>> WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
[00:00:02]
WE'RE READY.WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER FOR MAY 27, 2020 AT 6:00 P.M.
[1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL]
FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF INDIO.IF I COULD HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
>> VICE CHAIRPERSON JACQUELINE LOPEZ.
>> COMMISSIONER SAM TORRES IS CURRENTLY ABSENT.
>> AND COMMISSIONER JUAREZ IS RUNNING ABOUT TEN MINUTES LATE FOR THE RECORD.
THANK YOU FOR THAT, AND WE CAN HAVE AN INTRODUCTION OF STAFF, PLEASE.
MADAME CHAIR PERSON THAT IS LEILA NAMVAR.
FOR SOME REASON MY FRONT CAMERA DOESN'T WORK SO THAT'S WHY YOU GUYS SAW MY DOGS.
SO PERHAPS YOU WON'T SEE ME TONIGHT, BUT THE STAFF ATTENDING THE MEETING TONIGHT IS ROSIE LUA, ASSOCIATE PLANNER, KEVIN SNYDER, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, MYSELF LEILA NAMVAR SENIOR PLANNER AND EVELYN BELTRAN, SECRETARY.
JACKIE, IF YOU COULD LEAD US WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, I THINK WE HAVE A FLAG COMING UP.
>> IT WOULD HELP IF I TOOK OFF MUTE.
PLEASE PUT YOUR RIGHT HAND OVER THE YOUR HEART AND READY BEGIN.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
[4. STATEMENT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY]
OKAY.AT THIS TIME IF WE CAN HAVE A STATEMENT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE.
Y WANT TO LET EVERYONE KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN NO DIRECTIVE ISSUED, TEMPORARILY HALTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROCESSING OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APATIONS AND/OR CONVERSATION POLICY ACTIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND NEW OR AMENDED SPECIFIC PLANS, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF INDIO CONTINUES TO ACCEPT AND PROCESS APPLICATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.
THE CITY OF INDIO IS FOLLOWING GOVERNOR NEWSOM'SY EXECUTIVE ORTIZ 9N-29-20 PERTAINING TO THE BROWN PACTING THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS ALLOW ENTITIES TO CONDUCT MEETINGS PER ELECTRONIC MEANS AND FOR MECHANICS OF THE PUBLIC PROVIDE ELECTRONICALLY AS WELL AS.
QUORNLY CITY COWNGS AND PLANNING COMMISSIONER CURRENTLY CONDUCTING SCHEDULED MEETINGS IN A VIRTUAL MEETING FORMAT.
THE CITY OF NOAND INDIO HAS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS THAT ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE AND OFFER PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL AS PUBLIC TESTIMONY DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS AT SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS.
THE CITY IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WITH MEETINGS ALSO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCESSING OF LANDS USE APPLICATIONS AND/OR CONSIDERATION OF POLICY ACTIONS.
AND AS FOR COMMENTS ON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, THEY'RE ACCEPTED AT THE EMAIL NOTED IN THE AGENDA.
DURING THE HEARING AND UNTIL THE HEARING IS CLOSED AND TESTIMONY DURING THAT PERIOD SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE CHAIR.
WE'LL HAVE THE DISCRETION TO SIDE IF AND HOW QUESTIONS MAY BE ADDRESSED.
AT THIS TIME WE'LL GO TO DO AND OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS FOR ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA?
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THATMENT PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.
AND WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 7.1.
[7.1 Continued Public Hearing from February 26, 2020 for Citrus Plaza II Specific Plan 19-08-63 and Environmental Assessment 19-08-544 (Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program)]
WE CAN START WITH THAT FROM STAFF.>> HERE BEFORE ROSIE'S STAFF REPORT I WOULD ASK EVELYN TO MAKE A STATEMENT INTO THE RECORD REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS.
>> GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON A SPECIFIC ITEM MAY BE SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL TO EBELTRAN@INDIO.ORG.
PLEASE IDENTIFY THE ITEM YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON IN YOUR EMAIL SUBJECT LINE FOLLOWED BY REQUEST TO SPEAK.
ALTERNATIVELY YOU MAY EMAIL YOUR NAME, CONTACT NUMBER AND ITEM YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON TO THE EMAIL LISTED IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE ORAL TESTIMONY.
[00:05:03]
I WILL PROVIDE CALL-IN INSTRUCTIONS WHEN A REQUEST TO SPEAK IS RECEIVED.YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST TO SPEAK TO PROVIDE ORAL TESTIMONY.
AS IT RELATES TO THE COMMENTS ON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED TO THE EMAIL ADDRESS IDENTIFIED OF DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND UNTIL THE HEARING IS CLOSED.
>> GOOD EVENING, MADAME CANARY AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I'M ROSIE LUA, ASSOCIATE PLANNER, CITY OF INDIO.
AND I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SHARE MY SCREEN.
IF I CAN JUST GET THE OKAY THAT YOU CAN SEE IT.
SO TONIGHT I BRING BEFORE YOU THE CITRUS PLAZA II SPECIFIC LAND SP 190863 AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EO 8954.
THIS IS A CONTINUATION MEETING FROM THE FEBRUARY 26, 2020.
BEFORE I START WITH MY STAFF REPORT, I WANT TO INTRODUCE FORMALLY INTO THE RECORD ON MAY 27, 2020, TODAY, THAT WE HAVE TWO LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, LETTER DATED MAY 26, 2020 FROM KENNETH WELLER AND THE DESERT RIVER ESTATES HOMEOWNERS RECEIVED BY MYSELF, THE ASSOCIATE PLANNER, FILED ELECTRONICALLY EMAIL.
ON MAY 26, THE 2020, WE EMAILED THOSE OUT TO YOU.
THE COMMISSIONERS ON MAY 26, 2020.
WE ALSO RECEIVED A LETTER DATED MAY 27, 2020, FROM NICOLE CHRIS, APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, RECEIVED BY MYSELF, THE ASSOCIATE PLANNER BY ELECTRONIC EMAIL ON MAY 27, 2020 AS WELL AND WAS SENT TO YOU AS WELL ON THAT DATE.
SO STARTING THE PRESENTATION, A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, AS I SAID, FEBRUARY 26, 2020, PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCTED A PUBLIC HEARING AND TODAY IS THE CONTINUATION OF THAT MEETING.
A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON WHAT HAPPENED POST THE FEBRUARY 26, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING.
ON MARCH 13, 2020, THE APPLICANT AND DESERT RIVER ESTATES HOMEOWNERS COMMITTEE MET TO DISCUSS THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
THE HOMEOWNERS COMMITTEE CONSISTS OF TWO BOARD MEMBERS AND THREE RESIDENTS OF THE DESERT RIVER ESTATES.
A LETTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.
THEY WERE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL ON MARCH 27, 2020, FROM THE APPLICANT RETELLING THEIR EFFORTS TO REACH OUT TO THE DESERT RIVER ESTATES AND COME TO SOME CONSENSUS ON REVISIONS.
WE RECEIVED THE EMAIL ON MAY 27, AND WE ALSO RECEIVED A REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN FOLLOWING THAT DATE.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A RECAP, THE DESERT RIVER ESTATES HOMEOWNERS COMMITTEE AND THE APPLICANT DID NOT COME TO SOME CONSENSUS, SO WE'RE HERE TODAY TO PRESENT TO YOU THE REVISIONS THAT WERE MADE BY THE APPLICANT AND ALSO PRESENT TO YOU WHAT THOSE REQUESTS WERE FROM THE DESERT RIVER ESTATES COMMITTEE.
SO THE MAY 27, 2020, REPORT THAT YOU'RE SEEING IS ACTUALLY A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ONLY LOOKING AT THE REVISED ITEMS AS PROPOSED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
SO THE REVISED ITEMS AS PROPOSED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN STRUCTURE AS WAS PRESENTED IN THE FIRST INITIAL STAFF REPORT.
THE INITIAL STAFF REPORT INCLUDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND JUST GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL STATING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND LAND USES WITHIN THOSE CONDITIONS.
WE HAVE REMOVED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND LAND USES FROM CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, INSTEAD, WE'RE NAMING THEM IN THE STAFF REPORT AS AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
AND THOSE ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT NEED TO TAKE PLACE PRIOR TO THE DOCUMENT FINALIZING.
SO IF TODAY THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL, THE DOCUMENT PER SE WILL NOT BE UPDATED YET.
IT WILL BE UPDATED AS THE FINAL DOCUMENT.
SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE THERE ARE REFERENCES TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND THEN THERE'S REFERENCE TO AMENDMENTS ON THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THAT IS WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS.
THE FINAL DOCUMENT WILL BE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE DOCUMENT THAT WILL INCLUDE ANY
[00:10:03]
CHANGES TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN VERSUS IT BEING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.S WILL SEE HOW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND AMENDMENTS -- THERE'S A DIFFERENCE, AND AMENDMENTS REALLY ARE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND LAND USES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN ITSELF.
SO WE'LL REFERENCE IT AS AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN VERSUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
CITRUS PLAZA II SPECIFIC PLAN PRICES COMPRISES OF LAND USES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65450 AND 65757 GIVES US SOME AUTHORIZATION THAT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MUST APPROVE THIS DOCUMENT AMID THE REGULATE DOCUMENT.
THE MAIN CRITERIA FOR CAFERTION YOU SPECIFIC PLAN IS CONSISTENCY WITH AN ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN.
IN OUR CASE WE HAVE AN ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN FROM SEPTEMBER 2019, AND THAT IS THE DOCUMENT THAT WE ANALYZED THE SPECIFIC PLAN BY.
SO WE LOOKED AT THOSE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS FROM THE GENERAL PLAN TO SEE IF THERE WAS CONSISTENCY WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN POLICY -- EXCUSE ME -- RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO WE HAVE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION IS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, SO WE LOOKED AT NEIGHBOR CENTER FOR CONSISTENCY, AND WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE SUB-AREA WHICH IS THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS A NEW POLICY THAT WE'RE INTRODUCING THIS TIME AROUND IN OUR SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDATION.
AND THE POLICY IS LAND USE 1.5 SUB-AREA, AND THAT IS TO IMPLEMENT THE STRATEGIES IDENTIFIED FOR EACH DISTINCT SUB-AREA IN INDIO IN THIS GENERAL PLAN.
SO THERE ARE STRATEGIES WITHIN THE SUB-AREA THAT WE ANALYZED THIS PROJECT.
AND WE'LL INTRODUCE IT AS WELL AS I GO FURTHER INTO THE PRESENTATION.
THE LAND USE POLICIES STRATEGIES OF THE AREA, AND I WILL POINT OUT THAT THE PROJECT IS LOCATED HERE IN THIS END, SO THIS IS 50TH AND THIS IS JEFFERSON, SO THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBORHOOD AREA INCLUDES ALL 48, ALL THE WAY TO JACKSON AROUND, DOWN TO 52, AND COMES AROUND AND WRAPS AROUND THE FESTIVAL DISTRICT AND ALSO TO THE NORTH OF IT IS IS THE CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE STRATEGIES THAT WE LOOKED AT WAS -- AND AGAIN THESE ARE STRATEGIES AS A POLICY, NOT A REGULATORY DOCUMENT -- IT'S KEEP NEIGHBORHOODS STABLE AND IMPROVE MULTI-MODAL ACCESS TO MIDTOWN AND MIDTOWN BEING HERE AND THE FESTIVAL DISTRICT, KEEP 20-ACRE MINIMUM PROJECT MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENTS IN CASE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS TO MAINTAIN QUALITY AND COHESIVENESS AND TO ALLOW FOR USES THAT CAN BENEFIT AND CREATE SYNERGIES WITH ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS THE IN FESTIVAL.
SO IN THE STAFF REPORT WE ANALYZED EACH ONE OF THESE ADVANTAGES.
THE CONCLUSION OF -- THESE STRATEGIES.
THE CONCLUSION OF OUR ANALYSIS WAS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN KEEP NEIGHBORHOOD STABLE, WE SAW THAT THE INTENSITIES OF THE USES, AND ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU'LL SEE THAT WE DID WAS TO RECOMMEND THAT HOTELS OR MOTELS BE COMPLETELY PROHIBITED FROM THIS PROJECT.
WE FELT THAT THAT WAS TOO INTENSE OF A USE TO CREATE THE STABLE NEIGHBOR FOR THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE MULTIMODAL ACCESS TO MIDTOWN AND TO THE FESTIVALS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROJECT INCORPORATED PEDESTRIAN AND CONNECTIONS AND, YOU KNOW, JUST WALKABILITY INTO THE PROJECT WHERE IT MET CONSISTENCY WITH THIS STRATEGY.
WITH THE 20-ACRE MINIMUM PROJECT MASTER PLAN, WE FELT THAT THE PROJECT TO THE SOUTH, IF IT WOULD BE CONNECTED, WOULD MAKE THE 20 ACRES, BUT ALSO WE ALSO SAW THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A REGULATORY REQUIREMENT IN OUR ZONING THAT SAYS THAT A 20 ACRES OR TEN ACRES OR FIVE ACRES WAS A MINIMUM FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN, SO THERE IS NOTHING IN THEY STATE REQUIREMENTS OR OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE THAT GIVES US MINIMUMS OR MAXIMUMS ON SPECIFIC PLANS.
SO WE SAW THIS AS A GUIDANCE, BUT IT WAS NOT AN IMPLEMENTATION THAT WE COULD
[00:15:05]
GO FORTH WITH BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, NOR IS IT A STATE REQUIREMENT.SO WE COULD TALK INTO THAT FURTHER IF NECESSARY.
AND THE LAST ONE IS ALLOW FOR USES THAT CAN BENEFIT AND CREATE SYNERGIES WITH ACTIVITIES AND I MENTIONED THE FESTIVAL.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE COMMERCIAL USES AND THE USE OF PLAZAS AND AREAS ENTERTAINMENT THAT ADD A COMPONENT TO IT, THAT IT MET THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THIS STRATEGY.
AGAIN, THESE YOU ARE ALL STRATEGIES AND GUIDE ANSWERS AND POLICIES BUT NOT SOMETHING HA WAS COMPLETELY REGULATE ITEMS THAT WE COULD IMPLEMENT.
SO IN THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBORHOODS, WE FELT THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN MET ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS.
I'M GOING TO JUMP RIGHT INTO THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE ON THE REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN.
SO I HAVE HERE THE ORIGINAL SPECIFIC PLAN, AND THEN I HAVE HERE THE REVISIONS SO WE CAN DO A COMPARISON.
SO THE ORIGINAL SPECIFIC PLAN DATED NOVEMBER 2019 INCLUDED THREE PLANNING AREAS.
THE REVISED ONE INCLUDES TWO PLANNING AREAS.
SO IT REALLY CREATES JUST A HALF AND HALF, A FRONTAGE AND THEN A REAR.
THE ADVANTAGE TO THIS IS WHEN THE PLANNING AREA 1 COMES IN, IT'S GOING TO BE COMPLETED IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND THEN WHEN PLANNING AREA 2 COMES IN, IT'S GOING TO BE ALSO COMPLETED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT HAVING THE THIRD COMPONENT THERE.
THE 75,000 SQUARE FOOT GENERAL RETAIL AND RESTAURANT, THERE WERE NO CHANGES THERE.
THE ONLY CLARIFICATION WAS MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR A ONE-STORY 25 FEET BUT ALL COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS HAVE A MAXIMUM O 35 FEET.
SO IT'S JUST THAT CLARIFICATION.
THERE WAS A REMOVAL OF THE 150-ROOM HOTEL AND FOUR-STORY, 50 FEET MAXIMUM.
THE SPECIFIC PLAN IN ITS REVISION INCLUDED HOTELS OR MOTELS, LAND USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
AGAIN, STAFF'S RECOMMENDING THAT WE REMOVE THE HOTEL AND MOTEL USE FROM THE PROJECT AND MAKE IT A PROHIBITED USE.
ALSO, THERE WERE IN THE ORIGINAL SPECIFIC PLAN, 30 TO 38 UNITS OF MULTI-FAMILY.
AGAIN, WE WERE LOOKING AT A 2.5-ACRE SITE WHICH WAS -- IF YOU REMEMBER, A SMALLER PORTION.
AND THE DENSITY THAT WAS PROPOSED WAS 12 TO 15 UNITS PER ACRE WHICH ALIGNED MORE WITH RESIDENTIAL HIGH ZONING.
AND THE HEIGHTS WERE 35 FEET, THREE STORIES, AND IT WAS RESTRICTED TO PLANNING AREA 2.
SO IT IS STILL RESTRICTED TO PLANNING AREA 2, WHICH IS THIS NEW PLANNING AREA 2 HERE, AND IT IS NOW PROPOSED AT 45 TO 90 UNITS OF MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
WE HAVE A LARGER ACRE SITE AND THE DENSITY IS TEN TO 20 UNITS PER ACRE, AND THAT'S TEN TO 20 DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE IS BASED OFF OF THE GENERAL PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER LAND USE TYPE.
SO IT IS -- IT'S NOT AS FROM THE ZONING OR ANY OTHER -- IT IS COMING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER LAND USE TYPE OF, CONSIDERED DENSITY UNITS.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS REDUCED TO 30 FEET OR TWO STORY.
THEY'VE ALSO INCORPORATED AN ARCHITECTURAL THEME OF CONTEMPORARY ELEMENTS WITH MEDITERRANEAN OR SPANISH INFLUENCES.
AND A SERIES OF PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS AND PROMENADES FOR PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE COMMERCIAL.
THEY'RE ALSO STILL PROPOSING TWO DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS IN ANY PLANNING AREA, BUT WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS IS IN PLANNING AREA 1 ONLY AND THE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED IS FROM 6:00 A.M.
THE FUELING STATION IS IN PLANNING AREA 1 ONLY.
THEY ARE ALSO IN THEIR REVISED SPECIFICS PLAN ELIMINATING ALL CANOPY MOUNTED SIGNAGE AND THEY HAVE INCORPORATED CREATIVE AND MODERN DESIGN THEME FOR THEIR CANOPY WITHOUT INCLUDING A PARAPET ROOF DESIGN.
THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE, BUT REALLY WHAT I WANTED YOU TO GET IS JUST THE CHANGES THAT ARE IN RED, CROSSED OUT, WHICH IS FROM CONDITIONAL USE CONDOMINIUMS
[00:20:06]
TO PERMITTED USE AND SENIOR HOUSING FROM NOT PERMITTED TO PERMITTED IN PLANNING AREA 2 AND ALSO THE MOTEL/HOTEL THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IN THE REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN AS A CONDITIONAL USE.AGAIN, WE ARE PROPOSING FOR IT TO BE A PROHIBITED USE, WHICH WOULD BE AN IN N.
>> FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER TORRES HAS JUST JOINED THE MEETING AT 6:20 P.M.
HERE ARE THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PLANNING AREA 1 AND 2.
THESE ARE THE SAME TABLES THAT WE SAW WITH THE REVISIONS.
SO IN PLANNING AREA 1, BEING THE FRONT HALF, THE REAR SETBACK CHANGES FROM 10 FEET TO, IF IT'S A ONE STORY WHICH IS 25 FEET, THE SETBACK WOULD BE 10 FEET.
SO IF IT'S NOT ABUTTING A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE IS A FUTURE CHANGE OF ZONE ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH FROM IT NOT BEING RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL, THEN OTHERWISE NO MINIMUM SETBACK.
JUST A BIT OF CLARIFICATION THERE AS WELL.
I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WHEN WE HAVE COMMERCIAL USES, BUILDINGS AT 35 FEET, AND I HAVE A NOTE HERE, WHEN THERE IS A SINGLE STORY 25 FEET, TWO STORY 35 FEET, BUT IN NO CASE CAN THE SINGLE STORY HAVE A HEIGHT BEYOND 25 FEET.
SO 25 FEET BEING THE HEIGHT OF A SINGLE STORY.
SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SO THAT THERE'S NOT A CONFUSION THAT A SINGLE STORY COULD BE THE 35 FEET.
DO YOU WITH AN ME TO MOVE ON TO PLANNING AREA 2.
PLANNING AREA 2, AS I DISCUSSED, IT'S THE DENSITY CHANGE.
ALSO, FOR THE RESIDENTIAL THERE IS A 30-FOOT HEIGHT WITH A TWO STORY MAXIMUM.
