?
>> ZACH HEINSELMAN: JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THERE IS NO PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE WAS A STUD I SESSION THAT WAS KIND OF INTENDED TO BE PART 1 OF A TWO APART STUDY SESSION FOR NEXT WEEK SO IT WILL STILL BE NEXT WEEK, JUST PART 1 AND PART 2 WILL BOTH BE HAPPENING NEXT WEEK, BUT WE WANTED TO GIVE THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IF THEY WERE HERE TONIGHT OR ONLINE TONIGHT TO GET THEIR COMMENTS FOR THE BOARD NEXT WEEK.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: CLEMENTINA, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THERE IN THE BUILDING OR ONLINE AT THIS POINT?
>> CLEMENTINA BARRAGÁN: NOT ONLINE BUT HERE IN THE BUILDING, SIR.
IF THEY'D LIKE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT NOW, THEY MAY.
OTHERWISE, THIS WILL BE CONTINUED TO NEXT SPECIAL MEETING NEXT WEDNESDAY ON THE 30TH OF MARCH.
I OWN PROPERTY ON MONROE AND 48TH.
TO MAKE IT EASIER IT'S 47797 MONROE.
THE CITY MAP, IT SHOWS THAT IT'S A HOUSE, BUT THERE'S NO HOUSE.
SO I WOULD LIKE THEM TO CHANGE IT SO I CAN BE ABLE TO MAKE AN OFFICE AND MAKE IT COMMERCIAL BECAUSE ALL OF THE SURROUNDINGS ARE COMMERCIAL, SO I'M JUST WAITING FOR THE CITY TO DO THE CHANGE.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: CHAIR, IF I CAN ADD, MR. CABATA AND I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO CONNECT SO I'LL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH HIM TOMORROW.
I BELIEVE I SENT YOU AN EMAIL, SIR WEEKS, AND HELP ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS, AND THEN I CAN PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION TO YOURSELF AND THE REST OF THE COMMISSION NEXT WEEK AT THE SPECIAL MARCH 30TH STUDY SESSION.
SO HE CAN HAVE -- HOPEFULLY YOU CAN HELP HIM ADDRESS HIS QUESTIONS, AND IF NOT, WE CAN DISCUSS IT AGAIN NEXT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30TH.
SO WE WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING, THEN, AND MOVE TO THE NEXT SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 30TH, 2022.
WILL THAT ONLY BE APPRAISED OF BEING JUST THE STUDY SESSION ITEMS OR WILL THERE POSSIBLY BE OTHER PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, BEING THAT IT'S A SPECIAL MEETING?
>> KEVIN SNYDER: IT WILL ONLY BE THE ZONE CODE SPECIAL ITEMS, AND AGAIN, WE PLAN TO START WITH THIS EVENING, WE WILL START WITH THAT, SEE HOW FAR WE GET, AND THEN DEPENDING ON THE COMMISSION'S INPUT AND DIRECTION, WE MAY SEEK TO DO ANOTHER SPECIAL MEETING SO THAT WE CAN STAY ON SCHEDULE FOR THE FORMAL REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION LATER IN THE BEGINNING OF MAY.
[00:55:01]
WONDERFUL, THEN WE WILL ADJOURN UNTIL NEXT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30TH.
THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.