Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 20, 2002Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague None Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Marc Gauthier, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC STATEMENTS None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items: 4.1a Approval of minutes of from Planning Commission meetings of May 13 and 16, 2002. 4.1b Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the acquisition of Lot No. 12 of Tract No. 6077 for a water well site located between Cedar Brook Falls Avenue, Olive Drive and the Calloway Canal. Subject site consists of 20,961 square feet. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) 4.1c Receive and file Administrative Review for the medical complex (ZC 4117) (H.C.G. Building Technologies) located at 2601 Oswell Street. (Ward 3) Commission Tkac noted that he has listened to Monday's pre-meeting tape and that he will be participating in tonight's meeting. Commissioner Ellison noted that he viewed the June 6th broadcast and he is prepared to participate. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to approve the non-public hearing items on the Consent Calender. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 2 4.2 Public Hearing Items. 4.2a Refer back to staff - General Plan Amendment No. 01-1023 (ProjectDesign Consultants) (Agenda Item 6.1) (Ward 4) 4.2b Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 02-0290 (Arredondo Ventures, Inc.) (Agenda Item 6.4a) (Ward 7) 4.2c Approval of Zone Chanqe No. 02-0290 (Arredondo Ventures, Inc.) (Agenda Item 6.4b) (Ward 7) 4.2d Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 02-0283 (Careage Development Co. LLC) (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 6.7a) (Ward 4) 4.2e Approval of Zone Chanqe No. 02-0283 (Careage Development Co. LLC) (Agenda Item 6.7b) (Ward 4) 4.2f Approval of Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6104 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Continued from June 6, 2002) (Agenda Item 7) (Ward 3) Hearing opened for public comment. Mike Callagy with Cornerstone Engineering, representing, Gargano & Associations, requested item 4.2b and 4.2c be removed from Consent Calendar. Roger Mclntosh with Mclntosh and Associates requested that item 4.2a be removed from the Consent Calendar. Randall Brinkman from Careage Development Company requested that 4.2d and 4.2e be removed from the Consent Calendar. Motion was made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve Item 4.2f on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Public Scoping Meeting for preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe P02-0030. (Ward 5) The public portion of the hearing opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Dawn Rogers who residence backs up to Gosford stated that she would like it to stay industrial as a commercial development will have a traffic impact on all of the children in the area. The public portion of the hearing opened for those in favor. No public comment. The public portion of the hearing is closed and opened for Commissioner comments. Commissioner Sprague stated that he has questions regarding signage and decel lanes but Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 3 these can be addressed at site plan review. Commissioner Gay moved to refer this item back to staff. McGinnis. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: None Seconded by Commissioner Commissioners Blockley, Ellison Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac, Sprague None 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT: 6.1 General Plan Amendment No. 01-1023 (ProjectDesign Consultants) The public hearing is opened. Staff noted that there are further traffic related issues that need to be evaluated before discussion. Staff is recommending that it be referred back to staff for further analysis. The hearing is opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Roger Mclntosh, with Mclntosh &Associates, representing Olive Landco Partners consisting of Jimmy Icardo Trust, Dean Gay & Adame Trust, Leo Stockley, Doug Fox, Joe Stewart, Gene Martin and Roger Mclntosh. Mr. Mclntosh stated that the county and city's projected alignment are not consistent. The entities concluded that the following changes were needed to consolidate the plan for future circulation in the area: 1) Mohawk Street north of Hageman Road will be eliminated as an arterial. Hageman Road will swing to the north across State Rte. 99 and connect to Rte. 204. Landco Drive would be the only north/south major road connecting Olive Drive with Rosedale Highway between Fruitvale Avenue and 99. Mr. Mclntosh indicated that it was his understanding two years ago that that General Plan Amendment should go forward and that the City was to study the Hageman Road through a PSR and that Hageman Road and the Landco interconnection to Olive Drive would be considered and studied. To his knowledge that study has not been completed, and the Hageman Road PSR has been sent to CalTrans without the Landco connection even being considered. Mr. Mclntosh stated that they agreed to withdraw their appeal at the time being assured that the study would take place, and to his knowledge it has not been done. Mr. Mclntosh pointed out that there is no information in the application that would support any safety issues brought by Equilon. Mr. Mclntosh stated that Mr. Sorenson from CalTrans agreed that further extensive analysis needs to be studied on many intersections. Mr. Mclntosh pointed out there are differences in opinion between the County Planning Department and County Roads Department, as well as the City Planning Department and the City Public Works Department. Mr. Mclntosh then pointed out the historic development of the alignment and stated they Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 4 6.2a&b would support further analysis. Commissioner Gay declared a conflict of interest and removed himself from the dias. Dave Dmohowski with ProjectDesign Consultants, the applicant representing Shell Oil Products US, formerly Equilon Enterprises LLC stated they are in agreement with staff's recommendation. Public portion of the hearing is closed and opened for Commissioner comments. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Dmohowski what the safety issue concerns are? Mr. Dmohowski responded that it is the extreme close proximity of the planned alignment of Landco to a volatile chemical storage tank. It is right on the right-of-way. Commissioner Tragish inquired what the difference is between the chemicals located at Equilon off of Landco and other refineries in the area where there is traffic traveling by to which Mr. Dmohowski responded that it is the degree of separation of the distance. Commissioner Tragish commented that there appears to be an agreement that there are extensive issues involved in the application involving its impact and all of the property owners and the circulation element. He stated that he support's staff's recommendation. Motion made by Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to refer this item back to staff for further study and to continue this matter. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gay General Plan Amendment and Zone Chanqe No. 01-1036 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) The public portion of the hearing is opened. Staff report given recommending approval of the project. Hearing opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Sean Tremaine, a homeowner on the north side of Noriega, indicated that his house receives a lot of light from the shopping center and the church on Hageman and Calloway. He feels that the traffic is going to impact the area. He also indicated that he has not seen the type of clientele it will attract. Requests the Commission not to change the zoning. Hearing opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. Bob Smith with SmithTech/USA indicated they are in agreement with staff's additional conditions. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 5 Hearing opened for Commissioner comments and action. Commissioner Gay asked if a CO PCD would come backto the Commission with a planned development or if the conditions should be put in now because it would not come back to the Commission, to which staff responded that the overlay would come back to the Commission. Any concerns can be brought up now and they can be addressed in the PCD. Commissioner Gay pointed out that CO zoning would be limited to professional offices and would not include at this time fast food and convenient stores. Mr. Gay noted his concerns of height limitations, parking and lighting issues. Commissioner McGinnis asked if the traffic impact would be significant if the zone change is approved to which Mr. Walker responded that there is about 30 homes that produce 300 trips a day; it's about three times the generation of single family homes. If this was general commercial it would be four times as much as the office commercial is proposing. It is in between general commercial shopping center type zone and a single family zone. The streets are all sufficient for the traffic. Mr. Walker pointed out that the mitigated conditions are incorporated. Commissioner McGinnis noted his concern for the height of the property. Commissioner Sprague noted his concern for the traffic. He also noted that a bus kiosk may be needed. Commissioner Blockley noted with the current land use the parking for a church is not much unlike that for a commercial office. There is not a distinct difference between the two. He stated his concern for building heights, etc. Commissioner Ellison said that this would promote a mixed use of land and possibly people in the neighborhood would be able to buy a home and walk to work and use the trails but would only support it if there was a PCD overlay. Commissioner Sprague stated that they do need a plan and do need to control how it looks to the residents around it. Commissioner Gay asked if the June 19th memo should be incorporated, or does the applicant need to have knowledge of the memo first, to which staff responded that the applicant has that memo. Bob Smith responded that they have seen the memo. Commissioner Gay moved to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration approving the request for a General Plan Amendment to the land use designation from LR to OC on 7.92 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 and recommend the same to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Ellison Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 6 6.3a&b Commissioner Gay moved to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from R-1CH to CO-PCD on 7.92 acres as shown on Exhibit 2, more fully described on Exhibit 3 incorporating the conditions at the end of the memorandum dated June 19, 2002 from Planning Director, Stan Grady, and recommend the same to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner McGinnis. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None General Plan Amendment and Zone Chanqe No. P02-0218 (Jim Trigueiro) Public portion of the hearing opened. Staff report given recommending approval. Staff indicated there are two memorandums responding to questions raised by the Commissioners at the pre-meeting. The other memorandum identifies letters expressing opposition to the project. Hearing opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Lorraine Bobryk stated her condo overlooks the project and she is concerned about how narrow Jeffrey Street is. She requested that it be left as residential. Marsha Gregg stated she is a resident of Panorama Gardens, and that those who live on the bluffs look straight down into the storage facility. She also stated her concern about how small the street is, and the traffic with the Labor Hall. Hearing opened for those in support of staff's recommendation. Philip Anderson a resident of Panorama Gardens, stated that it is a small parcel and there could be two-story apartments which would have more of a significant traffic impact. Marsha Gregg inquired about the LMR designation, to which staff responded that the LMR designation of 4-10 is the density range allowed under the General Plan. The actual density is based on the size of the project. Wiley Hughes with Alta Engineering & Hughes Surveying, representing Sacred Investments, stated they have read the staff report, and they are in agreement. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Hearing opened for Commissioner comments and action. Commissioner Gay asked about the retaining wall concerns, to which Mr. Hughes responded that there is a 2-3 foot wall along part of the slope. The perimeter units may be masonry. Commissioner Gay stated that he is not in favor of the large signs. He is concerned with lighting. He stated that he feels this is an acceptable use. Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Tragish stated that the on-site manager can provide more security than if the land stays vacant. He expressed his concern for the traffic impacts. Mr. Tragish inquired of the activities that will be conducted at the storage facility, to which Mr. Hughes stated that to his knowledge auctions will not be held at this site. Commissioner Tragish asked if the applicant has done a study of how much traffic is anticipated to utilize the facility during the day time. Mr. Hughes responded that a study has been done and it is much less than with any residential. The previous estimate was 7 per hour. Commissioner Tragish expressed concern over the hours of operation, to which Mr. Hughes responded that he would need to discuss this with the applicant. Commissioner Tragish asked about the condition to obtain the consent of the property owner on Jeffrey Street, to which Mr. Hughes responded that no action has been taken to acquire the property as the applicant is waiting for this agenda item. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there will be any light poles that exceed a height of 7'6" to which Mr. Hughes stated that he does not believe the applicant will need anything over Commissioner Tragish asked staff if there is a condition in the application that no light pole or fixture be higher than 7'6" to which staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Tragish asked the applicant if they would agree to a 7'6" height limit on lighting to which applicant responded they would be agreeable. Commissioner Tragish indicated that he concurs with Commissioner Gay's comments about the sloping wall. Commissioner Sprague indicated that this is a good in-fill project. Suggested maybe some green belt buffering would be a possible mitigation. Commissioner Blockley stated a concern over the lighting issues, to which Mr. Hughes responded that the light would be facing towards the canal more than towards the condo units. Commissioner Blockley stated that he concurs with Commissioner Gay's comments about signage. Commissioner Tkac concurred with the other Commissioner's comments. Commissioner Gay asked about Mr. Grady's June 20th memo regarding the turn radius at Jeffrey Street and the gates and if the Fire Department is satisfied with the radius, to which staff responded they can get by with the access as well as the emergency access as proposed. Commissioner Ellison concurred with his co-Commissioners comments. Mr. Ellison asked if they were to eliminate the signage would the Commission need applicant's approval, to which staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Gay moved to adopt the resolution approving the Negative Declaration approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation LMR to GC on 2.3 acres as shown on Exhibit A and recommend the same to City Council. Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 8 Seconded by Commissioner Tkac. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Gay moved to adopt the resolution approving the Negative Declaration approving the requested zone change from R-1 on 2.9 acres and C-2 on .9 acres to PCD to develop a mini-storage and office building on 3.89 acres as shown on Exhibit B with the following modifications: That the applicant shall work with staff regarding a retaining wall on Panorama Gardens, the hour of operations shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., there shall be no pylon signs, other signage would be to City code, applicant shall work with staff to develop a lighting plan that shields away from the residential neighbors, and the applicant shall work with staff to have a neutral roof, all A/C units shall be ground mount units, and that there will be no auctions on the premises, and the height of the lights shall be 7'6", and shall be corrected on the GPA so that they are consistent with the conditions to be applied, and recommend the same to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Tkac. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.4a&b General Plan Amendment and Zone Chanqe No. P02-0290 (Arredondo Ventures, Inc.) Public portion of hearing is opened. Staff report given recommending approval and stated the applicant had requested this be put on the Consent Calendar. Hearing opened to those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Mike Callagy with Cornerstone Engineering, representing Mr. Arredondo, gave a history of the project to support his request for a three year restriction of restaurants and related eating places under section 7.20.0408 Hearing opened for those in support of staff's recommendation. Harry Ellingston with Smith & Associates stated that this application was made with no differences than what is set for in the code for uses for this property. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Gay asked if the Commission could impose a PCD overlay to which staff responded in the affirmative. The applicant has not had the opportunity to consider this. If the Commission would like to exercise more discretion over the final review of this project, the general plan could be approved with a condition that the zoning be brought back as a PCD at a later date. Staff recommended that coming back with the zoning would be preferable to conditioning with a PCD since the project was not noticed as a PCD. Commissioner Tragish inquired that if the zoning is a PCD if the applicant could build a restaurant to which staff responded that the Commission would have the discretion to allow the blending of uses in the commercial zones, otto exclude certain uses within that specific zone. Commissioner Tragish noted that he is uncomfortable with looking at previous applications as precedent, but rather that each application should be on its own merits given the current circumstances existing at the time. Commissioner Tragish asked Ms. Gennaro if the Commission can consider an action taken in a previous application to which she responded that because it is a general plan the Commission has ultimate discretion. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like to consider today's application on its own. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would support a general plan use change and that the zoning come back with a PCD application. Commissioner McGinnis will support the project and staff's recommendation. Staff stated that under the general plan the motion is made as written, but with staff adding a condition that the zoning must be brought back as a PCD. The zoning item will be approval of the Negative Declaration and deny the zone change from R-2 to CO. Commissioner Tragish moved to adopt the resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LMR to OC on 2.67 acres as shown on Exhibit 2, with the condition that the zoning be brought back as a PCD to the Commission, and recommend the same to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Gay. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Tragish moved to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and denying the zone change from R-2 to CO on 2.67 acres as shown in Exhibit 2, more fully described on Exhibit 3 and recommend the same to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Tkac. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 10 NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.5a&b General Plan Amendment and Zone Chanqe No. 02-0291 (Mclntosh & Associates) Staff report given recommending approval, subject to and including the Planning Director's memo of June 20, 2002 concerning Condition No. 6 on the block wall, and deletion of Condition No. 7, concerning the percentage of fireplaces in the project. Hearing opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Tom Boozer asked how many residents would be on the project? He stated the residents should be on % acre or acre lots to flow with the existing homes already out there. Robert Hall stated that his property adjoins the project on the east side, and he feels that the density of the project will impact his home with the additional traffic. Their property owner's association maintains their street and not the City or County. They feel the additional increase will impact their way of life and strongly oppose the project. Cindy Shumway a resident on Whittendale whose property would abut the proposed project said she moved out there to be away from the congestion. If they put 7 houses per acre, that would be like putting 14-15 houses on her lot. This would have a significant impact on her life style. Hearing opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. Roger Mclntosh representing the developer, Advantage Homes, agrees with the staff report and subsequent June 20, 2002 memo. The applicant concurs with changing condition number 6 regarding putting in a masonry wall, and to deleting condition number 7. Mr. Mclntosh explained that a designation of LR would allow up to 7.23 dwelling units per acre. The applicant's development to the north of this project only has a density of 4.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. A traffic study has been done and the commercial and residential generally are fronting along Oswell. Applicant's intention is to develop a neighborhood commercial shopping centerwhich will support the residential. The applicant intendsto start off of Oswell Drive and go to the east. The traffic study is projecting most of the traffic to use Oswell Drive to get to the freeway and to get to the street systems to the north. It is anticipated that most of the traffic will use Oswell or Sterling and go north across the freeway. Mr. Mclntosh stated that in total there would probably be in the range of 320 to 350 units when the applicant comes in with further subdivision plans. Mr. Mclntosh said concerning the property to the east, that the applicant is not asking to take away any of the rights of the adjacent property owners, but simply asking to take an M-3 piece