THERE IS A SIDE SETBACK IN THE PREVIOUS SPECIFIC PLAN THERE WAS NOTHING MENTIONED ON A SITE SETBACK, AND A SITE SETBACK WOULD BE TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY, AND TO THE ONE STORY WOULD BE TEN FEET, IF IT'S ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL TWO STORIES 50 FEET, IF IT'S ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL, OTHERWISE NO SETBACK, AS WELL AS FOR THE FRONT AND REAR.
IF ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL, TWO FOYER 50 FEET.
IF IT'S ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL, NO MINIMUM OTHERWISE.
FOR THE COMMERCIAL PORTION, THE REAR SETBACK, WHICH WOULD BE TO THE EAST, IT'S ALSO A VACANT PROPERTY.
IF IT'S ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL, OTHERWISE NO MINIMUM.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT IN PLANNING AREA 2 ALL BUILDINGS SHOULD HAVE A SETBACK AT A MINIMUM OF 100 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ALONG THE NORTH-NORTHEAST AND EASTERN PERIMETERS OF PLANNING AREA 2 TO MINIMIZE VISUAL AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT.
SO THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, NORTHEAST AND EAST ARE THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ABUTTING RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES.
SO THAT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
BEFORE I CONCLUDE THE STAFF REPORT, WE HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS.
WANTED IT TO CLARIFY THAT IN THE SECTION T SUMMARIES IN PAGE 1, BULLET POINT 2 IS AN ERROR.
WE HAVE CLARIFIED THE STATEMENT IN SECTIONS 8 OF THE STAFF REPORT AND SECTION 6 OF THE RESOLUTION.
IT INCLUDES A RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THE STAFF -- THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
IT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED FOR THESE AMENDMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED IN ADVANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION.
SO, IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THIS PROJECT DOES GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, WE ARE NOT REQUIRING FOR THAT SPECIFIC PLAN TO BE UPDATED AS OF YET.
AND BULLET POINT NUMBER 2 STATES THAT IT SHOULD BE UPDATED PRIOR TO GOING TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO WE ARE NOT REQUIRING THEM TO UPDATE THE SPECIFIC PLAN PRIOR TO GOING TO CITY COUNCIL.
WE'RE REQUIRING THE UPDATE TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO TAKE PLACE ONCE CITY COUNCIL
[00:25:06]
MAKES THEIR FINAL DECISION WHEN THAT TAKES PLACE, SO THAT AT THE END WE HAVE A COMPLETE DOCUMENT OF ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND LAND USES AND ANY OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE ALSO THERE, GET INCORPORATED AND REVISED AND WE HAVE A COMPLETE DOCUMENT AS A FINAL DOCUMENT TO BE ABLE TO, FOR STAFF IN THE FUTURE AND FOR DEVELOPERS TO BE ABLE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT'S BEING REQUIRED OF ANY PROJECT THAT MOVES FORWARD IN THIS PROPERTY.WE HAVE ALSO RECOMMENDED SOME CHANGES TO THE AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
AGAIN, NOT THE CONDITIONS BUT THE AMENDMENTS.
AND THESE ARE JUST, SOME ARE CLARIFICATIONS.
WE HAVE A CONDITION -- I'M SORRY.
AMENDMENTS NUMBER 9 STATES "LANDSCAPE OF ALL REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS SHALL BE REQUIRED IN ADDITION TO A 10% LANDSCAPE COVERAGE FOR THE FOUR PLANNING AREAS." THE REVISION TO THIS JUST ADDS THE WORD "EACH PLANNING AREA" SO IT'S A CLARIFICATION TO THE CONDITION.
SO WHEN THIS DOCUMENT GETS REVISED, IT WILL SAY THAT THE LANDSCAPE COVERAGE FOR EACH PLANNING AREA SHOULD HAVE THE 10% MINIMUM ADDITION.
THE AMENDMENT NUMBER 24, IT ORIGINALLY STATES "ANNUAL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE PERMANENT VEGETATIVE AREA OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN." WE HAVE REVISED IT TO SAY "ANNUAL PLANT MATERIALS ARE ALLOWED IN ACCENT LANDSCAPE AREAS, HOWEVER, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE PERMANENT VEGETATIVE AREAS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN." SO THOSE ARE OUR RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THAT CONDITION.
WE ALSO ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE COMBINE AMENDMENT NUMBER 40 AND NUMBER 16.
SO WE THOUGHT WE COULD GET ONE AMENDMENT TO READ "ALL BUILDINGS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN SHALL HAVE BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND UTILIZE ARCHITECTURAL VARIATIONS TO BREAK UP AUTONOMOUS BUILDINGS, BUILDING FOR EACH BUILDING ELEVATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SUCH AS, GRADUATED BUILDING HEIGHTS, BUILDING MATERIAL VARIATIONS, AND RECESS AND/OR EXTENDED BUILDING SECTIONS." AND THEREFORE IT DELETES NUMBER 16.
SO THOSE ARE OUR STAFF RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT ARE CHANGES TO YOUR ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT.
THAT IS JUST IF WE NEEDED TO GO BACK TO THIS, I HAVE A SLIDE THAT WE COULD WORK OFF OF IF NEEDED.
IT JUST GIVES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE BULLETS.
IF WE NEEDED TO COME BACK AND HAVE THESE FOR OUR VISUAL.
SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE ADOPT NUMBER 1926, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE CITRUS PLAZA II SPECIFICS PLAN AS AMENDED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING REGULATIONS, OF LAND USES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND DESIGN STANDARDS ON A 9.19-ACRE PARCEL AND ALSO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 1927, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MID GATED NEGTY DECLARATION AND THE MITIGATION MONITORS FOR THE CITRUS PLAZA II SPECIFIC PLAN.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? I CAN'T SEE EVERYBODY.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT TALKS TO STREAMING THE FUELING STATION OR THE DRIVE-THROUGHS?
>> SO WE HAVE A AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT DISCUSSES A THREE FOOT BERM, AND I COULD -- LET ME SEE.
BUT WE DO HAVE A THREE FOOT BERM AND LET ME SEE IF YOU CAN FIND THE SPECIFICS ON THAT.
AND IT'S ALONG JEFFERSON STREET BUT NOT NECESSARILY ALONG THE INTERIOR OF THE PROJECT WHERE IT'S SCREENING THE DRIVE-THROUGH AREAS, PER SE, OR THE FUELING STATION.
IT'S JUST ALONG JEFFERSON STREET, IF THAT WAS YOUR QUESTION.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS SOME -- OR MY QUESTION WAS TO SEE IF THERE
[00:30:07]
WAS ANY CRITERIA LISTED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN ABOUT HOW THAT WOULD BE HANDLED.I'M NOT SURE THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADDRESSES THAT.
>> I SHOULD SAY THIS IS KEVIN SNYDER.
WE ALSO HAVE AN AMENDMENT, RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT THAT REQUIRES ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRATION OF THE DRIVE-THROUGHS SO THAT THEY ARE ARCHITECTURALLY INTEGRATED INTO THE BUILDING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ROSIE OR STAFF AT THIS TIME?
>> ROSIE, THAT THREE FOOT BERM IS CURRENTLY IN USE IN THE CITRUS PLAZA I, CORRECT?
>> I AM NOT SURE IF IT'S IN USE IN THE CITRUS PLAZA I.
I AM TRYING TO FIND THE LANGUAGE, THE SPECIFIC LANG TO SEE IF MAYBE I COULD GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT BERM.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ALSO DO A PRESENTATION AND MAYBE WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT AS WELL.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO? OKAY.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME.
>> GOOD EVENING, MADAME CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS NICOLE CHRIS AND I HAVE TWO OTHER TEAM MEMBERS THAT ARE PRESENT THAT I HOPE HAVE NOW UNMUTED SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THEM, BOB LICHTER WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER AND WILLIAM SHARON WHO IS OUR ARCHITECT.
I'M GOING TO BE PUTTING OUR POWERPOINT UP ON THE SCREEN AND SHARING IT, SO IF YOU WILL BEAR WITH ME FOR JUST A MOMENT, AND THEN BOB WILL START THE DISCUSSION AND I WILL PICK IT UP.
SO LET ME MAKE SURE THIS IS SHARED.
EXCUSE MY TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS.
NOW, I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN ALL SEE THAT.
>> AND IF BOB IS UNMUTED AND PRESENT, IF YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND START.
>> I WILL ASSUME THAT EVERYBODY CAN.
SINCE I CAN'T SEE MYSELF HERE AND MY TECHNOLOGICAL SKILLS ARE PROBABLY WORSE THAN ANYBODY THAT I'M TALKING TO, I'M GOING TO TRY AND MOVE MY HEAD BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT SCREENS FOR THE PRESENTATION.
FIRST OFF, WE REALLY THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, FOR CALLING US TO MEET YOU DURING THIS SCHEDULED MEETING.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND WEBSITES BEEN OVER TWO YEARS SINCE WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING WITH THE CITY OF INDIO FOR THIS SITE.
WE REALLY WANT TO THANK THE PLANNING STAFF, KEVIN AND ROSIE AND ALL THE DEPARTMENTS FOR THE REVIEWS AND ASSISTANCE.
WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A SUPERB THANKS TO YOUR CITY MANAGER, MARK SCOTT, WHO CAME IN KIND OF ON THE FLY, AS DID ACTUALLY KEVIN, TOO, AND THEY HAVE REALLY HELPED US KEEP THIS THING MOVING.
WITHOUT BORING YOU WITH TOO MUCH HISTORY, I JUST WANT TO START WITH THE FACT THAT WHEN THE LAND BECAME AVAILABLE, ALMOST EXACTLY TWO YEARS AGO, I, TO RALPH'S AND THEY IMMEDIATELY EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN BUILDING A FUEL STATION.
AT THE SAME TIME, THEY WERE VERY INTERESTED IN INCREASING THE AVAILABLE PARKING FOR THE HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL CITRUS PLAZA.
WE ALL KNOW IT'S QUITE A SHOPPING CENTER, IT DOES VERY AS WELL, AND IT HAS A LOT OF CUSTOMERS THAT COME IN AND OUT OF THERE.
SO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS TO LOOK AT WHETHER WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THEIR FUEL STATION.
WE MET WITH THEN THE CITY MANAGER PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND THEY TOOK A LOOK AT IT AND THEY SAID, WELL, LET'S SEE, DOES -- IS RALPH'S INTERESTED IN AN EXPANSION? WE ACTUALLY HAD RALPH'S SENIOR STAFF THAT MEETING, AND THE EXPRESSION WAS IT'S PREMATURE AT THIS TIME, AND THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO, BUT WE HAVE HAD CONTINUING DISCUSSIONS WITH RALPH'S.
THEY ARE MONITORING THIS MEETING, BY THE WAY, SO THAT THEY KIND OF KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
AND THE POSSIBILITY OF THEIR STORE EX PACKS DOES REMAIN A POSSIBILITY -- EXPANSION
[00:35:03]
DOES REMAIN A POSSIBILITY, BUT CHANGING CONDITIONS IN TODAY'S RETAIL MARKETS IT'S STILL PREMATURE.THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY FACTORS AND PRESSURES ON THEM.
YOU ALL KNOW ABOUT AMAZON, YOU ALL KNOW ABOUT THE TARGETS AND THE KMARTS AND EVERYTHING SO WITH THAT WE HAVEN'T RULED IT YOU THE OUT, THE EXPANSION, BUT THE CITY TWO YEARS AGO SAID, LOOK, WHAT WE REEL WANT TO DO IS NOT JUST HAVE YOU TOM FORWARD WITH A FUEL STATION.
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE TO YOU MAKE AN ENTIRE PLAN FOR THE WHOLE SITE, THE WHOLE 9 ACRES SO THAT THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES CAN SEE HOW A FUEL STATION WOULD INTEGRATE INTO A MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND BENEFICIAL GROUPING OF USES, NOT JUST A FUEL STATION RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO CITRUS.
SO THE CONCEPT THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU REALLY REPRESENTS AN EVOLUTION.
IT REFLECTS THE EVER AND CONTINUING CHANGES IN RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL DEMANDS.
AND I MIGHT ADD OFF THE SCRIPT HERE THAT JUST IN THE LAST 60 DAYS, THE WORLD IN RETAIL HAS CHANGED SO DRAMATICALLY THAT WE'RE ALL TRYING TO CATCH OUR BREATH.
MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE TALKED TO BEFORE ARE FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES AS RESTAURANTS, SO WE ARE JUST GOING TO PROCEED FORWARD AND HOPE THAT THE GOOD TIMES ARE STILL AHEAD AND WE CAN INCORPORATE ALL OF THESE GREAT TENANTS THAT WE'D LIKE TO INTO THE CENTER.
WE WERE ALSO ASKED TO AND DIRECTED TO PLAN A MORE HARMONIOUS APPROACH WHICH WOULD INCORPORATE AND BLEND THE EXPANSION INTO THE EXISTING CITRUS PLAZA.
AS YOU'RE ABOUT TO SEE SHORTLY, OUR ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT, WHICH IS NOT YET SET IN STONE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS BECAUSE WE'RE WAITING TO SEE IF THE CONCEPT OF PROJECT CAN BE APPROVED, BUT THE YOU ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT WILL MODERNIZE THE PROPERTY, AND AS OUR PLAN IS, AS WE COMPLETE OUR EXPANSION PHASE, THEN WE'LL USE THE DESIGN OF THE MORE MODERN DESIGN AND WE'LL USE THAT TO SET THE TONE FOR THE EVENTUAL REMODEL AND UPDATING OF CITRUS PLAZA.
SO HOPEFULLY THE SUCCESS OF THE EXPANSION USE WILL THEN SPILL OVER SUBSEQUENTLY AND UPGRADE CITRUS PLAZA.
A NUMBER OF THINGS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED.
WE MET WITH KEVIN AND ROSIE ABOUT THIS AND OTHER PEOPLE.
THERE IS CERTAINLY A GREATER WILLINGNESS TO YOU A DAYS TO HAVE MUCH MORE OUTDOOR SEATING AND LIFESTYLE EFFECTS WITH YOUR TENANTS, AND WE'VE ALREADY EXPLORED WAYS WE COULD DO THAT WITH THE EXISTING CITRUS PLAZA AFTER WE GET DONE BUILDING OUT THE EXPANSION.
ONE THING I WANT TO EMPHASIZE IS BOTH OF THESE SITES REALLY HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER.
MY INTEREST ON THE EXPANSION SITE, RALPH'S OWNS THEIR SITE WHICH IS CONTIGUOUSUT TO US, AND THEN I OWN THE REST OF CITRUS PLAZA.
WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE ALL PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TOW COME UP WITH THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO PROVIDE THE MORE MODERN COMMUNITY PLANNING ELEMENTS, WHICH HAVEN'T BEEN EXPRESSED TO YOU BY YOU ALL AT INDIO, WITH THE GOAL OF ENHANCING WHAT REALLY IS THE JEFFERSON/50TH STREET GATEWAY.
WE REALIZE THAT NO PROJECT NOWADAYS, ESPECIALLY, CAN EVER, EVER FULLY SATISFY ALL OF ITS SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.
AFTER THE MEETING IN FEBRUARY AT YOUR DIRECTION, WE TRIED TO HAVE VERY MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL DIALOGUES TO SATISF NEIGHBORS ON OUR FAR NORTHEAST CORNER.
WE HAD HOPED AFTER THE MEETING THAT WE HAD, THAT WE HAD AN AGREEMENT, AT LEAST AS TO THE USES AND CONCEPTS.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, DESPITE ALL OF THE EXCITEMENT FROM THE OTHER NEARBY AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, IT APPEARS WE CANNOT ACHIEVE EVEN THE SMALLEST DEGREE OF SUPPORT FROM THE HOMEOWNERS AT OUR NORTHEAST CORNER.
AS TO OUR IMMEDIATE AND CONTIGUOUS SURROUND NEIGHBORS, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE SOMETHING.
WE HAVE 100% COMPLETE SUPPORT FOR OUR EXPANSION FROM THE ENTIRETY OF OUR EASTERN BOUNDARY, WHICH IS ALL, EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE ON THE EAST WITH THE PROPOSED NEW CROSSING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.
I BELIEVE THAT'S IN EARLY STAGES OF PLANNING IN FRONT OF YOUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
TO OUR NORTH THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY DR. ACOSTA, AND HE PROVIDED
[00:40:05]
YOU WITH A LETTER BEFORE YOUR LAST MEETING, AND HE'S COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF OUR SPECIFIC PLAN AND OUR USES.THERE'S ONLY 50 FEET OF APPROXIMATELY 1600 FEET OF COMPATIBLE CONTIGUOUS LINES WITH THESE NEIGHBORS.
THERE'S ONLY 50 FEET THAT ARE SHARED WITH THE NEIGHBORS IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER.
AS I SAID, YOU DO HAVE A LETTER FROM DR. ACOSTA.
YOU DO ALSO HAVE IN YOUR FILE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE CROSSROADS.
ALSO, I THINK WE DESCRIBED THIS TO YOU LAST TIME, BUT IN FEBRUARY PRIOR TO YOUR MEETING AT THE END OF THE MONTH, WE HAD SENT OUTISTS NOTICES, NOT ONLY THE ONES THAT WERE REQUIRED BUT TO ALL THOSE THAT ARE I BELIEVE WITHIN 500 FEET, AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, I LOOKED LIKE A BIN RABBIT RUNNING AROUND THE CENTER PUTTING UP SIGNS LETTING ANYBODY, OUR CUSTOMERS KNOW FROM FAR AFIELD, THAT THIS IS WHAT WE ARE HOPING TO DO AND WE'D LOVE T AT A COMMUNITY MEETING.
THOSE WENT OUT AND WE HAD A VERY STRONG ATTENDANCE FROM CITRUS, RENAISSANCE, RANCHO LA QUINTA, MOUNTAIN VIEW, ET CETERA.
THE RESPONSES FROM THAT MEETING WERE TRULY A LEVEL SUPPORT, WERE EXTREMELY POSITIVE, THEY WERE OVERWHELMING AND SATISFYING.
THIS PROJECT IS VIEWED IN TOTAL, WE HAD ALMOST NO IMPACT ON THOSE WHO SEEMED THE LEAST SUPPORTIVE.
AS A MATTER OF INTEREST, THE PROPOSED FUEL STATION, AND YOU'LL SEE THIS WHEN WE BRING UP THE SITE PLANS, IS ALMOST THREE FULL FOOTBALL FIELDS AWAY FROM THE NEAREST TWO TO THREE HOMES OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE I GUESS AGAINST IT.
SO THERE WAS A FAR, FAR WIDE PIECE OF LAND THAT WILL HAVE LOTS OF BEAUTIFUL BUILDINGS TO SEPARATE THE PROJECTS.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO NOW, AND IF NICOLE, IF YOU'RE READY, I'D LIKE TO KIND OF DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO KIND OF A BRIEF JOURNEY INTO WHAT WE HOPE WILL BE ACCRUED AS THE PROJECT THAT WILL MAKE YOU ALL PROUD.
WE'RE ENTERING IN FROM JEFFERSON AND WE'RE GOING EAST ON THE PROMENADE.
AS WE GO EAST, THE FUEL STATION IS TO YOUR RIGHT.
THERE'S A LITTLE KIOSK THAT'LL PROBABLY BE A FLOWER KIOSK, AND WE'RE GOING BY THE RETAIL IN THE FRONT ON PARCEL 1.
ON YOUR NORTHEAST THESE WILL BE BEAUTIFUL RESTAURANTS WITH OUTDOOR SEATING WHERE YOU SEE THE UMBRELLAS.
AS WE GO FURTHER TO THE EAST, YOU'LL SEE A SMALL RETAIL BUILDING THAT WILL PROBABLY BE THERE AND THAT'LL BE THE LAST OF THE RETAIL IF WE BUILD RESIDENTIAL.
NOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT TWO STORY UPSCALE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO YOUR RIGHT, WHICH INTEGRATES AND WORKS VERY CLOSELY WITH ALL THE RETAIL ON LEFT, WHICH IS FACING THE LEFT IS THE WEST.
AS WE GO DOWN THIS ROAD, IF YOU WILL, THIS IS WHERE THE VILLAGE CONCEPT REALLY COMES IN.
THIS PATHWAY GOES ALL THE WAY OVER INTO RALPH'S.
NOW AS WE TURN AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL, WE GO BACK INTO BETWEEN THE BUILDING IN PHASE 2.
AS WE GO, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEDESTRIAN GOOD THINGS HAPPENING, A LOT OF BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPING.
WE'RE COMING UP ON A CENTRAL POINT AREA HERE WITH FOUNTAINS, OUTDOOR SEATING, OVERHEAD LATICES AND VARIOUS THINGS TO MAKE IT BEAUTIFUL.
YOU'RE NOW REALLY LOOKING AT THE DRIVE-THROUGH ACROSS THE WAY.
AS WE TURN AROUND, WE'RE LOOKING BACK TOWARDS THE WEST, IF YOU WILL, BACK TOWARD CITRUS PLAZA, AND THE FRONT OF THOSE BUILDINGS BEHIND IT WOULD BE TWO DRIVE-THROUGHS.
ALL OF THIS IS DESIGNED TO MAKE THIS AS HARMONIOUS AS WE CAN POSSIBLY MAKE IT AND TO CREATE, USING THESE AISLES, THESE DRIVE AISLES, IF YOU WILL, TO MAKE THEM REALLY A PART OF A VILLAGE, SOMETHING THAT YOU'D SEE IN A REALLY WELL-DONE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
THE PEOPLE BEHIND US, IF WE DO DO THE RESIDENTIAL, CAN WALK RIGHT OUT THEIR DOORS, THEY CAN COME IN, THEY CAN GO TO -- I'M NOT SAYING WE HAVE A CLEANER BUT ANY SERVICES THAT WE HAVE.
THE KIDS CAN COME GET ICE CREAM.
THEY CAN WATCH THE WATER FEATURES.
WE REALLY WANT THIS THING TO BE A BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY THAT EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE PROUD OF.
THE RESIDENTIAL AREA BEHIND US, WHICH WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO SHOW YOU BUT YOU'LL SEE IT ON THE SITE, WILL HAVE ITS OWN POOL AREAS AND COMMON AREAS FOR THEIR
[00:45:01]
COMFORTABLE LIFESTYLE.SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A PRETTY NICE PLACE TO LIVE AND HOPEFULLY NOT TO HAVE TO USE THEIR CARS QUIETS A BIT BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO ALSO IS CONNECT OUR PROMENADE, WHICH YOU SAW WHEN W EVENTUALLY RIGHT OVER INTO WHERE THE CROSSINGS HOPEFULLY WILL BE DEVELOPING THEIR RESIDENTIAL AREAS, AND THE GOAL WILL BE TO HAVE AN ACTUAL CONNECTION FROM SITE TO SITE WHERE BICYCLES, WALKING PATHS, AND WE HOPE EVEN GOLF CART PATHS CAN COME IN, AND THE PEOPLE CAN SHOP AT RALPH'S WITHOUT EVER GETTING NEAR A CAR.
RALPH'S ALREADY HAS PICKUP STATIONS OVER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
NOW, ALL OF THAT WOULD BE INTEGRATED SO THAT WE ARE TRYING TO TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF AS MANY PEOPLE AS WE CAN THAT DON'T REALLY NEED TO GET INTO A CAR.
THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS -- AND I REALLY NEED TO EMPHASIZE THIS -- THE, ON ZONING, THE NC ZONING, REALLY IS GIEND DESIGNED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FOR WHAT YOU SEE ON 111.
AND TO A CERTAIN EXTENT CITRUS PLAZA, A CLASSIC NEIGHBORHOOD GROCERY STORE, DRUGSTORE CENTER, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ALL SAID THEY WANTED, AND EVEN MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T LIKE SOME OF THE THINGS WE'RE DOING WERE VERY HIGH ON THE INTEGRATION OF RESTAURANTS, LIFESTYLES, ET CETERA.
SO WE DON'T COALESCE THE SHOPPING CENTER.
IT REALLY ISN'T, THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH RETAIL IF WE DO IT THIS WAY.
IF WE DO IT ON WITH LATER RETAIL, WHICH I DOUBT WE WILL, BY THE WAY, THAT WHAT WE REALLY HAVE IS WE HAVE ALL THESE USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE AND THAT ARE DESIGNED TO BASICALLY MAKE UP A WONDERFUL LIFESTYLE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS THIS PROJECT FROM JEFFERSON.
WE'LL SHOW YOU SOME MORE PICTURES THAT ARE FURTHER OVER, SHOWING THE DRIVE-THROUGHS AND THE ARCHITECTURAL THEMES AND THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING WITH THAT.
BUT YOU WILL SEE THAT PEOPLE FROM JEFFERSON ARE NOT GOING TO SEE JUST A BIG OLD SHOPPING CENTER WITH GIANT ASPHALT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE BUILDING.
AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRETTY WELL SAYS YOU CAN'T DO IT, BOB, SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING.
I SINCERELY HOPE THAT WE CAN ALL LOOK BACK LATER ON AND SAY WE HAD A COLLECTIVE EFFORT TO MAKE THIS A SIGNIFICANT AND ENJOYABLE PROJECT FOR THE FUTURE FOR INDIO AND FOR ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS.
SO WITH THAT I'LL TAKE QUESTIONS LATER ON, PROBABLY BETTER, AND TURN IT OVER TO NICOLE FOR THE MORE TECHNICAL ANSWERS THAT YOU NEED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, I'M GOING TO QUICKLY RUN THROUGH WHERE WE ARE AND SHOW YOU SOME BASIC SITE PLANS.
THE FOCUS OF MY DISCUSSION IS GOING TO BE FOR LIPPED REQUESTS FOR APPENDMENTS.
AND I PROMISE YOU WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM AS ROSIE CALLING THESE CONDITIONS ON A REPEATED BASIS.
I DO NOT INTEND IT TO BE CALLED A CONDITION.
I INTEND IT TO BE AN AMENDMENT.
BUT ROSIE AND I HAVE PLANNERS -- SO WITH THAT OUR SITE IS 9 ACRES AND THE REVISION TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN CREATES TWO PLANNING AREAS, AS ROSIE HAS DESCRIBED.
THE LAND USES THAT ARE PROPOSED HAVE NOT CHANGED THE PLANNING AREA 1.
FOR PLANNING AREA 2, WE HAVE CHANGED THE HOTEL TO A CONDITIONAL USE.
I WILL TELL YOU NOW THAT WE WILL NOT OBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT THAT REQUIRES THAT HOTELS BE REMOVED FROM THE PLAN.
WE HAVE PUT IT A CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE, HOWEVER, WE WILL NOT OBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT REGARDING ITS REMOVAL.
THE ALTERNATIVE IS A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IN PLANNING AREA 2, SO WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL OPTION AND WE HAVE A RESIDENTIAL OPTION.
I PAID PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS SO THAT, AS BOB SAID, THERE IS NOT A NEED TO GET IN YOUR CAR IF YOU LIVE IN PLANNING AREA 2 AND WANT TO EITHER GO WITHIN CITRUS PLAZA 2 OR,
[00:50:04]
MORE IMPORTANTLY, CONNECT TO THE EXISTING CITRUS PLAZA AND THE RALPH'S.SO PLANNING AREA 1 REMAINS THE SAME.
THERE WILL BE COMMERCIAL SHOPS, WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT YOU SAW AT THE END OF THE MOVIE THAT WE SHOWED, AS WELL AS THE TWO, THE LIMITATION TO TWO DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS, AND THE MODERNIZED FUEL STATION.
THIS AREA HERE, IF MY MOUSE WILL COOPERATE, THIS AREA HERE IS INTENDED AS EXPANSION PARKING FOR THE RALPH'S BECAUSE IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, THE RALPH'S HAS A CONSTANT IN SEASON PROBLEM WITH PARKING.
FOR PHASE 1 THERE WOULD BE TWO CONNECTIONS, ONE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE RALPH'S BUILDING AND ONE RIGHT BEHIND THE MARIO'S BUILDING.
YOU CAN SEE MARIO'S IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER.
THOSE WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED WITH PHASE 1.
AS ROSIE WENT THROUGH THE CHANGES THAT WE PROPOSE TO THE FOLKS AT DESERT RIVER, I WILL JUST TOUCH ON THIS.
WE OFFERED ALL OF THESE CHANGES AT OUR MEETING ON MARCH 13TH.
WE WERE NOT SUPPORTIVE IN THEIR RESPONSE BUT WE HAD COMMITTED TO THESE CHANGES, AND SO WE INCORPORATED THEM INTO THE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING.
WE ALSO SUGGESTED TO BOTH DESERT RIVER AND NOW TO THE FOLKS AT THE CROSS, BECAUSE BOB IS HAVING ONGOING DISCUSSION WITH THEM, TO PROVIDE THAT PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND GOLF CART CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS PROJECT AND THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AT LEAST AT THE CROSSINGS.
THAT PLANNING HAS STARTED AND YOU WILL SEE ON THE COMMERCIAL OPTION THAT WE ARE CARRYING THROUGH SO THAT THERE CAN BE A CONNECTION WITH THE CROSSINGS THROUGH OUR RETENTION AREA WHICH WILL ALSO SERV SPACE AND OPEN SPACE PARTICULARLY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT SO THAT THERE'S BOTH A PHYSICAL SEPARATION -- THIS IS SHOWING ABOUT A 50-FOOT SEPARATION -- AND AN OPEN SPACE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE RESIDENTS IF THIS IS DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL.
IN THE CASE OF THE FULL PLAN IF COMMERCIAL IS DEVELOPED, THERE WOULD BE A THIRD ENTRANCE OAT EAST END WHICH CORRESPONDS TO THE BACK SIDE OF THE RALPH'S BUILDING AS IT CURRENTLY SITS AND THAT WOULD CONNECT THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL PORTION AND OVER TO OUR NORTH ENTRANCE.
IN THE CASE OF RESIDENTIAL FOR PRIVACY REASONS AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE, WE WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE THAT THIRD CONNECTION, AND SO THERE WOULD BE THE TWO CONNECTIONS THAT I MENTIONED IN PHASE 1.
THE RESULT OF THE REDUCTION IN THE BUILDING HEIGHTS, AS ROSIE MENTIONED, FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN PLANNING AREA 2, WE WOULD HAVE A HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 30 FEET AND TWO STORIES.
THESE ARE THE SAME VIEWS THAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU IN FEBRUARY WITH THE HOTEL SITE LINES SHOWN, AND YOU WILL SEE THAT AT TWO STORIES, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE VISIBLE, THEY ARE HARDLY VISIBLE, AND THIS IS ASSUMING A 50-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE APARTMENTS TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND A 30-FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT.
YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT OF THE BUILDING HERE ON THIS RESIDENTIAL PIECE AND A LITTLE BIT OF THE BUILDINGS THERE.
BUT BETWEEN THE OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPING AND THE DISTANCE, THE REDUCTION IN HEIGHT CONSIDERABLY REDUCES THE VISUAL IMPACTS THAT THE PREVIOUS 50-FOOT HOTEL HAD ON THESE PROPERTIES.
THIS GIVES YOU A CONCEPT OF THE TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL THAT COULD OCCUR.
THEY COULD BE CONDOMINIUMS. THEY COULD BE ROW HOUSES.
WE DO NOT KNOW AT THIS TIME, BUT IT'S BEEN DESIGNED TO INTEGRATE WITH THE PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE THE SAME KIND O THAT THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT WOULD HAVE.
TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER CEJA'S QUESTION, THIS IS SPECIFIC TO THE
[00:55:04]
DRIVE-THROUGHS.YOU'LL NOTICE IN THE FRONT THAT WE HAVE THE BERMING.
THERE IS SOME BERMING AT CITRUS, THE EXISTING CITRUS PLAZA.
I I DO NOT KNOW IF IT IS THREE FEET IN HEIGHT.
BOB MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT BUT I DO NOT KNOW IF IT IS THREE FEET IN HEIGHT.
BECAUSE OF THE INTEGRATION OF AGRICULTURAL STYLE THAT STAFF HAS INCLUDED IN THE AMENDMENTS WHICH WE INTENDED IN OUR DESIGN, YOU WILL SEE THAT YOU CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A REGULAR BUILDING FACADE AND A DRIVE-THROUGH AREA HERE.
THE BUILDING IS FULLY INTEGRATED AND YOU DO NOT SEE A BACK OF HOUSE.
WE HAVE SEVERAL REVISIONS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT I'LL GO THROUGH WITH YOU BRIEFLY.
AS I SAID, THEY ARE ALL LISTED IN THE LETTER THAT ROSIE SUPPLIED TO YOU EARLIER TODAY.
I WILL TOUCH UPON THE CONCEPTS AND THE REASONS AND NOT CITE ALL OF THE CONDITIONS INDIVIDUALLY.
FOR NUMBER 11 ON PAGE -- AND I'M SORRY, FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 11 ON PAGE 30.
STAFF IS REQUESTING A 100-FOOT SETBACK FOR ALL OF PLANNING AREA 2 FOR THE NORTH AND EAST BOUNDARIES.
WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE 100-FOOT SETBACK FOR THE COMMERCIAL -- BECAUSE, AS YOU SEE, THE PRACTICAL LAYOUT OF A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO REQUIRE A DRIVE AROUND THE BACK, BOTH FOR FIRE PURPOSES, FOR SAFETY PURPOSES AND FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, AND SO THE 100-FOOT SETBACK IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR US.
ON THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, HOWEVER, THE IMPACT IS SUBSTANTIAL.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE IMPACT IS SUBSTANTIAL AND THEY DO BECAUSE IF WE HAVE 100-FOOT SETBACK FOR RESIDENTIAL, TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL IN THIS AREA, WHAT BOTH THOSE SITES.
THAT IS NOT AN IDEAL ENVIRONMENT FOR A MULTI-FAMILY SETTING AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE LAYOUT AS SHOWN, WHICH IS PROVIDING A 50-FOOT SETBACK, AVOIDS THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT WHICH WE ARE ALL SUBJECT TO AND WILL BE MORE AS THE MONTHS GO BY, CREATES A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, AS I STATED EARLIER, ALLOWS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO LOOK OVER THE OPEN SPACE ON OUR EAST EAST BOUNDARY WITHOUT NECESSARILY HAVING PARKING AND ASPHALT ALONG THE EDGE, AND SO WE WOULD ASK THAT CONDITION NUMBER 11 BE MODIFIED TO REQUIRE A 100-FOOT SETBACK FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND A 50-FOOT SETBACK FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN PLANNING AREA 2.
CONDITION NUMBER 17 ON PAGE 30 -- I'M SORRY.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 17 IS ON PAGE 31 ADDRESSES LOADING DOCKS.
IT IS NOT CLEARLY WRITTEN, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT AN INDIRECT ORIENTATION IS.
SINCE WE ARE REQUIRED TO ARTICULATE OUR BUILDINGS ON ALL FOUR SIDES AND ARE SINCE, ON COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, OUR SETBACKS WILL BE 100-FOOT FROM BOTH THE NORTH AND THE EAST BOUNDARY, WE BELIEVE THAT A LOADING DOCK CAN BE SCREENED IF IT IS NECESSARY AND THAT SERVICE ENTRANCES OR EMPLOYEE ENTRANCES WILL BE INTEGRATED INTO THE ARCHITECTURE, AND SO WE WOULD ASK THAT CONDITION NUMBER 17 BE MODIFIED TO MEAN THAT LOADING DOCKS FACING THE NORTH AND EAST PROPERTIES LINES SHALL BE SCREENED BY A SOLID MASONRY WALL 8 FEET IN HEIGHT TREATED TO MATCH THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING TO WHICH IT IS ATTACHED, SERVICE AND EMPLOYEE ENTRANCES SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INTEGRATE INTO THE BUILDING ARCHITECTURE.
[01:00:02]
CONDITION NUMBER 21 ON PAGE 31 PROHIBITS LIGHTING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST AND EAST PROPERTY LINES.WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE, AND WHETHER IT IS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OR FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE LIGHTING IS REQUIRED FOR SAFETY, HOWEVER, CONDITION NUMBER 19, WHICH -- I'M SORRY -- AMENDMENT NUMBER 19, WHICH IS ON PAGE 31, IS FOLLOWED THREE AMENDMENTS LATER BY AMENDMENT NUMBER -- I'M SORRY.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 22 IS BEFORE AMENDMENT 19 ON PAGE 31.
AMENDMENT 19 ON PAGE 31 REQUIRES THAT ALL WALL MOUNTED LIGHTING BE SHIELDED AND POINTED DOWNWARDS, AND WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDER DELETING NUMBER 22 AND REQUIRING THAT BOTH LOW MOUNTED AND FREESTANDING LIGHTS BE SHIELDED AND POINTED DOWNWARDS WHICH WILL LIMIT THE IMPACTS, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE FOR BOTH LIGHTING WE ARE LIMITED TO 18 FEET.
WE'LL LIMIT THE IMPACTS OF LIGHTING WHILE STILL PROVIDING US WITH SAFETY AND SECURITY IN THE SIDE AND BACK OF THE PROJECT IN PLANTING AREA 2 PARTICULARLY.
I'M NOW GOING TO ADDRESS THREE CONDITIONS OR THREE AMENDMENTS TOGETHER.
THEY ARE AMENDMENTS 37, 38 AND 42 ON PAGE 33.
THEY DEAL WITH BUILDING BEING REQUIRED TO FACE JEFFERSON STREET THAT ALL ENTRANCES FACE JEFFERSON STREET, AND THAT ALL BUILDINGS BE ORIENTED NORTH-SOUTH.
AND THIS IS BEST ILLUSTRATED ON THE SITE PLAN.
SO I'LL ILLUSTRATE IT ON THE SITE PLAN.
FIRST OF ALL, THE LAND USE POLICY TO WHICH STAFF REFERRED FOR JEFFERSON STREET, DOORS FACING JEFFERSON TREAT IS LAND USE POLICY 9.2.
LAND USE POLICY 9.2 SAYS THAT BUILDINGS AND ENTRANCES SHOULD FACE JEFFERSON OR SHOULD FACE THE PRIMARY STREET, AND I DO AGREE WITH THAT.
IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT, THAT IS APPROPRIATE.
HOWEVER, IT HAS SIGNIFICANT DESIGN IMPLICATIONS FOR A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE AN INTERNALLY GENERATED VILLAGE.
I THIS PROJECT GOES RESIDENTIAL, WE'RE HOPING THAT WE'LL CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE THAT IS LIKE A MAIN STREET IN THIS AREA HERE SO THAT YOU HAVE THE APARTMENTS ON ONE SIDE AND COMMERCIAL ON THE OTHER.
AS THESE CONDITIONS ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN, WE COULD HAVE ONLY THE BACK ENTRANCES AND THE EMPLOYEE ENTRANCES OF COMMERCIAL ON THIS SIDE BECAUSE THE ENTRANCES OF THOSE BUSINESSES WOULD NOT FACE WESTERLY TOWARDS JEFFERSON STREET.
IF ALL OF THE APARTMENTS WERE TURNED 90 DEGREES SO THAT THEY ARE RUNNING NORTH-SOUTH, THEN ALL OF THE APARTMENTS WILL FACE THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING IN FRONT OF THEM BECAUSE ALL OF THE APARTMENT, THEY ARE THE MAIN ENTRANCES TO EACH APARTMENT, THEY NEED TO FACE JEFFERSON STREET.
IT ELIMINATES OUR ABILITY TO CREATE COURT YARDS.
IF THIS WERE DESIGNED WITH L-SHAPED BUILDINGS SO THAT -- IF MY MOUSE WILL COOPERATE -- SO THAT THERE WAS A CLUSTERS OF HOUSING HERE AND A COURTYARD IN THE CENTER OF THAT CLUSTER, WE COULDN'T DESIGN AN L-SHAPED BUILDING AS THE CONDITIONS
[01:05:05]
ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN.IT IS ALSO IMPRACTICAL FRANKLY TO HAVE FRONT DOORS FOR THE TWO PROPOSED DRIVE-THROUGHS BE ON JEFFERSON STREET.
WE HAVE ADDED, YOU'LL NOTE, AT A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION FROM JEFFERSON STREET INTO THE PLAZA THAT IS BETWEEN THE TWO DRIVE-THROUGHS SO THAT THERE WILL BE THAT PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION THAT CARRIES ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
AND THESE BUILDINGS WILL BE INTEGRATED SO THAT THEY WON'T LOOK LIKE DRIVE-THROUGHS BUT THE FRONT ENTRANCE THROUGH THE DRIVE-THROUGH AREA IS IMPRACTICAL.