of property and develop it into a commercial and residential area. Tom Hart, President of Advantage Homes, the applicant and developer, stated they have taken abandoned areas and been able to successfully develop them. He said there will be automatic gates, block walls, exterior landscaping, a soccer park, park, barbeques, playground equipment and picnic tables. The homeowner's association supports these amenities by paying $50.00 a month. The homeowner's combined income is approximately $2700-$2500 and they can afford a home that applicant sells for between $75,000 and Iow $100's. The square footage of these homes are 1,053 square feet to a two-story home. The applicant feels that they are a good neighbor. Applicant stated that they are a better Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 11 neighbor than the industrial M-3 neighbor. The public portion of the hearing is closed. The hearing is opened for Commissioner comments and action. Commissioner Gay stated that he believes Sterling's improvement will mitigate the concerns with traffic, and the masonry wall will be acceptable. Commissioner McGinnis inquired what the designation of Sterling was currently, to which staff responded that it is a collector and that it will remain the same with the new homes developed. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he sees the project as desirable and fully supports the project. Commissioner Tragish moved to adopt the resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from HI to GC on 19.59 acres and HI to LR on 64.22 acres and LI to LR on 16.06 acres as shown in Exhibit A, and adding that condition 6 in Exhibit C of the Staff report be changed to the extent that in 6a at the end of the paragraph delete "atop the earth and beam with either one of the following:.." and delete 6al, 6a2, 6a3 at the end of that sentence in 6a put "8' sound wall shall be constructed with masonry type block walls for sound attenuation" and a deletion of condition 7, and recommending the same to City Council . Seconded by Commissioner McGinnis. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Tragish moved to adopt the resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from M-3 to C-2 on 4.61 acres, M-2 to C-2 on 14. 98 acres, M-3 to R-l/PUD one family dwelling/planned unit development on 49.51 acres, M-2 to R-l/PUD on 14.71 acres and M-1 to R-l/PUD on 16.06 acres as shown in Exhibit B, and adding that condition 6 in Exhibit C of the Staff report be changed to the extent that in 6a at the end of the paragraph delete "atop the earth and beam with either one of the following:.." and delete 6al, 6a2, 6a3 at the end of that sentence in 6a put "8 foot sound wall shall be constructed with masonry type block walls for sound attenuation" and a deletion of condition 7, and recommend the same to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner McGinnis. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 12 ABSENT: None 6.6a&b General Plan Amendment and Zone Chanqe No. 02-0316 (Mark Costa) The public portion of the hearing is opened. Staff report given recommending approval and stated that a memorandum dated June 20, 2002 responds to questions raised at the pre-meeting. Hearing opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Roger Mclntosh representing Mark Costa stated that they are not in opposition, but they want to address condition number 5 stating that the applicant would be responsible for street improvements to City standards. Mr. Mclntosh explained the history behind the project, and the previous discussions with the City about annexation and dedication of right-of-way. Mr. Mclntosh presented a Memorandum from Mr. Darryl Graves to Martin Ortiz wherein Mr. Costa was assured: "In exchange for dedication of the additional right-of-way to arterial standards, the City will draw plans and construct curb and gutter, sidewalk, street paving and drive approach, tie-in construction, or reconstruction." Based on this memorandum and the understanding that Mr. Costa had, he initiated the annexation application and also applied for the general plan amendment and zone change that is currently before the Commission. Mr. Mclntosh stated that it has always been Mr. Costa's understanding that those improvements would be constructed by the City in exchange for the dedication of right-of- way along Ming Avenue. Applicant requests that condition number 5 be deleted as it does not comply with the agreement and understanding that Mr. Costa had that the City would be responsible for constructing the street improvements to City standards. Deleting condition 5 would make it consistent with a recent general plan amendment and zone change which was before the Commission by owner George Castinares involving property on Brimhall and Jewetta. No one else spoke and the public portion of the hearing was closed. The hearing was opened for Commissioner comments and action. Commissioner McGinnis asked if the development would front on Ming Avenue only, to which staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Gay inquired if there is any recollection of Mr. Mclntosh's reference to an agreement with the City to put in a curb and gutter, to which staff responded that there was an agreement that if an annexation and dedication of right-of-way occurred that the City would bear the cost of the curb, gutter and paving. Staff stated that at no time during those discussions was it ever mentioned that the applicant would be coming in as office commercial property. It was always residential property. Staff is not recommending that this condition be removed. Staff stated that the use of City funds to widen Ming Avenue for an office commercial is not recommended. Staff responded that the Brimhall roadway was funds that had already been budgeted for. This current project is not in the budget for improvements. Staff stated that there was no discussion that the developer would get any additional entitlements for the property. Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 13 Commissioner Gay stated his concern for OC when there is residential. Commissioner Gay suggested perhaps giving it an OC with a PCD with a right of looking at it at a later time. Staff indicated that this project is already noticed to have a CO with a PD overlay so any additional condition, including limiting access to Ming Avenue could be applied now, and then when the site plan comes through it will be reflexed upon the site plan. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Mclntosh the potential impact of converting to offices, and specifically the parking requirements. Mr. Mclntosh stated that it was his intentions to only use the properties that front along Ming Avenue as OC and that it was staff's suggestion that the entire block be changed to OC PCD. Mr. Mclntosh stated that it is also Mr. Costa's intention also that he would like to use the existing residences that are there, but have the option to change them out, and hence the condition that if you did change those buildings that they would still have to maintain a residential feel to them. Commissioner Tragish asked staff what the parking requirements are for the homes in that area, to which staff responded that Mr. Costa's house being 1800 square feet would require approximately six parking spaces (one per 230 square feet.) Mark Costa stated that with a 1/3 of an acre behind the house, the parking would be in the back of the house. He stated that there already is foundation for three parking spaces in addition to the two residential spaces, so he currently has five parking spaces on his property alone. Mr. Costa stated that all of the subject houses have a back lot of approximately 1/3 of an acre or more and have access from the back. Commissioner Tragish asked about the impact on June Avenue having commercial traffic come in through June Avenue to access those houses? Mr. Costa responded that access will only be from Ming Avenue and not from June Avenue. Commissioner Tragish clarified that if the parking is in the rear that the traffic will have to use June Avenue to gain access to the rear parking, to which Mr. Costa responded that was incorrect. Mr. Costa indicated that you can park on the back lot from the access from Ming Avenue because there is an open carport where you can drive all the way to the back. Mr. Costa stated that his and the Etcheverry's property have access gates and that the Geiss property does not have an entrance through the back. Commissioner Sprague recommends approval with the overlay. Commissioner McGinnis moved to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to amend the land use element designation from SR to OC as delineated in Exhibit 2 and recommend the same to City Council with a PCD overlay. Seconded by Commissioner Ellison. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 14 NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner McGinnis moved to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change to amend the zoning district from R-S to CO-PD as reflected in the attached resolution in Exhibit 2 and recommend the same to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Blockley Commissioner McGinnis amended the motion to restrict the use of the commercial zoning to have Ming access only to the property. Commissioner Blockley amended his second. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague None None 6.7a&b General Plan Amendment and Zone Chanqe No. 02-0283 (Careage Development Co. LLC) The public portion of the hearing is opened. Staff report given recommending approval. Staff indicated that there is a memo from Marian Shaw dated June 20, 2002 regarding conditions on the map. Hearing opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Randall Brinkman, Vice-President of Careage Development Co., stated that he is not in opposition, and he agrees with the memo added today except for one item. Because the proposed golf course has been eliminated, applicant does agree with Public Works that there is no reason to keep the golf cart tunnel that goes from their property across the street to Castle & Cooke on the other side. Mr. Brinkman pointed out that one of the items in the memo was a security issue, and he clarified that their property has a wrought iron gate that is locked into the tunnel from their side. Originally they were required to build a large concrete wall and put in the gate and access, and they paid for all of this work. Mr. Brinkman stated that Careage agrees to cooperate with Public Works to resolve this condition. They disagree with paying 100% of the cost to fill the existing tunnel, which is estimated to be $60,000. Careage would request that the owners who changed the master plan from a golf course on the other side of the property be responsible for 50% of the filling of the tunnel. Mr. Brinkman stated that if 50% burden is not possible then they would request that Public Works agree to provide whatever relief possible to take and off-set the cost of this project (i.e., waiving fees, providing design and engineering for filling the tunnel). He indicated that current budget for permits and fees is $24,000 and the cost of filling the tunnel would be burdensome. Commissioner Sprague inquired who would be responsible for the other 50% of the burden, to which Mr. Brinkman responded that to his knowledge Castle & Cooke owns the property. Roger Mclntosh, representing Castle & Cooke