AND FOR ALL OF THOSE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS, WE WOULD ASK THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DELETE AMENDMENTS 37, 38 AND 42 FROM THE LIST OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES.
AND I'M ALMOST DONE, I PROMISE.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 49 ON PAGE 34 LIMITS THE SIZE OF THE IDENTIFICATION SIGN AT THE ENTRANCE AT JEFFERSON STREET TO 40 SQUARE FEET, AND ALTHOUGH I WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE FEBRUARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, HAVING WATCHED THE TAPE AND LISTENED TO THE DISCUSSION, I BELIEVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE SIGNAGE, THE IDENTIFICATION SIGN BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE CITRUS PLAZA IDENTIFICATION SIGN, WHICH WOULD BE A BANNER AT THE CENTER OF THE TOP AND THEN BUSINESSES LISTED BELOW, SO WE WOULD ASK THAT CONSISTENT WITH THAT DISCUSSION IN FEBRUARY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDER AMENDING AMENDMENT NUMBER 49 TO READ THAT THE PRIMARY IDENTIFICATION SIGN BE CONSISTENT IN SIZE AND NO LARGER THAN THE IDENTIFICATION SIGN AT CITRUS , THE ORIGINAL CITRUS PLAZA.
AND THIS I BELIEVE IS THE LAST ONE.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 52 ON PAGE 34 REQUIRES AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN THAT WE EITHER LANDSCAPE OR COVER THE SITE WITH DECOMPOSED GRANITE WITHIN -- AND FENCING, IF REQUIRED, WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
ALTHOUGH OUR INTENTION IS TO MOVE AHEAD IMMEDIATELY WITH PHASE 1, GIVEN CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, WE DO NOT KNOW HOW FAR ALONG WE WILL BE WITHIN 12 MONTHS.
AND WE WOULD ASK THAT AMENDMENT NUMBER 52 BE -- WE BELIEVE THE INTENT WAS THAT IF ACTIVITY BEGINS ON THE SITE, THAT THE SITE BE STABILIZED, AND SO WE WOULD REQUEST THAT AMENDMENT NUMBER 52 BE AMENDED AS SHOWN HERE IN BOLD, WHICH IS TO REPLACE THE LANGUAGE REGARDING ONE YEAR OF CITY COUNCIL EFFECTIVE DATE TO READ THAT "IF SITES OR PORTIONS OF THE SITE REMAIN INACTIVE FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF GRADING OF THE PATHS OR PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL." SO THAT IT IS IN LINE WITH STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH PM 10 MANAGEMENT AND WILL BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT AND THAT IT APPLIES TO THE SITE WE DISTURBED AND DOES NOT APPLY IF THE SITE HAS NOT BEGUN CONSTRUCTION IN THE FIRST YEAR AFTER APPROVAL.
AND FINALLY, WE HAVE AMENDMENT NUMBER 53 ON PAGE 34 WHICH REQUIRES THAT ALL OF OUR PATHWAYS BE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET.
ALTHOUGH WE PLAN ON, AS YOU SAW ON THE SITE PLAN, HAVING ANY NUMBER OF PATHWAYS
[01:10:08]
THROUGH THE PROJECT, LIMITING THEM TO ONLY AT LEAST 10 FEET MAKES SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO PARKING AREAS DIFFICULT TO PLAN AND MAKES THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF THIS MUCH MORE CONCRETE THAN IT NEEDS TO BE BECAUSE, QUITE FRANKLY, I WOULD RATHER HAVE A SIX FOOT WIDE PATHWAY LEADING TO MY CONDOMINIUM AND AN EXTRA FOUR FEET OF LANDSCAPING THAN TO HAVE A 10-FOOT PATHWAY IN FRONT OF MY CONDO OR MY APARTMENT.SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE LAST SENTENCE OF AMENDMENT NUMBER 53 BE DELETED SO THAT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT ALL PATHWAYS THROUGHOUT THE SITE BE 10 FEET IN WIDTH.
AND THAT WOULD CONCLUDE MY REQUESTS FOR AMENDMENTS.
WE ARE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
AS I MENTIONED, BILL SHERER OR ARCHITECT IS ALSO WITH US THIS EVENING.
AND WE WOULD ASK TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT TO RESPOND TO ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AS CLOSING REMARKS.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? NO ONE? OKAY.
WE'LL OPEN IT TO UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT, EVELYN.
PLEASE REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE HAVE A THREE MINUTE LIMIT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING.
CAN YOU HEAR US? MR. WELLER, CAN YOU HEAR US?
>> IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND PAUSING OR VOLUME ON YOUR LIVE STREAM.
>> AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
>> WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE.
REDUCE IT, JENNY, REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF VOLUME HERE.
>> WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, MR. WELLER.
YES, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.
I THINK -- >> IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND PAUSING.
>> I THINK THAT AUDIO IS STILL COMING FROM SOMEONE'S COMPUTER.
>> STARTING THE THREE MINUTES.
I THINK -- >> I THINK I'D BETTER START ALL OVER HERE.
I THINK THE PROJECT ITSELF, I THINK THE PROJECT AS THEY PLANNED IT OUT PRETTY WELL, BUT THE PROBLEM -- THERE'S ONLY ONE COMPUTER HERE.
WE HEAR SOME BACKGROUND NOISE BUT WE CAN HEAR YOU CLEARLY, MR. WELLER.
>> I GUESS I'LL START ALL OVER AGAIN.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS.
I THINK THE PROJECT -- I KEEP HEARING THIS BACKGROUND FEEDBACK.
THE PROJECT ITSELF IS JUST TOO MANY BUILDINGS, TOO INTENSE FOR THIS KIND OF A SITE.
THEY AREN'T ABLE TO USE THE 100-FOOT SETBACK AS RECOMMENDED BECAUSE IT ENCROACHES INTO THEIR BUILDING.
T CONTINUES TO BE INTENSE USES IN AN AREA WHICH THE PLANNING, WHICH THE GENERAL PLAN SPECIFICALLY TOOK A
[01:15:04]
LONG TIME TO COME UP WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO KEEP IT AS SECLUDED, NICE, YOU KNOW, EASY NEIGHBORHOOD TO GO THROUGH.WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE ONE ACROSS THE STREET, WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING A GREAT DEAL OF TRAFFIC COMING INTO THIS AREA THAT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE.
I GET IT THIS IS A DESIRABLE AREA TO BE.
BUT NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND BRING ALL THIS STUFF INTO IT.
SO I DON'T WANT THE COMMISSION TO LOSE SIGHT THAT THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE GENERAL PLAN IS TO PROVIDE QUALITY LIFESTYLE FOR US, QUIET LIFESTYLE THAT WAS IN THE GENERAL PLAN.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE INTENT OF WHAT IT SHOULD BE.
SO BASICALLY I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE IT UP TO YOU GUYS.
I HAVE WORKED WITH YOU GUYS FOR A LONG TIME AND I KNOW THAT YOU'LL MAKE A GOOD DECISION, BUT IN OUR PERSPECTIVE IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY, IT'S THE AREA THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
THAT WHOLE CENTER NOW, THAT WHOLE CORNER NOW BECOMES A VERY HIGH INTENSE USE, AND IT WAS NOT WHAT THIS WAS CREATED TO BE.
I HOPE THAT WE CAN EITHER REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT OR BRING IT DOWN TO WHERE IT REALLY FITS.
I AM BRINGING ON MR. BILL SANCHEZ.
>> IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND LOWERING THE VOLUME ON YOUR COMPUTER OR YOUR DEVICE.
AND THE THREE MINUTES BEGIN NOW.
>> GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
I ATTEND THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING IN FEBRUARY=.
AND I AM A RESIDENT -- AS A AS HE MENTIONED BEFORE CITRUS PLAZA IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER, AND MY FAMILY AND I OFTEN, AS CRAZY AS IT SOUNDS AND PEOPLE BELIEVE, WE OFTEN WALK FROM OUR DEVELOPMENT DOWN 49 ONTO JEFFERSON STREET OR WE RIDE OUR BIKES TO THE CENTER AND WE ALWAYS RUN INTO SEVERAL OF OUR NEIGHBORS THAT ARE DOING THE SAME.
SO IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER.
WE REALLY LIKE THE AMENITIES AND THE MIXTURE THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS BROUGHT INTO THAT CENTER, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE DIFFERENT RESTAURANTS AND DIFFERENT SERVICES HERE.
I THINK THIS IS REALLY A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER THAT WOULD ONLY BE ENHANCED BY THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK A LOT OF TIMES OTHER COMMUNITIES, OTHER PEOPLE, OTHER CITIES TALK ABOUT HAVING MIXED USE PROJECTS OR WALKABLE COMMUNITIES.
WELL, IN THIS CASE I COMMEND THE DEVELOPER FOR COMING INTO OUR BACKYARD IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER AND DOING JUST THAT, CREATING A WALKABLE COMMUNITY, A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I HEARD HIS PRESENTATION EARLIER OF HIS WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST ON POSSIBLY MAKING CONNECTIONS THERE, AND THAT ONLY ENHANCES THE WALKABILITY AND THE CONNECTIVITY.
MY WIFE AND MY KIDS ARE EXCITED ABOUT MORE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE CAN JUMP ON TO.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, DURING THE LAST HEARING THERE WERE SEVERAL RESIDENTS FROM ANOTHER COMMUNITY DOWN THE ROAD SPEAKING AGAINST, IN OPPOSING OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND THEY HAD CONCERNS, AND THAT'S RESPECTABLE, BUT WHEN THE STAFF REPORT WAS BEING PRESENTED EARLIER TODAY, THERE WAS A SLIDE THAT SHOWED, I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE, WHICH IS PRETTY VAST, AND IT'S NOT JUST THE NEIGHBOR THAT IS DOWN THE STREET FROM ME.
IT'S PRETTY BIG, AND IT EXTENDS WAY EAST AND ALL, SO THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT STAND TO BENEFIT AND TO ENJOY THIS SHOPPING CENTER.
SO I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS VOTE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMEND TO APPROVE -- OR RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT YOU APPROVE THIS PROJECT.
[01:20:07]
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOWING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY.>> AND I AM BRINGING ON MR. YOSH BRIGANDA.
CAN YOU HEAR US? YOSH PRIVANDA, CAN YOU HEAR US? HE SAID HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE COMMENTS THIS EVENING.
>> DID YOU WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS THIS EVENING?
>> NO, I WAS HERE TO ADDRESS ANY COMMENTS THAT THE PUBLIC MAY HAVE HAD AROUND THE RALPH'S OR THE FUEL STATION SO I DON'T NEED TO MAKE COMMENTS.
WE HAVE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AT THIS TIME BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> MADAME CHAIR, IF I MIGHT, I WOULD LIKE TO VERY BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBORHOODS DISCUSSION.
WE DO FULLY REALIZE THAT WE ARE ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBORHOODS LAND USE DESIGNATION.
HOWEVER, WE ARE ALSO ON JEFFERSON STREET.
AND WE ARE DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ADJACENCY TO JEFFERSON STREET.
JEFFERSON STREET CURRENTLY CARRIES CURRENTLY CARRIES 22,000 TRIPS PER DAY.
THE PURPOSE OF DESIGNATING HIGHER INTENSITIES ADJACENT TO MAJOR ARTERIALS SUCH AS JEFFERSON STREET IS TO PROVIDE A BUFFER TO THE MORE QUIET INNER AREAS OF THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBORHOODS OR ANY LOWER INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TWO POINTS ABOUT DRIVE-THROUGHS.
FIRST IS THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY A DRIVE-THROUGH AT CITRUS PLAZA, HAS BEEN SINCE IT WAS BUILT.
THE DRUG STEER STORE HAS A DRIVE-THROUGH AND THE OTHER IS A MORE GENERAL COMMENT, WHICH IS CERTAINLY TRUE IN MY LIFE.
IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS MY VIEW OF THE CONVENIENCE OF A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT TO MY EVERYDAY LIFE HAS CHANGED CONSIDERABLY AND IS LIKELY TO STAY THAT WAY.
DRIVE-THROUGHS ARE PART OF OUR LIVES THAT ARE A CONVENIENCE AND WE BELIEVE THAT ON A MAJOR ARTERIAL ADJACENT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY ARE A PROPER AND LOGICAL LAND USE THAT IS GOING TO BE LOCATED MORE THAN 750 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE DESERT RIVER ESTATES PROJECT.
IF THERE ARE NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME, WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC -- >> WAIT.
>> NO, I HAD MYSELF MUTED AND I'M WAVING AT YOU.
>> YES, VERY BRIEFLY, A FEW THINGS THAT WERE ADDRESSED.
FIRST UP, THE GENTLEMAN THAT CALLED IN THAT WE HEARD FROM WHO DIDN'T ELECT TO SPEAK IS YOSH PRIVEANDA.
H AND HE'S THE GENTLEMAN I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH FOR YEARS NOW ON THIS PROJECT.
CLEARLY THEY'RE VERY INTERESTED IN ALL THE THINGS THAT THIS WILL DO FOR THEM, SO I WILL SPEAK ON HIS BEHALF AND SAY I HAVE A FEELING HE'S SPEAKING IN SUPPORT, BUT HE'S AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU NEED THEM.
NEXT, ANOTHER THING THAT NICOLE BROUGHT UP, WHICH IS VERY INTERESTING, I HAD NEVER SEEN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBORHOOD IN ITS ENTIRETY.
I KNEW WE WERE SURROUNDED BEAUTY DIDN'T KNOW THE EXTENT OF IT.
THE REASON THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS THAT ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN AT YOUR CITY THAT WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WORKING WITH AT CITRUS IS JIM CART IS WHO IS YOUR DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES.
OBVIOUSLY HIS JOB IS TO ATTRACT BUSINESSES AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE THINGS THAT MAKE INDIO VIBRANT CONTINUE TO OCCUR.
IN THAT REGARD, THE REASON WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME WITH HIM IS THAT CITRUS PLAZA, AS YOU KNOW, IS GROUND ZERO FOR COACHELLA.
[01:25:02]
LIKE IT OR NOT, WE HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH IT FROM THE BEGINNING.WE DON'T REALLY, QUITE FRANKLY, THE CENTER ITSELF, BENEFIT THAT MUCH FROM IT.
CERTAINLY RALPH'S BENEFITS FROM THE DEMANDS ON LIQUOR SALES, BUT IN GENERAL WE COORDINATE SO EXTENSIVELY WITH INDIO AND I'M SURE YOUR CHIEF OF POLICE WILL VALIDATE THIS, THAT THAT IS THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT IS WHAT YOU CALL THE FESTIVAL DISTRICT.
WE HAVE AVAILABLE NOW, EFFECT WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO ALL OF THIS, LOTS OF THINGS THAT CAN ALSO SUPPORT NOT SO MUCH THE PEOPLE -- I DON'T WANT TO CALL THEM KIDS BUT THE PEOPLE WHO GO TO THE FESTIVAL, BUT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT COME IN THAT ARE FRIENDS OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE AROUND US.
AND SO PROVIDES ACTS OF AND RESTAURANTS AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO BRING TEARS TO YOUR EYES BUT I'M REALLY HOPEFUL THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.
AND I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE FURTHER.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS MAYBE FOR STAFF.
SINCE THE APPLICANT HAD PREPARED SOME LANGUAGE CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, HOW STAFF HAD REVIEWED THOSE OR IF THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF ON THOSE CHANGES.
WE HAD REVIEWED THE AMENDMENTS, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THE SETTING FOR DISCUSSION OF THOSE AMENDMENTS WOULD BE HERE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING TO GO THROUGH THEM, SO I PREPARED, YOU KNOW, THE SLIDES THAT SHEEP OF OF THE INDIVIDUAL CHANGES, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THE DISCUSSION SHOULD HAVE -- SHOULD HAPPEN HERE RATHER THAN PRIOR TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE STOOD FIRM IN OUR AMENDMENTS, SO THIS IS WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.
>> IF I CAN ADD, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE AMENDMENT, AND WHILE WE, AS ROSIE SAID, WE FEEL COMFORTABLE IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE'VE MADE TO YOU, I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT IF THE COMMISSION DECIDES TO ACCEPT SOME OR ALL OF THE SUGGESTED REVISIONS, THERE ARE SOME WHERE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND CERTAINLY THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN OPINE ON THIS AS WELL, THAT YOU MAKE SPECIFIC FINDINGS RELATIVE TO ALL EVER POLICY LANGUAGE IN THE GENERAL PLAN.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE THE REQUIREMENT FOR FACING THE STREET WITH ORIENTATION TO THE STREET IN THE PRIMARY BUILT ENTRANCES, IF YOU AS A COMMISSION ACCEPT THE ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU MAKE A FINDING INTO THE RECORD AS TO.
WHY YOU ARE ELECTING TO DEVIATE AS TO WHAT THE POLICY DIRECTS THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER.
SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT, AND PERHAPS THE CITY ATTORNEY WANTS TO SHARE ANY THOUGHTS AS WELL.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ZACK HINESELMAN HERE FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT SEVEN KEVIN SAID, SHOULD THE COMMISSION DECIDE TO ERR PROCEED, PROCEED WITH THE MOTION TO CONSIDER ANY ALTERNATIVES OTHER THAN WHAT STAFF PROVIDED PROVIDING CLARIFICATION ON THAT FINDING AND ALSO CLARIFYING THE SPECIFIC REVISION THAT THE COMMISSION IS SEEKING WOULD BE IMPORTANT.
COMMISSIONER CEJA, ANY OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THAT?
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
SO I GUESS AT THIS TIME WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND JUST DELIBERATE.
IS THAT WHERE WE ARE? NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? NO.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO DELIBERATIONS.
>> CHAIR, IF I COULD INTERRUPT FOR JUST ONE SECOND -- THIS IS ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ZACK HINESELMAN AGAIN FOR THE RECORD -- I KNOW COMMISSIONER TORRES WAS ABLE TO JOIN A LITTLE BIT LATER TODAY.
[01:30:05]
I JUST WANTED TO HAVE HIM CONFIRM THAT HE WAS HERE FOR THE PORTION OF THE STAFF REPORT WHERE MS. LUA HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF THE CHANGES FROM THE ORAL STAFF REPORTS AND THE WRITTEN STAFF REPORT.>> YES, I BELIEVE I CAUGHT THE GIST OF ALL OF THAT.
SO WHAT COMMENTS DO WE HAVE AT THIS TIME? EVERYBODY IS QUIET TODAY.
>> I ACTUALLY -- THIS IS COMMISSIONER TORRES.
I'M GOING TO HEAR THE RESPONSES FROM MY COLLEAGUES.
I HAVE NO -- WITH THE VISION PUT FORTH BY THE APPLICANT, UNLESS STAFF HAS SOME MAJOR RESERVATIONS, I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THOSE ARE.
WHEN THE ATTORNEY SAYS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE A FINDING, IS THE FINDING ANYTHING BEYOND THE REASONS THAT THE APPLICANT MADE FOR REQUESTING THOSE CHANGES? SO THAT'S I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE LOOKING FOR WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FINDING?
>> THE FINDING YOU WOULD WANT TO STATE THE REASON YOUR GOING WITH THE ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE RATHER THAN WHAT STAFF HAS PROPOSED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT PREPARED THE FINDING TO SUPPORT THAT RECOMMENDATION, SO IF YOU PROCEED WITH AN ALTERNATIVE BATH, PATH, YOU WOULD WANT TO SUPPORT WHY THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS CONSISTENT WITH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN OR JUST TYING THE RATIONALE TO WHY YOU'RE MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION.
>> YEAH, SO AGAIN, WOULD THE FINING BE JUST AGREEING WITH THE REQUEST BE BASED UPON THE REASONS THAT THE APPLICANT PUT FORTH?
>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMISSION, WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION AND IF YOU ARE ACCEPTING THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION, THAT YOU STATE ON THE RECORD THE REASONS.
I DON'T THINK IT'S ADEQUATE, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN CORRECT ME, JUST TO STATE THAT WE AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING FINDINGS THAT WILL GO FORWARD AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU AS A COMMISSION FELT THAT IT WAS -- THAT THE DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT DID NOT HAVE TO FACE JEFFERSON STREET, YOU WOULD WANT TO SPECIFY ON THE RECORD AS TO WHY, ALTHOUGH THERE'S POLICY LANGUAGE THAT DIRECTS THAT ORIENTATION, THE COMMISSION MAKES A FINDING THAT THAT ORIENTATION IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE -- AND WHATEVER BECAUSE IS.
>> SO YOU WANT US TO DO YOUR JOB.
I'M JOKING, OF COURSE, BUT I MEAN, SHALL I WRITE DOWN MY FINDINGS? I DON'T THEY ANYTHING THAT THE REQUEST IS BEING UNREASONABLE.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING IT.
AGAIN, ORIENTATION TO JEFFREY ON DRIVE-THROUGHS IS TO WORK WITH THE FACILITY AND THE FLOW OF THE TRAFFIC.
I UNDERSTAND WHY WE PUT THEM THERE.
BUT MAYBE THIS IS ABOVE MY PAY LEVEL AND THAT'S WHY I DEPEND UPON PEOPLE LIKE MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE PLANNERS AND LEGISLATORS, ANALYSTS AND THOSE TYPES THINGS.
THEY HAVE MORE EXPERTISE WITH THESE TYPES OF THINGS THAN I DO.
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, COMMISSIONER, STAFF IS MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ONLY.
WE'RE NOT A DECISION MAKING BODY.
YOU ARE A PSEUDO DECISION MAKING BODY IN THIS INSTANCE BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL, AND ALL I AND THE CITY ATTORNEY ARE ADVISING IS THAT IF YOU MAKE A DECISION, TO STATE THE REASONS WHY ON THE RECORD SO THAT IT'S CLEAR FROM THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD, AND PERHAPS THE CITY ATTORNEY WANTS TO STAY SOMETHING AS WELL.
>> TO FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT MR. SNYDER SAID THERE AND, FOR EXAMPLE, MR. TORRES WHEN YOU WERE GOING INTO KIND OF SOME OF THE RATIONALE THAT YOU MENTIONED, THAT WON KIND OF BE THE APPROPRIATE PATH TO MAKE A FINDING, YOUR JUSTIFICATION WHY THAT ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE WORKS.
IN THE STAFF REPORT STAFF HAS PROVIDED CONSIDERATION FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED IN THERE, BUT THE DEVIATIONS FROM THAT DON'T HAVE THAT BRIDGE TO CONCLUDE.
SO IF THERE ARE MODIFICATIONS, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD REQUEST THE COMMISSION ITSELF CLARIFY.
>> I WOULD ALSO SAY STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, INCLUDING THE CITY ATTORNEY, ARE AVAILABLE TO HELP THE COMMISSION IF YOU DECIDE TO -- EXCUSE ME -- FIND THE RIGHT WORDS AND LANGUAGE TO ASSIST YOU.
WE CAN CERTAINLY HELP IN THAT REGARD.
>> THEN I GUESS, CHAIR, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WHAT I'D LIKE TO START MY COMMENTS,
[01:35:06]
THEN, I THINK OVERALL THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY GOOD PROJECT RESULTING FROM BOTH -- FROM A NUMBER OF ITEMS, BUT STAFF SCRUTINIZING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, APPLYING OUR NEW GENERAL PLAN, A WILLINGNESS AND OPEN MINDEDNESS FROM THE DEVELOPER, MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND REALLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROCESS.I KNOW THERE'S STILL SOME CONCERNS FROM SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT I ALSO SEE IT AS A BIG WIN FOR WHAT THEY WERE PUSHING FOR.
THERE'S NOT A HOTEL BEING PROPOSED AT THIS SITE ANYMORE.
THE DEVELOPER IS FREE TO REMOVE IT, EVEN THOUGH THE NEW GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING UPDATE COULD POTENTIALLY ALLELU IT THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THE DEVELOPER HAS VOLUNTEERED TO ACTUALLY NOT PROVIDE THAT IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
I THINK THE REDUCTION IN WIGGLED HEIGHT BUILDING HEIGHT IS ALSO A WIN FOR MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
THERE'S AN INCREASE IN AMENITIES IS AND A MUCH BETTER DESIGN OF THE PROJECT ITSELF.
LINING AT THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF AND SOME OF THE CONCERNS RELATED TO OUR DESERT ESTATE NEIGHBORHOODS I SEE THERE'S A COMPLETE DISTINCTION BETWEEN AVENUE 49 AND JEFFERSON STREET WHICH IS BUILT AS A MAJOR ARTERIAL, SIX LANES THAT CAN HANDLE AN INCREASE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC THAT IS ANTICIPATED FOR MORE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR TO THE SOUTH.
FOR ME, I THINK A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE AT THIS POINT ARE RELATED TO DRIVE-THROUGHS, SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF IS PUSHING FOR ON THE ARCHITECTURE I GUESS FOR THE DRIVE-THROUGHS FRONTING ONTO JEFFERSON.
I THINK THERE'S AN INTENT THERE TO IMPLEMENT THE GENERAL PLAN AND HOW WE TALK ABOUT BUILDING FACING ONTO THE STREET WAY.
BUT AGAIN, THERE'S NO ON STREET PARKING FOR JEFFERSON.
I THINK A LOT OF WHAT STAFF IS LOOKING FOR AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR WHEN WE WANT BUILDINGS TO FACE ONTO A STREET CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN OF THE BUILDING ITSELF SO THAT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, THOSE LOADING DOORS, FIRE ROOMS, FIRE RISER ROOMS, UTILITIES ARE NOT FACING ONTO JEFFERDS.
THERE'S AN ARCHITECTURAL WAY THEY CAN DO THAT WHERE THERE'S DIFFERENT WINDOWS OR DIFFERENT DESIGN ELEMENTS SO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A A BACK OF HOUSE THAT FACES FUMBLE STREET.
STILL HAVE SOME CONCERN WITH THE DRIVE-THROUGHS AND THE SCREENING METHOD THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
I GUESS I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE DRIVE-THROUGH FOR RESTAURANTS BUT HOW THOSE ARE ACTUALLY SCREENED.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S A CONDITION THERE REQUIRING MOUNDING OR BERMING TO HELP SCREEN THOSE.
I'VE SEEN THOSE WORK KIND OF DEPENDING ON THE CASE.
I THINK WHAT IS A DEFINITE SOLUTION TO THAT IS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT A THREE FOOT BLOCK WALL, PUT INTENSE LANDSCAPE ALONG THAT WALL, TO HIDE THE WALL, THEN YOU ACCOMPLISH THAT SCREENING AND MITIGATE SOME OF THAT NOISE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE FROM VEHICLES IN THE SAME MANNER WITHOUT HAVING TO DO THE BERMING ITSELF.
AND THEN THAT'S REALLY IT FOR ME.
I THINK THE NEW PROPOSAL TO REALLY INTEGRATE HOUSING INTO THE SITE IS A GREAT ONE.
I AM VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS.
HERE WE ARE CREATING RETAIL JOBS AND NOW WE'RE PROVIDING HOUSING THAT COULD ACTUALLY ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE THAT WORK AT SH CENTER BECAUSE I DOUBT THAT MANY OF THESE POTENTIAL JOBS THAT ARE CREATED HAVE WAGES THAT WOULD AFFORD THE IMMEDIATE RESIDENTIAL AREA AROUND THEM, AND SO INTEGRATING SOME SORT OF MIXED USE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AT TWO STORIES I THINK IS IDEAL, NOT ONLY FOR THE EMPLOYMENT THAT'S BEING CREATED IN AREA BUT FOR BUSINESS SUPPORT WHEN RESIDENTS ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUPPORT THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE THERE.
SO MY QUESTIONS REALLY COME DOWN TO HOW WE ADDRESS -- BECAUSE I AGREE WITH STAFF'S MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR CONDITIONS, BUT HOW WE ADDRESS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF.
ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS I WOULD HAVE FOR STAFF REGARDING THE CONDITION OF LANDSCAPE OR COVERING ON THE SITE WITH EG WITHIN ONE YEAR OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, WHAT THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE, AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS INTENDED.
>> CHAIR AND COMMISSION, CAN I MAKE MAYBE A PRACTICAL SUGGESTION? YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS PRESENTED BY ASSOCIATE PLANNER LUA AND THEN YOU HAVE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.
PERHAPS ASSOCIATE PLANNER LUA COULD SHARE HER SCREEN AGAIN AND GO THROUGH THOSE AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN DISCUSS AND REVIEW THOSE, AND THEN THE APPLICANT CAN SHARE THE SCREEN WHERE THEIR REQUESTED REVISIONS ARE AND THE COMMISSION COULD DISCUSS THOSE, JUST GO THROUGH EACH ONE SO YOU CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME, CREATE THE LEGISLATIVE RECORDERS IN TERMS OF YOUR
[01:40:02]
DISCUSSION AND YOUR DECISION ON EACH THEM, AND THEN AT THE END THEN WE CAN KIND OF WRAP IT UP IN TERMS OF ANY POTENTIAL DECISION YOU MIGHT MAKE.I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A PRACTICAL WAY TO GO THROUGH THE OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS STILL IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION, IF THE COMMISSION IS ACCEPTABLE TOWARDS THAT SUGGESTION.
WE CAN JUST TAKE IT ONE AT A TIME UNTIL WE GET THROUGH ALL OF THEM.
>> MADAME COMMISSIONER, IF I COULD SHARE MY SCREEN.
I HAVE PREPARED AS WE WERE DISCUSSING EACH ONE OF THE ITEMS IN SEPARATE SLIDES SO HOPEFULLY IT WILL HELP US, AND IF THERE'S ANY AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO DO, I CAN TYPE THEM IN AS WE ARE GOING THROUGH EACH ONE OF THESE AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER.
SO LET ME SEE -- GIVE ME ONE SECOND SO I CAN SHARE MY SCREEN.
>> IS THAT SHARING? YES? OKAY.
SO I WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE BERM AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND I APOLOGIZE.
IT'S JUST AGAIN MY PLANNER HAT OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT IT IS AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
SO THE AMENDMENT READS "A MAXIMUM 3-FOOT VEGETATIVE FOOT BERM SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE ENTIRETY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES JEFFERSON STREET FRONTAGE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY." IF THERE IS ANY CHANGES TO THAT, WE CAN WORK OFF OF THIS LANGUAGE HERE.
AND THEN THE OTHER AMENDMENT TO THE DRIVE-THROUGHS THAT COMMISSIONER CEJA WAS DISCUSSING WAS THE ONE WITH THE DRIVE-THROUGHS.
S IF THERE WAS ANY MAYBE REVISIONS OR CHANGES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO AND IT'S "ALL DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES SHALL BE FULLY INTEGRATED INTO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE THAT SAID DRIVE-THROUGH IS INTENDED TO SUPPORT.
FULLY INTEGRATED SHALL MEAN THAT ALL AREAS DESIGNATED FOR DRIVE-THROUGHS AND RELATED USES SHALL BE DIRECTLY INTEGRATED INTO THE BUILDINGS' ARCHITECTURE." SO IT'S DIRECTLY BUILDING ARCHITECTURE, NOT NECESSARILY DISCUSSING WALLS AROUND THE DRIVE-THROUGH AREA.
SO JUST WANTED TO GIVE SOME SUBSTANCE TO THE AMENDMENT AS COMMISSIONER CEJA WAS DISCUSSING THAT.
THIS WAS IF FIRST AMENDMENT NUMBER 11, WHICH WAS THE APPLICANT RECOMMENDED REVISIONS ARE THERE AS WELL.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU GUYS WANT TO GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE OR WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT I HAVE THESE HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
>> WHY DON'T WE GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE.
AND I WILL ASK THE APPLICANT IF IT'S OKAY, YOU KNOW, IN THEIR DISCUSSION TO SAY THE REASONINGS WHY.
SO I'LL HAVE THEM KIND OF GIVE THEIR REASONINGS, BUT I WANT TO JUST SHOW WHAT THE REVISION WOULD LOOK LIKE SO THAT WE SEPARATE THE REASONINGS WITH WHAT THE REVISIONS WOULD ACTUALLY BE, IF THAT'S OKAY.
SO AMENDMENT NUMBER 11 READS "ALL BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE A SETBACK AT A MINIMUM OF 100 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINES ALONG THE NORTHERN-NORTHEASTERN AND EASTERN PERIMETERS OF PLEARNG 2 TO MINIMIZE VISUAL AND ORIGINALSAL IMPACTS." THE RECOMMENDED REVISIONS BY THE APPLICANT TO THIS AMENDMENT IS "IN PLANNING AREA 2 COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS SHALL BE SET BACK FROM THE NORTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES BY 100 FEET.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SHALL BE SET BACK FROM THE NORTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES BY
50 FEET." >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO MAKE COMMENT WHEN YOU'RE DONE WITH THE READING OR SHALL I WAIT UNTIL IF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS HAVE AI QUESTION?
>> I WILL REFER BACK TO THE, MADAME CHAIR FOR GUIDANCE.
I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS STILL PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING OR NOT.
>> WE HAVE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I WOULD ADVISE THAT IF THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO BE SUBSTANTIVELY GOING OVER THESE ISSUES WITH THE APPLICANT, THAT THE HEARING BE REOPENED FOR THESE PURPOSES, AND THEN WHEN THE COMMISSIONER COMMISSION DOES MOVE TO DELIBERATE AND MAKE
[01:45:04]
A RECOMMENDATION TO CLOSE IT BEFORE THAT POINT.>> THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN SO TWEAK DO THIS.
COMMISSIONER CEJA, I'M ASSUMING THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS GO THROUGH EACH ITEM UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY OTHER WAY TO DO IT.
>> SO DID YOU WANT TO GO BACK THE TO PREVIOUS ONE OR WE WANT TO JUST -- THAT ONE
WAS JUST INFORMATIONAL AND THIS IS ONE WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON OR -- >> WE'RE ON THIS ONE.
>> MAY I INTERRUPT ONE MORE TIME.
SINCE THE HEARING IS OPEN AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION TO USE THIS TIME FOR THE FACT FINDING AND THEN THE ACTUAL DELIBERATIVE DECISION MAKING RESERVED FOR THE PERIOD ONCE THE HEARING IS CLOSED.
>> AND, MADAME CHAIR, I WOULD STATE THAT THE SUPPORT FOR THE FINDINGS IN THIS CASE IS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE P THAT WAS OUR RATIONALE FOR PROPOSING THE AMENDMENT.
SO AS I UNDERSTAND THIS AMENDMENT, IS THAT SHOULD THEY GO WITH COMMERCIAL BUILDING, THEY'RE GOING TO DO THE STAFF RECOMMENDED 100-FOOT, BUT IF THEY GO WITH THE RESIDENTIAL, THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE 50-FOOT AND 50-FOOT HAD TO DO WITH THE CREATION OF THE LARGE SPARKING SPOTS AND QUALITY OF LIFE, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
SEEING THEY'RE DOING THE HOUSING COMPONENT, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GIVING THEM THE 50-FOOT, IF THEY DO THE HOUSING, THE 50-FOOT DISTANCE INSTEAD OF 100-FOOT ON A RESIDENTIAL USE.
SAM, WE NEED TO DISCUSS WHEN QUAY GET TO THE DELIBERATION SIDE SO THIS IS JUST GETTING OUR FINDINGS FIRST.
SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT THING.
>> I WOULD HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, THEN.
IF THIS WAS ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMERCIAL, WHAT WOULD BE THE SETBACK?
>> SO IF THIS WAS -- AM I STILL ON SPEAKER? IF THIS WAS ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, A ONE STORY IS DEFINED AS 18 FEET.
THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THE TEN FOOT AT THE TIME-BACK.
A 25-FOOT BEING A TWO STORY WOULD BE 150 FOOTS SETBACK.
AND 25 FEET BEING THE MAXIMUM IN THE UNDERLYING ZONE.
>> I'M GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? THIS IS BOB.
JUST QUICKLY, ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE HAD ABOUT THAT SETBACK IS THAT IF YOU HAD BEHIND THE APARTMENTS, IF YOU HAD 100 FEET, REALLY WHAT IT IS IS IT BECOMES A RACEWAY.
IT'S A SECURITY CONCERN FOR US IN THAT YOU WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME GREENERY CLOSE TO THEM.
YOU WANT THEM TO GET TO THE PARKING, ET CETERA.
BUT 100 FEET IS A PRETTY WIDE AREA.
THAT'S THE ONE BIG IMPORTANT POINT.
THE SECOND ONE IS THERE IS A CRITICAL MASS -- FORGET WHETHER YOU THINK YOU CAN ECONOMICS ARE IMPORTANT -- BUT IF YOU REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF APARTMENTS TO A MUCH SMALLER AMOUNT, THEN IT ALMOST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO BUILD APARTMENTS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS.
IT'S THE SAME REASON WHY PEOPLE SAY, WELL, GEE, IF I BUILD ANYTHING LESS THAN 32 UNITS OR 16, I CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT WORK BECAUSE I STILL HAVE TO MANAGE THEM, ET CETERA.
THOUGH HERE IT'S A PROJECT, THE NUMBER OF UNITS THERE ARE KIND OF A FUNCTION OF WHAT WOULD WORK FOR THE RESIDENTS, BUT IT ALSO WORKS FOR PROVIDING THEM THE COMMON AREAS AND POOLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> ROSIE, TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, THE SETBACK IS ESTABLISHED BASED ON THE BUILDING HEIGHT REGARDLESS OF A COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL USE.
>> SO I HAVE TO GO BACK -- SO, YES.
SO IN OUR RECOMMENDATION IT'S 100 FEET NO MATTER IF IT'S COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL.
>> RESIDENTIAL IS NOT AN APPROVED LAND USE, SO THERE IS NO DIFFERENTIATING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USE.
[01:50:02]
IT DOES NOT MATTER.IT'S JUST A DEVELOPMENT STANDARD.
> PINT OF ORDER? THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE.
THIS IS NOT A GIVE-AND-TAKE CONVERSATION.
AND SO IF YOU WANT A SEAT, YOU DO NEED TO ASK THE CHAIR FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, AND SHE WILL DECIDE.
PLEASE IN THE FUTURE IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, BOB OR NICOLE OR KELLY, JUST PLEASE ASK THE CHAIR FIRST FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
>> ERIC, COMMISSIONER CEJA, ANYTHING ELSE?
>> NO, ALTHOUGH IT DOES SOUND THAT AS WE MAKE THE ZONING CODE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, THAT THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WILL BE LOOKED AT AND PROBABLY MODIFIED BASED ON THE TYPE OF USE BEING PROPOSED, I WOULD IMAGINE, NOT JUST THE BUILDING HEIGHT BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE SEEN, WHICH IS WHY I COULD SEE WHY WE'RE ADDRESSING IT IN IN A SPECIFIC PLAN.
I JUST WANTED TO GET THE FACTS OF WHAT THE CURRENT ZONES MIGHT ALLOW.
ROSIE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
SO THE NEXT ONE WAS AMENDMENT NUMBER 17.
AS IT READS "THERE SHOL BE NO LOADING DOCKS OR DOORS OR SIMILAR FACILITIES AREAS THAT FACE AND OPERATE OR INDIRECT OR DIRECT ORIENTATION TO EXISTING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, NORTHEAST AND EAST.
AND THE NORTH-NORTHEAST AND EAST ARE THE AREAS WHERE THERE ARE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.
THE RECOMMENDED REVISION BY THE APPLICANT IS THAT LOADING DOCKS FACING THE NORTH OR EAST PROPERTY LINES SHALL BE SCREENED BY A SOLID MASONRY WALL EIGHT NEAT IF HEIGHT TREATED TO MATCH THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BILLING TO WHICH IT IS ATTACHED.
SERVICE AND EMPLOYEE ENTRANCES SHALL BE DESIGNATED TO INTEGRATE INTO
THE BUILDING ARCHITECTURE >> ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? > RATIONALE?
I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION FROM A COMMISSIONER.
ROSIE, CAN YOU BRING THAT UP ON THE SCREEN SO I CAN KIND OF TAKE A LOOK TO SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO -- >> DO YOU WANT ME TO BRING A MAP?
I WILL USE THIS ONE TO GIVE US A BETTER VISUAL BUT I ALSO HAVE THE AERIAL IF THAT GIVES A BETTER ILLUSTRATION OF WHERE THE HOUSING IS.
SO NORTH WOULD BE THIS PROPERTY HERE WHICH IS A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.
THAT'S ALSO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.