California, stated that the issue of the golf Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 15 course crossing requires some history. Mr. Mclntosh stated that the previous owner of Careage had the arrangement for the tunnel, and that it is not the intent of Castle & Cooke to be responsible for filling the tunnel. Mr. Mclntosh provided documentation that establishes that the buyer of the property east of Calloway is responsible for maintaining the facility citing: "Any and all costs and expenses associated with the design, construction and maintenance of the tunnel herein contemplated shall be borne entirely by the buyer". There was never any promise to build a golf course there; it was a plan that didn't fit the market needs and now Castle & Cooke intends to develop the area in single family homes. Castle & Cooke contends that it is Careage's responsibility to remove the portion of the tunnel that protrudes onto the property. Mr. Brinkman, VP of Careage Development, stated that the purchase and sale document defines the maintenance for the golf course, which is no longer going to be. If there was going to be a golf course then the developer would maintain it, but it is no longer a golf course. Careage stated that they have never changed their use, but Castle & Cooke has. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Hearing opened for Commissioner comments and action. Commissioner Gay stated that he has seen the applicant's plan and thinks that it will be a positive addition to Glenwood Gardens. He stated that he concurs with Ms. Shaw's memo of June 20, 2002, and would modify Ms. Shaw's document requiring the applicant to pay 50% of the cost of removing the tunnel. Commissioner Sprague asked if the tunnel issue would be more of a civil matter, and if there was a 50/50 apportionment who would be the other 50% responsible party, to which Ms. Gennaro responded that since Public Works has imposed the condition, the condition has to be addressed, although there are some civil ramifications. Ms. Shaw responded that all of the documents she has shows Careage/Glenwood Gardens as the holder of the encroachment permit in its entirety. She stated that if encroachment permits are revoked the encroachment permit holder is responsible to remove the encroachment. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not see how the Commission can enforce this tunnel issue, and that he does not see how they can waive fees without setting some kind of precedent. Commissioner McGinnis stated that given the documentation presented it appears that it is Careage's responsibility, and he inquired if there was any relief that might be afforded them, to which Ms. Shaw responded that she cannot think of anything that she has control over. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he does not think that Castle & Cooke is responsible, but feels that it is more of a civil matter. Commissioner Gay inquired if the Commission would have the ability to look to the good neighbor on the other side when they come in for their tract map for abandonment of their half of the tunnel, to which staff responded that Public Work's position is that the holder of the encroachment permit is the responsible party. Ms. Shaw responded that she has not seen the tentative map that Mr. Mclntosh referred to, but there would be consideration given Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 16 on the map that any obstructions would have to be removed. When it's private like this situation, she stated that she does not know what staff can do to place a condition to remove part of the tunnel. Commissioner Gay stated that it's circumstance, and that the person that bought and built that tunnel did not have all of his ducks in a row, and did not have an agreement from the neighbor. He stated he would be inclined to not put a 50% requirement at this time. Commissioner Tragish moved to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to amend the land use designation from LR to LMR on 20.30 acres as shown in Exhibit 2 and recommend the same to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Tkac. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Tragish moved to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change to amend the zoning district from PUD to PUD on 20.30 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 and requiring that Careage Development company make arrangements to properly abandon the tunnel prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, and eitherthrough physically abandoning the tunnel or through entering into an agreement with the City of Bakersfield and posting approved security for the tunnel abandonment and recommend the same to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Ellison. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING -Vestinq Tentative map 6104 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Continued from June 6, 2002) See Consent Calendar. COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Gennaro indicated to Commissioners McGinnis, Blockley and Gay that as a result of the last Administrative Committee Meeting where enlargement of the notice area was discussed, Jack Hardisty has indicated that he would like to convene that committee again and they will be contacted to set up a date. Minutes, PC, June 20, 2002 Page 17 10. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Gay thanked staff for their patience. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING THE NEXT PRE-MEETING It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on July 15, 2002. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary July 22, 2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director