THAT'S THE CROSSROADS, I BELIEVE THE PROJECT THAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT IS PROPOSED TO HAVE A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION IN THE FUTURE.
AND THIS IS THE NORTHEAST WOULD BE THE ABUTTING TWO OR THREE PROPERTIES TO THE DESERT ESTATES.
SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EAST, NORTHEAST, AND NORTH.
>> MAYOR, CAN I MAKE A REAL FAST STATEMENT INTO THE RECORD ANY JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR ON THE RECORD FOR ANYONE THAT'S WATCHING THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT ENTERED A DELIBERATION STAGE.
THEY'RE STILL IN THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION AND YOU ARE GOING THROUGH THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS AND GETTING APPLICANT TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONS FOR THEIR SUGGESTED OR REQUESTED AMENDMENTS, SO THERE ARE NO FINDING BEING MADE AT THIS TIME AND THERE ARE NO DECISION MAKING GOING ON AT THIS TIME.
SO IF WE CAN JUST MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR TO EVERYONE WHO IS VIEWING THIS THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WHERE IT'S INFORMATION GATHERING.
AT THE CLOSE OF HEARING, HEN THE COMMISSION WILL DELIBERATE AND MAKE THEIR FINDINGS AT THAT TIME.
I THINK WE HAD COMMENT FROM THE APPLICANT, FROM TERRA NOVOA.
>> MADAME CHAIR, THE REASONING FOR THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS BECAUSE WITH A 100-FOOT SETBACK AND A REQUIREMENT TO ARCHITECTURALLY STREET ALL FOUR SIDES OF A BUILDING, THE POTENTIAL FOR A LOADING DOCK WOULD BE VERY FAR FROM
[01:55:03]
THE RESIDENTIAL AND WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATELY HANDLE THROUGH ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT AND AN 8-FOOT WALL, MASONRY WALL WHICH COMPLETELY SCREENS BOTH FOR VISUAL AND FOR NOISE PURPOSES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES.COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE OR WE CAN MOVE ON? OKAY.
ROSIE, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
IT ALSO INCORPORATES AMENDMENT NUMBER 19.
22 AND 19 AND THEN I'LL READ THE RECOMMENDED REVISION BY THE APPLICANT.
SO THIS AMENDMENT NUMBER 22 "THERE SHALL BE NO FREESTANDING AND WALL MOUNTED LIGHTS WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET LYNN -- 50 LINEAL FEET AS MEASURED FROM ALL ANGLES OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, NORTHEAST AND EAST, AND" AND THOSE ARE THE SAME LOTIONS THAT WE JUS POINTED OUT IN THE SITE PLAN.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 19 STATES, UHL "ALL BHIEWNLTD LIGHTS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH SHIELDING ON ALL SIDES AND A DOWNWARD ONLY LIGHT ORIENTATION.
THERE SHALL BE NO UPLIGHTING ALLOWED,.
ID LIGHTING SHALL BE UTILIZED ALONG ALL PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS AND PLAZA PATIO AREAS." THE RECOMMENDED REVISION BY THE APPLICANT IS THAT ALL WALL MOUNTED AND FREESTANDING LIGHTS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH SHIELDING ON ALL SIDES AND A DOWNWARD ONLY LIGHT ORIENTATION.
THERE SHALL BE NO UPLIGHTING ALLOWED, SHIELDED LIGHTING SHALL BE UTILIZED ON ALL ON-SITE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY AND PLAZA PATIO AREAS.
DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE RATIONALE FOR THIS AS WELL?
>> I WOULD ALSO SUPPLEMENT THAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS THAT AMENDMENT NUMBER 22 BE DELETED, AND THE RATIONALE WAS THAT PUBLIC SAFETY IS NOT WELL SERVED BY LACK OF LIGHTING ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH -- I'M SORRY -- NORTH AND EAST EAST BOUNDARIES AND THAT THE CITY'S REQUIREMENT FOR SHIELDED DOWNWARD POINTING LIGHTING WOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE, SURE AREAS FOR THE PUBLIC TO TRAVEL IN.
ROSIE, WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT THESE THREE AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN BE ELIMINATED.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 37 "ALL BUILDINGS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN SHALL FACE JEFFERSON STREET AND ITS ASSOCIATED PUBLIC SIDEWALK." AMENDMENT NUMBER 38, "ALL PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCES WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN SHALL FACE JEFFERSON STREET." AMENDMENT NUMBER 52 "ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES IN EACH PLANNING AREA SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION TO OBTAIN VISUAL LINE OF SOUTH
NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY." >> OKAY.
>> MADAME CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO READ POLICY 9 -- LU 9.2 INTO THE RECORD.
THAT POLICY READS "NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERED DESIGN, DESIGN NEW NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS TO BE WALKABLE AND PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY WITH BUILDINGS THAT FACE STREETS AND PUBLIC SIDEWALKS.
PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCES SHOULD FACE THE STREET." THE LAST SENTENCE READS "SHOULD." OUR RATIONALE IS THAT THE CITY IS LOOKING FOR HIGH QUALITY DESIGN IN THIS PROJECT, AS ARE WE, AND THE THREE AMENDMENTS TIE OUR HANDS TO A REGIMENTED AND UNATTRACTIVE DESIGN THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANY OPTIONS FOR VARIETY IN SITE PLANNING.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 49 READS, "THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF ONE IDENTIFICATION SIGN ALONG THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES JEFFERSON STREET FRONTAGE, THAT SHALL BE MAIN MUM OF 15 FEET HIGH, AS MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED GRADE OF THE SURROUNDING NON-VEGETATIVE DEVELOPED AREA AND THAT SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM SIGN FACE AREA OF 40 SQUARE FEET." THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MODIFICATION TO SAY, AND I BELIEVE IT'S THE LAST SENTENCE, THAT THE SIGNAGE SHALL BE CONSISTENT
[02:00:07]
WITH AND NO LARGER ATLANTA THE PRIMARY MONUMENT AT THE ORIGINAL CITRUS PLAZA.THE ORIGINAL CITRUS PLAZA I BELIEVE IS 80 SQUARE FEET AND ABOUT 12 FEET IN HEIGHT.
>> ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENT ON THIS?
>> MADAME CHAIR, I BELIEVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS AT YOUR LAST HEARING.
THIS IS FOR CONSISTENCY, PARTICULARLY SINCE BOTH PROJECTS WILL BE CONNECTED.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ONE IDENTIFICATION SIGN AT THE PROJECT MAIN ENTRY, NOT TH SIGN WHICH IS A SEPARATE PIECE.
>> THIS IS AMENDMENT NUMBER 52.
IT READS, "ALL VACANT PATHS AND PORTIONS OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND ANY PLANNING AREA SHALL BE PLANTED WITH DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPING AND DECOMPOSED GRANITE AND SHALL INCLUDE FENCING AS APPROPRIATE IF THEIR UNDEVELOPED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED EFFECTIVE DATE.
THAT LANDSCAPING AND FENCING IF APPLICABLE SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE AND SHALL BE REGULARLY IRRIGATED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL SUCH TIME AT THAT TIME PADS OR PORTIONS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAVE RECEIVED AUTHORIZATIONS FROM THE CITY TO BEGIN -- INITIAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.
THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE SUBJECT PARCEL OR PLANNING AREA AS MAY BE APPLICABLE SHALL CONTAIN DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE PLANTING, IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE VACANT PAD AREAS AND/OR UNDEVELOPED PORTIONS OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL." AND THE RECOMMENDED REVISIONS, "REMOVE THE PORTION THAT SAYS ARE UNDEVELOPED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE CITY COUNCIL EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN." AND IF YOU'D LIKE ME, I CAN READ IN IT ITS COMPLETE VERSION IF WE NEED IT FOR THE RECORD.
IF WE COULD HAVE YOUR RATIONALE.
>> I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THERE IS ADDED LANGUAGE THAT IS NOT SHOWN IN BOLD.
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WAS THAT THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE REPLACE THE STRIKE-THROUGH, AND THAT IS "REMAIN INACTIVE FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF GRADING OF THE PADS OR PORTIONS OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL." AND THE RATIONALE FOR THAT CHANGE IS THAT ALTHOUGH WE HOPE TO HAVE DEVELOPMENT IN PLACE AND UNDERWAY WITHIN THAT NOT OCCUR, IF THE SITE IS VACANT AND NO ACTIVITY HAS OCCURRED A YEAR AFTER CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION, SHOULD THEY ADOPT THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THERE SHOULD NOT BE A NEED TO LANDSCAPE OR COVER THE SITE WITH DECOMPOSED GRANITE.
IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO REMAIN IN ITS NATIVE CONDITION UNTIL DEVELOPMENT OCCURS.
>> MY APOLOGIES, MADAME CHAIR.
>> WE HAVE ONE MORE THAT WAS INTRODUCED, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS NOT IN THE LETTER BUT I THINK IT WAS INTRODUCED TODAY.
IT'S TO ENCOURAGE ESTATE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF SPECIFIC PLAN ON TO & TO PROMOTE PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY.
A DESIGN COMPRISE OF DURABLE SURFACES THAT SHALL ALSO CONNECT TO ON-SITE DURABLE SURFACE PEDESTRIAN PLAZAS AND PATIOS THAT PROVIDE SHADING AND OTHER PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES SHALL BE PROVIDED.
AND OUR CONDITION FURTHER READS "DURABLE HARD SURFACES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 10-FOOT WIDE.
SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 10-FOOT WIDTH." AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO STRIKE THAT OUT.
>> THE LAST SENTENCE, CORRECT.
>> IF I CAN TV RATIONALE, PLEASE.
>> MADAME CHAIR, IT IS TO ENCOURAGE A VARIETY OF SITE DESIGNS AND A 6-FOOT SIDEWALK MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN ONE LOCATION TO PRESERVE LANDSCAPING WHERE A 10-FOOT PATHWAY IS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE IN ANOTHER LOCATION.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THESE ITEMS? NO? OKAY.
[02:05:07]
REVIEW? WE MIGHT AS WELL DO THOSE AT THE SAME TIME, CORRECT?>> SO ONE WAS A CLARIFICATION OF THE STAFF REPORT, PAGE 1, BULLET NUMBER 2, THAT IS A BULLET POINT THAT WE WILL REVISE BEFORE GETTING TO A CITY COUNCIL, IF AND WHEN THAT TIME COMES, AND THEN THE SECOND IS A STAFF-RECOMMENDED CHANGES.
IS WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT NUMBER 9 READS, "LANDSCAPE OF ALL REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS SHALL BE REQUIRED IN ADDITION TO A MINIMUM 10% LANDSCAPE COVERAGE FOR PLANNING AREA." IT'S A CORRECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT TO JUST READ, "ADDING THE WORD EACH PLANNING AREA." SO LAND LANDSCAPE OF ALL REQUIRED BUILDINGS SHALL BE REQUIRED IN ADDITION TO A MINIMUM OF 10% LANDSCAPE COVERAGE FOR EACH PLANNING AREA.
AND THE RATIONALE FOR THAT IS THE INTENT WAS TO HAVE A MINIMUM 10% FOR EACH PLANNING AREA, SO IT'S JUST A CORRECTION THERE.
THE ORIGINAL NUMBER 24 AMENDMENT ON PAGE 32, ANNUAL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE PERMANENT VEG TAIFORT TAIF AREAS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
-- VEGETATIVE AREAS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
THE REVISION THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING AS STAFF IS THAT IT SAYS, "ANNUAL PLANT TERRACE ARE ALLOWED." WE ANT THEM TO PLANT ANNUAL FLOWERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
"AND ACCENT LANDSCAPE AREAS, HOWEVER, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE PERMANENT VEGETATIVE AREAS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN." SO WE WANT IT TO BE A LITTLE MORE PERMANENT IN AREAS WHICH REQUIRE THE SCREENING AND PATHWAYS, BUT IN ACCENT AREAS WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANNUAL PLANT MATERIALS ALLOWED.
THE ORIGINAL NUMBER 40 AND NUMBER 16, COMBINED THOSE TWO, SO IT'S DELETING NUMBER 16.
NUMBER 4 READS "ALL BUILDINGS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN SHALL HAVE BIBLICAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES FOR EBILLING ELEVATION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SUCH AS GRADUATED BUILDING HEIGHTS, BUILDING MATERIALS, VAIR YITIONZ AND RECESS OR EXTENDED BUILDING SECTIONS." 16 READS "ALL BUILDINGS SHALL UTILIZE ARCHITECTURAL VARIATIONS TO BREAK UP AUTONOMOUS BUILDING ELEVATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GRADUATED HEIGHTS, RECESSED WALLS AND EXTENDED --" THE REVISE ONE WILL READ "ALL BUILDINGS WITHIN THE SPECIFICS PLAN SHALL HAVE BILLING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND UTILIZE ARCHITECTURAL VARIATIONS TO BREAK UP AUTONOMOUS BUILDINGS FOR EACH BUILDING ELEVATION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SUCH AS GRADUATED BUILDING HEIGHTS, BUILDING MATERIAL VARIATIONS AND RECESSES AND/OR EXTENDED BUILDING SECTIONS." AND IN DELETING NUMBER 16, IT'S A REPETITIVE CONDITION AND COMBINING IT DID NOT CHANGE THE CONDITION, THE INTENT OF THE CONDITION.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THOSE, ANYONE? NO? SO I GUESS NOW WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT WE CAN GO INTO DELIBERATIONS.
>> CHAIR, IF YOU WILL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT YOU HAVE CLOSED THE FACT-FINDING GATHERING PORTION OF THE HEARING AND MOVED ON TO THE DELIBERATION STAINING WHERE IT WILL BE THE COMMISSION CONSIDERING THE FACT THEY GATHERED THROUGHOUT AND REQUESTING ANY OTHER -- ANYTHING ELSE OF STAFF SHOULD THERE BE A QUESTION, BUT THIS IS THE COMMISSION'S TIME TO DELIBERATE.
>> IF I CAN ADD, ALSO, CHAIR AND COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN PLACED ON MUTE BY THE SECRETARY, AND PUBLIC HEARING, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME.
SO THIS IS THE DELIBERATIVE STAGE FOR THE COMMISSION.
WE CAN PULL BACK UP THE SLIDES THAT ROSIE HAD IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK OVER THOSE AND DELIBERATE ON EACH OF THEM.
SO YOU JUST NEED TO DIRECT HOW YOU WANT STAFF TO PROCEED IN TERMS OF PROVIDING THE INFORMATION TO YOU AT THIS POINT.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? NOBODY? ALL RIGHT.
DO WE NEED TO GO OVER THOSE ITEMS AGAIN OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR COMMENTS? WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE?
>> I THINK THERE'S A LOT THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE FIRST ITEM AND KIND OF GO THROUGH IT ONE BY ONE AND COME TO KIND OF A CONSENSUS ON EACH ITEM BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH
[02:10:04]
THE RESOLUTION.ROSIE, CAN YOU BRING THEM BACK UP, PLEASE.
>> I'M GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN AGAIN.
>> GIVE ME ONE SECOND SO I CAN GET TO THE PROPER LOCATION.
SO I'M STARRING ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 11 WHICH IS THE FIRST RECOMMENDED REVISION BY THE APPLICANT, AND THEN I'LL GO BACK TO THE STAFF ONES, IF THAT'S OKAY.
>> IT SEEMS, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S A LOT MORE NUISANCE ISSUES WITH COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.
WE TALKED ABOUT LOADING DOCKS AND OTHER THINGS, THAT A 100-FOOT SETBACK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THOSE.
L ACCOMMODATE RESIDENTIAL USES, I CAN SEE THAT A 50-FOOT SETBACK WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THOSE BUILDINGS JUST IN HOW THEY FIT IN THE SITE, HOW IT OFFERS FLEXIBILITY IN THE DESIGN, AND HAVING RESIDENTIAL USES BACKING INTO OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES REALLY SHOULDN'T -- IT MIGHT BUT IT SHOULDN'T SUBSTANTIATE A LARGER SETBACK THAN WHAT OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES WOULD NORMALLY HAVE FROM ONE ANOTHER.
SO I'M INCLINED TO THINK THAT THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND RESIDENTIAL AND THAT TWO DIFFERENT SETBACK STANDARDS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS?
I THINK THE PURPOSE OF HAVING A SMALLER SETBACK FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, IT WOULD BE TO HAVE LIKE A GREEN BELT OR SOMETHING THERE KIND OF BUFFERING BETWEEN 2 RESIDENTIAL USE AND THEN THE OTHER COMMUNITIES, AND THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BE A LESS INVASIVE THAN BACK LOADING DOCKS OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IF THAT'S THE WAY THEY DECIDE TO GO, BUT IF THEY DO HAVE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THEY'LL HAVE THE 100-FOOT SETBACK AS WELL TO HELP MITIGATE THAT.
COMMISSIONER VICE CHAIR LOPEZ, ANY COMMENTS?
SO I GUESS WE CAN MOVE PAST NUMBER 11 AT THIS POINT.
NOW WE'RE ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 17.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM?
>> IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL -- IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OTHER SERVICE AREAS THAT WE HAVE AT OTHER COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THROUGHOUT THE COACHELLA, SCREENING WITH AN 8-FOOT HIG IT'S SUFFICIENT, AND HAVING THAT WALL TEXTURED AND TO MATCH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING ARCHITECTURALLY INTEGRATES IT INTO THAT BUILDING.
I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE REALLY WITH THE APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY WILL USE A BLOCK WALL TO SCREEN THOSE.
AND THAT IS ONLY IN THE CASE THAT IT IS A COMMERCIAL USE.
>> NO, I WOULD JUST AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CEJA.
>> VICE CHAIR LOPEZ, ANY COMMENTS OTHER THAN -- >> NO COMMENTS, NO.
YEAH, I ALSO AGREE, SO WE CAN MOVE PAST NUMBER 17.
>> AND JUST TO REITERATE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT NUMBER 22 IS DELETED, SO THIS WOULD BE AMENDMENT NUMBER 19.
>> SO MAYBE I COULD MAKE THAT CORRECTION HERE IN CASE WE NEED TO.
[02:15:12]
IT WOULD BE NUMBER 19.AND THEN THIS WOULD BE RECOMMENDED.
ANY COMMENTS FROM ITS COMMISSION.
? NO? DO WE AGREE OR NOT AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES?
YOU'RE GOING TO WANT SOME LIGHTING IN THOSE AREAS, AND THE APPROPRIATE SCALE AND THE APPROPRIATE HEIGHT WITH SHIELDING, I CAN SEE HOW THEY WOULD HAVE -- SORRY -- THEY WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM IMPACT ON OTHER PROPERTIES.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A STRONGER LIGHTING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE THAT SHIELDING.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AGAIN, I WOULD AGREE ALSO.
I THINK THE SECURITY IS VERY IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY ON THAT EASTERN PORTION OF THE FACILITY IF YOU DO RESIDENTIAL, S DOWNWARD SHADE COULD HELP US TO ACCOMPLISH OUR GOAL OF REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF NUISANCE LIGHT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND ALSO INTO THE AIR, BUT IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A SAFER AREA, SO I SUPPORT THE REQUEST.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO? OKAY.
I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THERE NOT BEING ENOUGH LIGHTING FOR SECURITY, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO WALK MORE.
YOU KNOW, IT DOES GET DARK BY 5:00, PART OF OUR SEASON, SO I THINK LIGHTING WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR SECURITY, SO I'M ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHANGE REQUEST.
WE CAN MOVE TO TO THE NEXT ITEM.
>> THIS IS THE ITEM THAT'S DELETING ALL THREE.
>> YEAH, AND YOU WANT ME TO PUT ON THE POLICY THAT RELATES TO THE FINDINGS, I CAN DO THAT AS WELL.
IF YOU JUST WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT POLICY.
ANY COMMENTS ON THIS, ON THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST?
>> I THINK THERE'S AN ARCHITECTURAL STANDARD THAT CAN BE USED OR APPLIED WHERE YOU STILL GET THAT SAME KIND OF VISUAL QUALITY FOR JEFFERSON STREET, BUT AGAIN, THERE'S NOT ON STREET PARKING ON JEFFERSON.
I MAY SEE SOME PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS ENTER INTO THOSE PEDESTRIAN PATHS, BUT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE MAIN ENTRY.
THE ONE CAVEAT I WOULD USE IS IN LOOKING UP HERE AT THE INDIO TOWN CENTER, YOU HAVE A MCDONALD'S AND AN IHOP, AND THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDINGS ALLOWS AT THE ENTRANCE AS BOTH INTO THE PARKING LOT AND ALSO FACING ONTO JACKSON STREET.
AND I CAN SEE HOW THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE BOTH THE DRIVE-THROUGH, MEET THE INTENT ONTO THE STREET, AND STILL ALLOW FOR THAT CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN PEOPLE USING JEFFERSON BUT ALSO ANY RESIDENTS THAT MAY BE IN THE PLANNING AREA TOO.
>> CHAIR, MAY I GIVE A THOUGHT TO THE COMMISSION.
SIMILAR TO YOUR CONSIDERATION IF THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL USE IN PLANNING AREA 2, THE COMMISSIONER COULD CONSIDER THAT IF THERE IS RESIDENTIAL USES IN PLANNING AREA 2, THAT THIS ORIENTATION TOWARDS JEFFERSON MAY NOT NEED TO APPLY AND TO FOCUS IT TOWARDS PLANNING AREA 1.
JUST A THOUGHT TO PUT INTO YOUR HEAD BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE AN EITHER/OR SITUATION.
IN TERMS OF WHAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT DECIDE, THAT MIGHT BE A COMPROMISE OPPORTUNITY TO FOCUS THE ORIENTATION, PUT THOSE BUILDING CLOSEST TO THE STREET AND OUR COMMISSIONER CEJA SAID HOW THEY ARE CONSIDERATIONS COME UP.
>> I DEFINITELY AGREE THAT IF THERE IS A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT IN IN THE REAR AREA, THAT MAYBE THOSE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THERE IN THE MIDDLE AREA ARE FACING TO THAT RESIDENTIAL, IT HELPS GIVE, LIKE I SAID, A VILLAGE FEEL, SO TO SPEAK.
>> YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF TRYING TO KEEP EVERYTHING FOCUSED TOWARDS JEFFERSON.
WE HAVE SEEN SO MANY EXAMPLES OF HOW THESE BUILDINGS FACE INWARD AND YOU JUST SEE WALLS OF THE BACKS OF HOUSES, OF STORES.
[02:20:04]
I I THINK LOOKING AT THE PROPOSAL AND THE CONCEPT THAT THEY'RE PUTTING FORTH THAT ARCHITECTURALLY THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MITIGATE ANY OF THOSE CONCERNS.ORIENTATIONS I THINK CAN STILL LOOK AS IF THEY'RE FACING JEFFERSON, YET THE ENTRANCES CAN BE FACING EAST, WEST, NORTH OR SOUTH, AND STILL CREATE THAT VILLAGE FEEL AND STILL HAVE A FROM JEFFERSON.
AGAIN, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHERE THESE THREE CONDITIONS CAME FROM, BUT I JUST FINDS THEM KIND OF LIMITING TO BE ABLE TO CREATE A FLOW AND CREATE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
>> VICE CHAIR LOPEZ, ANY COMMENTS?
>> SO I GUESS ON THIS ONE I'M A LITTLE UNSURE WHAT WE WANT TO DO, ALTHOUGH WE SEEM TO BE IN AGREEMENT HOW WE GO, WE FIGURE IT OUT WITH ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS.
THEY ARE ASKING THAT THESE BE ELIMINATED.
DO STAFF THINK THERE'S ENOUGH LANGUAGE IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO WORK WITH REGARDING ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY AND ORIENTATION IF THESE THREE ITEMS ARE REMOVED?
>> I'LL TAKE AN INITIAL STAB AND CERTAINLY ROSIE CAN JUMP IN.
I THINK THAT THE GOAL AND MANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE SAID IT, THE GOAL OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS TO CREATE CONNECTABILITY WITH THE PUBLIC STREET NETWORK.
THESE CONDITIONS OR THESE AMENDMENTS, AS PROPOSED, ATTEMPT TO DO THAT.
IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH OTHER MEASURES, SUCH AS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, SUCH AS THE UTILIZATION OF CONNECTABILITY WITH INTERNAL PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS, I THINK THEN THE COMMISSION JUST NEEDS TO NOTE THAT, WELL, THEY APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF THE POLICIES, THEY DON'T FEEL THAT THEY'RE APPLICABLE IN THIS INSTANCE FOR WHATEVER REASONS, THAT THE COMMISSION BELIEVES.
THE POLICIES ARE WRITTEN FAIRLY CLEARLY.
CERTAINLY THE ONE WITH THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDINGS, THAT WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADDRESS THE VISUAL NIM PACTS, PLACING BUILDINGS ON A NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION WOULD MINIMIZE THAT.
H SITE LINES, SHOWING THAT WITH THE REDUCED HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURES THAT THERE MAY BE LESS OF AN IMPACT SO YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THAT IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU FEEL THAT AT LEAST FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION THERE IS A NEED TO HAVE ORIENTATION.
AGAIN, YOU WOULD LOOK IN TREATING THE PLANNING AREA 1 AND PLANNING AREA 2 DIFFERENTLY.
SO I'M NOT REALLY ANSWERING THE COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION AS MUCH AS THROWING IDEAS OUT AT YOU.
I DON'T KNOW IF ROSIE WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE.
>> NO, I THINK HITTING ON THE FACT THAT WE WERE REVIEWING THE POLICY AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT ENTRANCES SHOULD FACE THE STREET, AND WE ANALYZED IT, AND MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, AND THAT WAS THE CLEAR DIRECTION THAT WE COULD GIVE, TO HAVE IT CONSISTENT WITH THIS POLICY, SO WE USED BOTH OF THE LAND USE POLICY 4.7 AND 9.2 FOR THOSE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE PUT INTO THE AMENDMENTS.
BUT THEY SEEM PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
AGAIN WE WERE TRYING TO FIND CONSISTENCY TO THE GENERAL PLAN.
>> AND THE STAFF PROVIDED SOME OF THAT GUIDANCE AND SHOWING US AGAIN THE POLICIES SO I THINK THE GENERAL PLAN IS IMPORTANT, AND I THINK THE OVERARCHING GOAL OF WHERE THE GENERAL PLAN WANTS TO TAKE THE CITY IS VERY IMPORTANT.
I WONDER IF THERE'S A MODIFICATION RATHER THAN AN ELIMINATION OF THOSE THREE AMENDMENTS THAT MAYBE WE DO PROVIDE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN OTHER COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL USES IN PLANNING AREA 2, BUT REALLY THAT THE APPLICANT -- OR THAT ANY BUILDING ALONG JEFFERSON STREET INCORPORATE DESIGN TECHNIQUES TO ALLOW FOR PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY DIRECTLY FROM JEFFERSON AND OTHER DESIGN TECHNIQUES SO IT IS NOT A BACK-OF-HOUSE LOOK ALONG JEFFERSON STREET.
>> COMMISSIONER CEJA YOU'RE SAYING THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE MAIN ENTRANCE.
I BACK OF HOUSE BUT THE MAIN ENTRANCE COULD BE FACING ANY OTHER DIRECTION.
>> IF THERE'S A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO JEFFERSON, I THINK THAT CAN WORK.
[02:25:04]
YEAH.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF COMMISSIONERS ARE ARE WE GOOD WITH THAT?
>> I JUST, TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER CEJA I THINK IS BEING SPECIFIC TO AMENDMENT 37.
WERE YOU ALSO REFERRING TO 38 AS WELL?
SO MAYBE THERE'S A DIFFERENT AMENDMENT RATHER THAN AN ELIMINATION THAT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN TECHNIQUES BE USED SO THAT THERE IS AN APPEARANCE OF A BUILDING ENTRY FROM JEFFERSON STREET, AND AGAIN I WANT TO USE THAT EXAMPLE OF THE TWO IHOP AND MCDONALD'S HERE ON JACKSON AND HOW THEIR BUILDINGS ARE ORIENTED, AND ALTHOUGH THERE MAY NOT APPEAR TO BE A DIRECT CONNECTION, THERE'S AT LEAST AN APPEARANCE THAT THERE'S AN ENTRY OF AN ACCESS POINT TO THOSE BUILDINGS.
>> IS STAFF COMFORTABLE WITH THAT SORRY DO WE NEED TO GO INTO A LITTLE MORE -- >> DO YOU WANT ME TO WRITE IN THE LANGUAGE?
>> WHY DON'T WE TRY THAT? I DON'T KNOW THAT ELIMINATION OF THESE IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE AGAIN WE WANT TO IMPLEMENT OUR SPECIFIC PLAN.
I THINK WE CAN MASSAGE THE LANGUAGE SO WE CAN ACHIEVE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITHOUT BEING SO DEFINITIVE THAT BUILDINGS FACE NORTH AND SOUTH, THAT THERE IS A PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCE FROM JEFFERSON STREET.
IF THERE'S A COMBINATION TWEEN THE THREE THAT CAN WORK.
>> COMMISSIONER CEJA JUST TO CLARIFY BEFORE ROSIE STARTS WRITING, YOU SAID SEVERAL THINGS SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.
ARE YOU THINKING THAT YOU WOULD RELY UPON A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION FROM THE JEFFERSON STREET SIDEWALK AREA TO THE BUILDING TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL OF HAVING THE ORIENTATION OR DO YOU ACTUALLY WANT A PHYSICAL DESIGN FLEAMENT BUILDING PLUS THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO ACHIEVE THAT? THERE'S A DISTINCTION,.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR AT STAFF LEVEL.
>> MOI MY THOUGHT WAS YOU STILL WANT TO PROVIDE THOSE PEDESTRIAN LINKS TO THE PUBLIC STREET, BUT IF YOU'RE PROVIDING THOSE PEDESTRIAN LINKS, THEN THE ENTRANCE DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE RIGHT ON JEFFERSON.
IT CAN BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING.
IT CAN EVEN BE FURTHER INTO THE SITE BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE THAT PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION AND YOU HAVE THE WINDOW SPACE, THE DESIGN OF THOSE BUILDINGS WHICH MAKES IT WILL A BETTER PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT, WHEREAS OPPOSED IF YOU JUST PROVIDED THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION AND YOU HAD YOUR UTILITY CORRIDOR AND SERVICE DOORS THERE, THAT WOULD NOT BE AN ENVIRONMENT FOR A PEDESTRIAN.
>> ALSO JUST A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.
ARE YOU TALKING ONLY PLANNING AREA 1 OR BOTH PLANNING AREAS, JUST TO BE CLEAR?
>> I WAS ONLY THINKING OF PLANNING AREA 1 BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JEFFERSON.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE SHOULD BE CLEAR.
CAN I START TYPING THIS CONDITION OR ARE WE -- >> I WISH YOU LUCK.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO WORK THIS OUT HERE.
>> MAYBE A SUGGESTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER IS THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE COMMISSION IS COMFORTABLE IN ALLOWING THE BUILDING TO BE ORIENTED OTHER THAN DIRECTLY FACING JEFFERSON STREET IN PLANNING AREA 1 PROVIDED THERE IS DIRECT PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE JEFFERSON STREET FRONTAGE -- EXCUSE ME -- THE JEFFERSON STREET SIDEWALKS CONNECTION AND THOSE BUILDINGS.
S REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONNECTION IN THE AMENDMENT AND ALLOW STAFF THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT IN THE FUTURE THROUGH THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS TO SEE HOW THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED AND SEE IF THAT MEETS THE GOAL, THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THE PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCES ALONG WITH BUILDING ORIENTATION ALL FACING JEFFERSON STREET IN PLANNING AREA 1, AND YOU COULD EXCLUDE PLANNING AREA 2 FROM THESE REQUIREMENTS AND JUST FOCUS ON PLANNING AREA 1.
>> YEAH, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF HOW WE CAN MASSAGES THE LANGUAGE.
I'M PRIERL MAYORAL LINING AT AMEND ALSO 27 AND 38 AND HOW WE MATTER THOSE TO ROAD AS
[02:30:02]
ONE, THAT IF DIRECT PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS FROM JEFFERSON STREET ARE PROVIDE=ED, BUILDING ENTRANCES ARE ALONG THOSE PEDESTRIANS CONNECTIONS?>> COMMISSIONER CEJA, YOU COULD SAY SOMETHING PEDESTRIAN CERKSZ PROVIDED FROM JEFFERSON STREET.
THE PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCE NEED NOT BE ORIENTED TOWARDS JEFFERSON STREET, PROVIDED THAT CONNECTION IS MADE TO THE PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCE.
SO IF DIRECT CONNECTIONS FROM JEFFERSON STREET SHOW PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCES?
>> FOR PLANNING AREA 1 ONLY IF PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS ARE PROVIDED FROM JEFFERSON STREET TO ALL BUILDINGS IN PLANNING AREA 1, THE PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCE AND BUILDING ORIENTATION SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TOWARDS JEFFERSON STREET.
>> YOU GUYS CAN'T SEE THIS, WRITE? I'M SO SORRY.
>> I WILL HOVER OVER MY SCREEN.
FOR PLANNING AREA 1 ONLY, IF PEDESTRIAN FROM JEFFERSON STREET, ALL
BUILDINGS IN PLANNING AREA -- >> ALL BUILDINGS IN PLANNING AREA 1.
>> -- 1, AND THAT NOW DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, THE PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCE, ALL BUILDINGS IN PLANNING AREA 1 SHALL -- LET'S SEE.
FOR PLANNING AREA WITH ONLY IF PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS ARE PROVIDED FROM JEFFERSON STREET TO ALL BUILDINGS IN THE PLANNING AREA.
>> THERE SHALL BE NO NEED -- LET ME -- PLANNING AREA, COMMA, THE PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCES AND BUILDING ORIENTATION TO JEFFERSON STREET.
>> TOWARD OR TO JEFFERSON STREET?
>> PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCES AND BUILDING ORIENTATION TO JEFFERSON STREET SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED.
WHAT IS THE SPEED LIMIT ON JEFFERSON STREET? AND THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING IS I TRAVEL DOWN THERE ALMOST EVERY OTHER DAY, BUT DOES IT MAKES SENT TO HAVE AN ENTRANCE FACING THAT?
I'M JUST -- >> WE'RE NOT GOING TO.
>> I BELIEVE THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER SWB I BELIEVE IT'S 45 OR 50, ALLEY THOUGH I'D HAVE TO CHECK THAT.
>> I'M PRETTY MUIR SURE IT'S 50.
>> WE HAVE MARK GREENWOOD ON THE LINE AS WELL AS OUR ENGINEERING TEAM.
I'M NOT SURE, EVELYN, IF YOU CAN CONFIRM THEY'RE STILL.
>> GERIATRICS THIS IS MARK KSPC GREENWOOD I'M HERE.
THE SPEED LIMIT ON JEFFERDS IS AT LEAST 50, MAYBE 55.
>> YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S TOO FAST?
THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING SHOPPING ANOTHER ONE PLANNED ACROSS THE STREET.
>> THE BUILDINGS AREN'T RIGHT ON THE STREET.
WE HAVE THE SIDEWALK IS AND A SETBACK, SO THEY'RE PUSHED BACK A LITTLE BIT.
>> AND, COMMISSIONER, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR CONCERN, I THINK WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS ADDRESS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST PARTIALLY BUT STILL PROVIDE FOR THE OVERALL PEDESTRIAN ORIENTATION BY HAVING A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION FROM THE JEFFERSON STREET SIDEWALK TO THE BUILDINGS, SO PEOPLE WOULD BE LEAVING THE
[02:35:05]
SIDEWALK AND ENTERING ONTO THE PROPERTY THROUGH A DEFINED PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION THAT WOULD TAKE THEM TO THE SITE FROM THE BUILDINGS.DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE IT.
>> AND I THINK IT GIVES FLEXIBILITY INTO THE BUILDING DESIGN I THINK WE'RE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH BOTH THAT FLEXIBILITY BUT ALSO MEET THE INTENT OF GENERAL PLAN WHEN WE'RE NOT HAVING BUILDINGS BACK TO THE STREET ANYMORE.
>> I THINK THIS WOULD ADDRESS BOTH AMENDMENT 37 AND 38, ROSIE.
>> AND WE'RE ALSO GOING TO -- SO IT DOESN'T IMPACT AREA 2 AT ALL, RIGHT?
>> WELL, THE WAY THAT THE IT'S BEEN PROPOSED IS= THAT THIS CONDITION WOULD ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO PLANNING AREA 1 SO IT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO PLANNING AREA 2.
>> ERIC, DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE THAT ONLY IF IT'S COMMERCIAL? DOES THAT CHANGE VERSUS IF THEY DO RESIDENTIAL? DOES THAT CHANGE?
>> YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO SEE THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS OR THE PLANNING AREA 1 FROM JEFFERSON.
IT IS SET BACK A COUPLE HUNDRED FEET.
>> I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE BRIGHT, BUT THE INTENT IS THERE, THAT WE WOULD BE REMOVING ONE AMENDMENT BECAUSE WE'RE COMBINING BOTH 37 AND 38.
IF THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION DECIDES ON.
>> SO WHAT ABOUT AMENDMENT NUMBER 42? COMMISSIONER CEJA, ANY COMMENT ON THAT ONE?
WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WAS MEANT FOR ONE OF THE PLANNING ORES OR FOR ONE, RIGHT? FOR EACH, RIGHT?
BECAUSE THE WAY THAT THOSE BUILDINGS ARE ORIENTED NOW FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THOSE ARE EAST-WEST, SO MAYBE THERE'S A DISTINCTION IF IT'S A RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT, THIS AMENDMENT WOULDN'T APPLY, TO OFFER THAT FLEXIBILITY IN HOW THEY ACCOMMODATE RESIDENTIAL USES INTO THE SITE?
>> THAT'S FOR AMENDMENT 42, RIGHT?
>> YOU JUST WANT TO ADD TO THIS -- TO THIS AMENDMENT TO SAY ONLY APPLIES TO PLANNING AREA 1?
>> I GUESS IF YOU'RE -- >> SORRY DID YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE?
>> I THINK EVEN IN THE SITE PLAN IF THERE I WAS COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN PLANNING AREA 2, THEY WOULD MEET THAT NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION.
SO I THINK MAYBE THERE'S A DISTINCTION, MAYBE THERE'S AN EXCEPTION, WITH AN EXCEPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.
>> ROSIE, YOU MAY WANT TO BRING UP THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN.
I THINK THAT THEIR PROPOSED DRIVE-THROUGH BUILDINGS WERE EAST-WEST ORIENTATION AS WELL.
>> OR AT LEAST ONE OF THEM IS.
IT'S KIND OF HARD TO TELL BY THE DESIGN.
>> NORTH-SOUTH WOULD BE THIS WAY.
AND EAST-WEST WOULD BE THIS WAY.
>> THOSE BACK SHOPS, WHETHER IT'S THE LARGER OR MIDSIZE BOX OR THOSE MID AREA KIND OF TENANT SPACES THAT YOU WOULD WANT THOSE NORTH-SOUTH SO YOU HAD A VISIBILITY OF JEFFERSON.
MY SUGGESTION IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT FOR PLANNING AREA 2, THAT YOU MIGHT NEED THAT POSSIBILITY FOR BUILDING ORIENTATION THAT WE DON'T WANT TO PLAY HARD AND FAST ON NORTHWEST OR NORTH AND SOUTH.
MAYBE THERE'S WAY TO AGAIN ADD A LITTLE BIT OF LANGUAGE TO THAT THAT THEY MAINTAIN THAT NORTH AND SOUTH, BUT IT'S ONLY APPLICABLE TO COMMERCIAL USES.
>> SO THE COMMISSION COULD SAY THAT ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES IN EACH PLANNING AREA SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN A NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION TO MAINTAIN VISUALIZE NORTH AND SOUTH EXCEPT IF MULTI-FAMILY IS PROVIDED IN PLANNING AREA 2, MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THAT -- SORRY, IT'S GETTING LATE AND I'M GETTING TIRED.
>> THIS IS AS FAR AS I'VE GONE EXCEPT IF MULTI-FAMILY IS PROVIDED IN PLANNING AREA 2.
>> I THINK IT'S SHORT AND SWEET.
>> I THINK THAT WORKS, AT LEAST THAT'S KIND OF MY COMMENT, IS THAT WE WOULD
[02:40:06]
REALLY ONLY WANT TO APPLY THAT TO COMMERCIAL USES.ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ON THESE ITEMS?
>> GOOD WORK, COMMISSIONER CEJA AND STAFF.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS SAID.
>> I THINK IN OUR LAST CONVERSATION I THOUGHT THAT WAS OUR INTENT, IS JUST MONUMENT SIGNAGE OR SIGNAGE AT THE CENTER IS CONSISTENT BECAUSE AGAIN WE'RE LOOKING FOR A COHESIVE CENTER.
>> SO -- >> ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY IS MY BOY ERIC IS WICKED SMART.
>> IT'S GETTING LATE AND I'M GETTING TIRED AND I'M SURE YOU HEARD MY KIDS SCREAMING AT ME TO GO BRUSH THEIR TEETH AND PUT THEM TO BED.
>> SO WE ARE -- IT WOULD ELIMINATE FRONTAGE.
I THINK YOU CAN TAKE OUT THE SIGNAGE AFTER "FRONTAGE." THAT SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH AND NO LARGER THAN.
>> NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO 52, PLEASE.
>> COMMISSIONERS COMMENT ON THIS ONE? NO COMMENTS?
>> CHAIR, IF I COULD MAYBE TO EXPLAIN STAFF'S INTENT, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WE REGULARLY GET CONCERNS ABOUT IN TERMS OF PROPERTIES THAT HAVE RECEIVED ENTITLEMENTS AND HAVE NOT BEEN -- HAVE NOT RECEIVED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, SO PM 10 AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE NOT BEING APPLIED, AND WE HAVE INSTANCES WHERE PROPERTY IS LYING FALLOW AND THEY'RE NOT BEING MAINTAINED, AND THIS IS LIKELY AN ISSUE THAT WE WILL BRING UP AGAIN THROUGH THE ZONING CODE UPDATE.
THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT BY STAFF TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THE SITE WILL NOT NECESSARILY PROCEED TO BE DEVELOPED ALL AT ONCE AND THAT FOR BOTH THE VISUAL AESTHETIC AS WELL AS MAINTENANCE CONCERNS, WE FELT IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION.
THE APPLICANT HAS GIVEN YOU AN ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATION.
HOWEVER, I THINK THE OVERALL INTENT TILL STILL REMAINS THE SAME, THAT WE NOT HAVE VACANT, UNIMPROVED SITES THAT ARE NOT BEING WELL MAINTAINED.
> EARLIER AND EVEN NOW IS THAT WE WERE -- IF WE GAVE -- IF IT GOT THEIR APPROVAL, THAT THEY MIGHT NOT COMMENCE TO CONSTRUCTION FOR 18 MONTHS, SAY, AND THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO COME IN AND DO ALL THE FENCING AND EVERYTHING UNTIL THEY STARTED DOING CONSTRUCTION.
AM I MISSING THAT? I MEAN, THEY STARTED DOING CONSTRUCTION AND THEN ONLY DID THE FIRST PHASE 1 BUT PHASE 2 FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS, THEN I WOULD EXPECT THAT TO BE FENCED IN, IF NOT GRADED, THEN AT LEAST CLEANED UP.
BUT IF THEY HAVEN'T STARTED ON IT, IF THEY GOT A FULL PERMIT ON JANUARY 1ST FROM THE COUNCIL IN 2020 AND DIDN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2022, IF THEY LEFT IT IN THE CONDITION IT WAS IN, I WOULDN'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT.
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THEM CLEANING UP THE LOT AND FENCING IT OFF IN PHASES OR WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
>> THEY HAVE PROVIDE THE COMMISSION IS AN ALTERNATE, COMMISSIONER, BUT WHAT STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED IS THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPERTY, DEPENDING ON HOW LONG IT TAKES SOMEBODY TO GO THROUGH THE INITIAL ENTITLEMENT PROCESS AND RECEIVE ALL THEORY APPROVALS AND THEN BEGIN WORK, THERE COULD BE A PERIOD OF TIME, SO WE WERE
[02:45:07]
RECOMMENDING CONSIDERATION OF THIS CONDITION TO ADDRESS BOTH THE AESTHETIC AND MAINTENANCE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE ON MANY PROPERTIES THAT GO THROUGH THE ENTITLEMENTS BUT DON'T NECESSARILY START.SO THAT'S THE PREMISE BEHIND IT.
THE COMMISSION CAN ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED MODIFICATION.
THE COMMISSION CANNOT ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT AT ALL IF YOU DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR NECESSARY.
>> YEAH, WELL, AGAIN, WREERCHESSED EARLIER THE PROJECT -- WE REFERENCED EARLIER THE PROJECT UP ON JACKSON, AND ONE OF THE THINGS I REALLY DID LIKE ABOUT THAT PROJECT IS ALL OF THOSE RAY CAN'T LOTS WERE ALL FENCED OFF, WERE GRAVELED OR CAPPED SOMEHOW, AND THAT WAS REALLY GOOD BECAUSE IT'S A VERY BUSY SHOPPING CENTER WITH A HOME DEPOT AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS THERE BUT WE DIDN'T SEE PILES OF TRASH, MOUNDS OF DIRT OR ANY OF THAT BECAUSE THEY MAINTAINED IT.
I UNDERSTAND WHEN IT'S IN THAT CONDITION.
MY THING IS THAT THERE WAS A PIECE OF PROPERTY, UNLESS THERE WAS PILES OF TRASH AND TIRES AND THIS KIND OF STUFF, THEN I'D LIKE THEM TO CLEAN THAT UP, BUT UNTIL THEY PULL THEIR PERMIT, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD REQUIRE TOO MUCH IN THE WAY OF FENCING AND EVEN MOWING OF GRASS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I FEEL.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS WE'RE REQUIRING, TO WHAT LEVEL AND THEN WHAT THEIR EVER THEY'RE REQUESTING.
AGAIN, IF THEY PULL THE PERMIT AND STARTED GRADING, I WOULD EXPECT THEM TO SECURE THE WHOLE PROPERTY.
IF THEY HAVEN'T PULLED A MER AND IT AND KEPT THE LOT CLEAN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IT IS.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT LEVEL WE WANT THEM TO MAINTAIN AND KEEP THESE PROPERTIES.
>> I THINK I HAVE -- THE WAY I READ THE CONDITIONS, IF THEY CREATE THIS SITE AND THEY LEAVE A PAD OUT THERE, THAT 3 WOULD GO ABOVE AND BEYOND ANYTHING REQUIRED BY THE AIR QUALITY DISTRICT FOR KEEPING DUST CONTROL DOWN BY ACTUALLY PLANTING LANDSCAPE ON THE SITE.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW I READ THE CONDITIONS.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE A NICE AESTHETIC, BUT THEN I'M CONCERNED THAT WHEN THEY'RE READY TO DEVELOP, NOW THEY'RE RIPPING OUT MATURE LANDSCAPE, AND I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT, EITHER.
>> SO IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REQUIRING, NOT ASKING BUT REQUIRING THEM TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY TO A CERTAIN LEVEL AFTER THEY HAVE STARTED WITH THEIR GRADING ON ANY PORTION OF IT, THEN CONDITION.
BUT YOU CAN MAKE A POINT TO WHAT LEVEL.
TREES AND SPRINKLERS AND EVERYTHING ELSE OR IS IT JUST SILTING IT AND DUSTING IT?
>> AND I WOULD DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT THE APPLICANT IS RECOMMENDING AND WHAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED.
WE RECOMMENDED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE EFFECTIVE DAY OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, NO MATTER WHAT IMPROVEMENTS OR NON-IMPROVEMENTS HAD OCCURRED ON THE PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT IS TYING IT BACK MORE DIRECTLY TO DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT WE SAID, WE RECOMMENDED DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPING AND/OR DECOMPOSED GRANITE SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE JUST LANDSCAPING.
AND THE COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THIS RECOMMENDATION.
>> DIRECTOR SNYDER, I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS MAYBE LIKE THE DUST CONTROL AND JUST KIND OF DOING SOMETHING TO THE LOT VERSUS IT JUST SITTING THERE BY PUTTING THE DECOMPOSED GRAN EXIT THAT KIND OF THING, RIGHT? VERSUS US JUST LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS CURRENTLY, WHICH IS NATURAL.
IN A VERY SIMPLE WAY TO WRAP IT UP, YES.
>> AND MADAME CHAIR, I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT I THINK I DID PUT THE REVISION IN.
SO I SEE THAT IT'S IN THERE TWICE.
IF IT'S OKAY, I'LL REMOVE THE RED PORTION AND JUST LEAVE IN THE ITALICS FOR CLARITY.
SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DELETE THAT SO THAT -- IT'S A REPETITION.
>> IN THAT CASE I THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL HERE, GIVEN MARKET CONDITIONS, UNDER THE CERTAINTY OF WHEN MUCH OF THIS SITE WOULD DEVELOP, I THINK THERE'S APPROPRIATE MEASURES IN PLACE WITH DUST CONTROL AS WELL AS OUR CODE COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ISSUE.
IT'S JUST HARD TO SAY TO INSTALL SOMEBODY'S UNDEVELOPED AREAS WITHIN ONE YEAR IF IT'S TWO, THREE, FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.
>> DO WE WANT TO SAY FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF GRADING OF PADS OR AT THE BEGINNING OF ANY GRADING? THEY MAY GRADE ONE PAD AND THEN GOT GRADE ANYTHING ELSE AND IT MAY SIT THERE FOR A
[02:50:01]
YEAR.I MEAN, IS THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? BECAUSE IT IS DOES SAY FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF GRADING OF PATHS.
I MEAN, THEY COULD DO ONE PAD ONE YEAR, ANOTHER PAD ANOTHER YEAR.
SO THEY COULD BE MAINTAINING THIS FOR TEN YEARS AND SAY UNTIL THEY DEVELOP -- FULLY DEVELOP THE DEVELOPMENT.
>> YEAH, YOU SEE, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THINGS LIKE DUST, FENCING, WEEDS GOING OFF INTO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS, DUST COMING UP INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
I MEAN, WE'VE ALREADY GOT A LITTLE BIT OF A RELUCTANCE FROM THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY, AND I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO COMPOUND ANYTHING WITH DUST FLYING OVER AND PAPER AND ALL THAT OTHER KIND STUFF INTO THEIR PROPERTIES, SO I ON WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY DO MAINTAIN IT.
BUT I FEEL THAT IT LANDSCAPING ASK DG IS A STEP ABOVE.
IT IS A STEP ABOVE BUT WE ONLY ASK FOR PM 10 FROM MY EXPERIENCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.
AND PM 10 DOES AN OKAY JOB OF MAINTAINING THE DUST AND KEEPING THOSE DEVELOP PADS MAINTAINED, AT LEAST THAT MINIMUM, BUT WHATEVER THE COMMISSION CHOOSES.
>> I'M NOT GETTING A WHOLE LOT OF DIRECTION FROM ANYONE HERE.
WHICH AWARE WE GOING WITH THIS?
>> I'LL LOOK AT THE PROVISION PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
TO LOOK AT WHAT THE APPLICANT'S LANGUAGE IS.
>> I THINK THE TOP PART IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE BOTTOM PART -- >> OH, SO THE BOTTOM PART IN BLACK IS THE ITALICIZED PART.
>> THE STRIKE-OUT WOULD BE REMOVED IF YOU WOULD ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDED REVISION BY THE APPLICANT.
>> THAT'S WHERE I'M WAITING, IS TO STRIKE THAT OUT.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS?
>> TO BE CLEAR, IT'S STRIKING OUT THIS PORTION HERE? REMOVING THIS AND JUST READING AS THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED?
>> IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, WE'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER 53.
>> WELL, WE STILL HAVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> LAST ONE ON THIS ONE, YES, AND THIS IS TO STRIKE OUT THE LAST SENTENCE.
>> ANY COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ONE?
I'M SURE THERE'S ALL KIND OF SURFACES THAT COULD BE PROVIDED IN THOSE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AGAIN ANOTHER HAPPY MEDIUM TO ISSUE 2 BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES IF THAT WORKS.
>> THE INTENT WAS TO THE WHAT APPLICANT WAS PROPOSE WAS TO HAVE THAT VILLAGE ATMOSPHERE BY HAVING WIDER SIDEWALK SECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT TO ENCOURAGE THAT WALKABILITY.
IF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO, ONE POSSIBLE APPROACH WOULD BE TO RETAIN THE 10-FOOT FOR THE COMMERCIAL PORTION, FOR ANY COMMERCIAL PORTION IN PLANNING AREA 1 OR 2, BUT TO REDUCE THE STANDARD TO, FOR EXAMPLE, 5 TO 6 FEET IN AND AROUND THE MULTI-FAMILY PORTION.
I THINK THE APPLICANT RAISED CONCERNS THAT THAT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE, TEMPLATE MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE WITH A MULTI-FAMILY.
SO THAT IS AN OPTION FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO CONSIDER TO DISTINGUISH LIKE YOU HAVE BEFORE BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND THE MULTI-FAMILY=.
>> WE ALSO MIGHT ADD THAT THERE ARE SOME ADA REQUIREMENTS ON SIDEWALKS, SO WE MIGHT NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL.
>> WELL, MA'AM CHAIR, I AGREE WITH THE WIDER SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL.
IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE IN THE VILLAGE MEANDERING AND WALKING AND SOCIALIZING,
[02:55:02]
WE'RE GOING TO NEED THAT 10-FOOT SPACE TO GO IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, WHEREAS AS YOU STATED, KEVIN, I THINK THAT THE REQUIREMENT, THE FLEXIBILITY ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE COULD BE WHAT WE GIVE THEM.I MEAN, IT SEEMS THAT WAS THEIR CONCERN ANYWAYS, WAS THE RESIDENTIAL, NOT SO MUCH THE COMMERCIAL.
I CAN GO WITH THAT DISTINCTION.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS?
>> NO, I COULD GO WITH THAT AS WELL.
I LIKE THE 10-FOOT WIDE FOR THE COMMERCIAL USES AND NO LESS THAN 5 FEET WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL AND ALLOW THAT FLEXIBILITY AS THEY'RE DESIGNING THE SITE, THERE COULD BE DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF SIDEWALKS.
A PORTION OF THE DISPRCIAL SCAT 10 FEET BUT AT NO POINT IS THERE A SIDEWALKS LESS THAN 5.
>> WE NEED TO ADD THE LANGUAGE ABOUT ADA? I'M ASSUMING THAT'S SOMEWHERE IN THERE.
I THINK WE TYPICALLY ADDRESS THAT THROUGH BUILDING CODE, SO I THINK THAT'LL HAVE TO MEET A MINIMUM ADA REQUIREMENTS BUT I THINK, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHAT THIS WOULD READ IS DURABLE HARD SURFACES SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 10-FOOT WIDE FOR COMMERCIAL USES AND NO MULTI-FAMILY USES.
>> MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, CORRECT.
>> MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THANK YOU.
>> ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, THIS IS COUNCILMAN CRIEMG.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT IF IT'S 10 FEET OR 5 FEET SO I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ADDED IN HERE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS ON THESE ITEMS? OKAY.
WE CAN MOVE TO STAFF AMENDMENTS AS SOON AS ROSIE'S READY.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DID BUT I'M JUST READING IT AS-IS.
SO WE'LL START WITH -- >> I THINK WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE THESE ALL AS ONE.
IS THERE ANY COMMENTS ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS? THERE'S ONLY FOUR, THREE ACTUALLY.
>> THERE'S THREE AND THEN THE DELETION OF 16 BECAUSE WE'VE COMBINED.
>> REALLY THE FIRST ONE IS JUST A CLARIFICATION BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY SAID IT WAS JUST IN THE SUMMARY LANGUAGE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE STAFF REPORT, SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE THE COMMISSION HAS TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON THAT.
STAFF WILL JUST CLEAN THAT UP FOR PURPOSES OF ANY CONSIDERATION BY CITY COUNCIL IN THE COMMISSION MAKES THE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.
ANY COMMENTS ON 24 AND FOR THE DELETION OF 16? NO? I'M IN AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF ON NUMBER 9, 24, 40 AND DELETING NUMBER 16.
DO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THOSE? NO? OKAY.
>> SO, ROSIE, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS? I WOULD NOTE -- SORRY, ROSIE, I DON'T MEAN TO CUT OFF.
>> I THINK WE'RE HEADING IN THE SAME DIRECTION HERE.
>> I WOULD NOTE THAT THE LANGUAGE OR SUGGESTED MOTION HAS ALREADY IN IT AS AMENDED, SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE COMMISSION HAS TO -- YOU'VE CREATED A LEGISLATIVE RECORD AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ZACK, BUT YOU'VE CREATED HAD A LEGISLATIVE WORD, IT'S BEEN RECORDED, AND WE WILL NOTE THAT IN THE MEETING THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH ALL THE CHANGES YOU JUST AGREED TO.
>> I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE MOTION AS IT'S DRAFTED, IT DOES INCLUDE "AS AMENDED." I MIGHT SPECIFY THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE CAN LIST THE NUMBERS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH I THINK WE'VE GOT A LIST EASILY ACCESSIBLE IF THAT HELPS, JUST FOR RECORD PURPOSES I THINK THAT MIGHT HELP PULL BACK TO THE RECORD.
>> DO YOU WANT ME TO JUST SHOW THE SLIDES AS WE GO AND WE CAN NAME IT?
>> YEAH, I HAVE AMENDMENTS, AMENDMENT NUMBER 11 PROVIDING DIFFERENT SETBACKS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES, AMENDMENT 17 TO USE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED LANGUAGE AS THE SAME FOR AMENDMENT 19, AND THEN AMENDMENT 37 AND 38 WOULD BE MODIFIED AS PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FLEXIBILITY IN RESIDENTIAL USES, ITEM NUMBER 42 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND AMENDMENT 49 TO USE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED LANGUAGE.
[03:00:04]
THAT'S THE SAME FOR AMENDMENT 52.AND AMENDMENT 53 TO PROVIDE STANDARDS, DIFFERENT STANDARDS BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES.
A SORRY -- CONDITIONS 9, 24, 40S AND DELETION OF ITEM 16.
>> AND WE WERE GOING TO DELETE CONDITION 22.
I DON'T THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THAT 100.
>> DELETE CONDITION NUMBER 16.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 22 AND REVISING AMENDMENT NUMBER 19.
>> I WOULD JUST POINT OUT FOR THE REGARD RECORD THAT NO MOTION HAS BEEN MADE SO THAT COMMISSIONER CEJA REVIEWED ALL OF THEM.
EITHER HE OR SOMEONE WOULD MAKE A FORMAL MOTION TWHOAS REFERENCES INCLUDED FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ADVICE -- PER THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ADVICE.
>> LET ME PUM THE MOTIONS AGAIN.
>> SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTION 1926, MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITRUS PLAZA II SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT NUMBER 11 BY DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR SETBACKS BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES, AMENDMENT NUMBER 17, USE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED LANGUAGE, AMENDMENT 19, ALSO TO USE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED LANGUAGE REGARDING LIGHTING, AMENDMENT NUMBER 22 TO BE DELETED, AMENDMENT 37 AND 38 AS MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR BUILDING ORIENTATION AS WELL AS FLEXIBILITY IN RESIDENTIAL USES, ITEM 42 ALSO AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AMENDMENT 49 TO USE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED LANGUAGE, AMENDMENT 52 TO USE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED LANGUAGE, AMENDMENT 53 TO PROVIDE DIFFERENT STANDARDS BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES FOR SIDEWALK WIDTHS AND MINIMUMS, AN ACCEPT STAFF'S CHANGES TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NUMBER 9, 24, 40, AND THE DELETION OF CONDITION NUMBER 16.
>> AND ALSO MACK A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTION 1927 MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THE DECLARATION FOR THE PURPOSES CEQA AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
>> ANY DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
>> MOTION CARRIES 5 H.0 REST FLIEWRMINGS 1927.
THAT INCLUDES STAFF ESPECIALLY AND THE DEVELOPER AND, OF COURSE, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OF OUR PUBLIC AND PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED.
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO -- WHERE ARE WE? WE HAVE NO STUDY SESSION ITEMS. SO ANY STAFF ITEMS AT THIS TIME?
ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AT THIS TIME?
ALL RIGHT, THEN, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE MEETING, AND OUR NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED TO BE A VIRTUAL MEETING ON JUNE 10, 2020, AT 6:00 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.