Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 3, 2002Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Advisory Members: Staff: Commissioners Sprague, Tkac, Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Jim Movius, Marc Gauthier, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of August 15, September 3 and 5, 2002. Motion was made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the non-public hearing items portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5518 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 3) 4.2b Approval of Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 6012 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) 4.2c Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 10890 (Dee Jaspar & Assoc.) (Ward 2) (Agenda Item 5) 4.2d Approval of Vestinq Tentative Tract Map No. 6135 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) (Agenda Item 6) Hearing opened for public comment. No one spoke for or against the items. Minutes, PC, October 3, 2002 Page 2 Commissioner Sprague stated that he had a conflict of interest on Item 4.2c. He would abstain from voting on it. Motion was made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Parcel Map No. 10890 (Dee Jaspar & Assoc.) (Ward 2) See Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARING -Vestinq Tentative Tract Map No. 6135 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) See Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARING - Receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Chanqe 02-0193. The project is a shoppin.q center on 37.52 acres located on the east side of Hiqhway 99 and north of Panama Lane. (Panama 99 Properties, LLC). (Ward 7) An overview of the project was given by Stanley Grady, Planning Director, and Mr. Glen Lajoie of RBF and Associates, whose firm prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Public portion of the hearing opened. Cheryl Kingsley, Thomas Robinson, Maria Underwood, Vickie Prescot, Edgar Green, Dorothy Montgomery, Mike Pritchard, Mary Turner-Ray, Tom O'Hanlon, Al Black, Cindy Fabrices and Bonita Velasquez spoke against the project. Their concerns included: leaving vacant buildings, taking business away from other existing businesses, lowering the standard of living by lowering wages with fewer benefits, increasing traffic, creating a business that does not maintain cleanliness and protection for customers and air quality. Roger Taylor, who lives north of the project, feels that the location is a good one as it is near Panama Lane and Freeway 99. It should keep the maximum traffic in a relatively small location but he feels there should be an opening to the north. There are two roads that dead end to the project and as it is designed, it is not pedestrian friendly and doesn't service the community. Mr. Taylor stated that he drove from his house to the existing Wal-Mart which is going to be replaced and it was 1.3 miles and to walk there it would be 1.3 miles. His home is about 2/10 to 3/10 of a mile from the new location and to drive there the way it is presently designed would take about 1.1 to 1.2 miles. Mr. Taylor feels that at least one or both of the collectors should be opened up for local traffic. Sheila Stubblefield, President and founder of Bakersfield Citizen for Local Control, objected to the Super Wal-Mart and opening the two streets. She feels there would be thousands of cars using the residential neighborhood streets. Ms. Stubblefield said she feels and the city states there would be a significant negative impact on the air quality in the area. The Draft EIR report states: "It will expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations." She said apparently, receptors are people who are prone to respiratory problems and asked why Minutes, PC, October 3, 2002 Page 3 government has to hide the pure and honest facts? If it's going to impact people, then call us people Richard Crane had the following concerns: Greenfield Water District lies less than one-half mile southeast of this proposed development. The significance of this fact is as follows: The district is home to what is now the defunct Grand Canal Plan. That project no longer exists, but the property is still zoned commercial. A will-serve request for water has been recently requested for this site, which means that a new commercial development will be coming there. At this point, no one knows who the potential occupants of that site are and how much traffic they will draw. Since the original approval of that project, the area has grown tremendously, with houses and schools. A high school and grammar school has been recently built. H Street is already immensely busy with junior high traffic when it's not being taken care of by residential traffic. If you approve this project, H Street will be one of the two feeder roads for local traffic, along with Wible Road on the west side of the freeway, with people coming and going to this center. If they choose to avoid the freeway interchange, and most local people will, the resulting traffic will further overload H Street. The former House To Home is going to be occupied by an RV Sales Company and this will increase the traffic on weekends on the Panama interchange. He said he is very surprised that a project of this size is even being considered in an area so dominated by residential zoning. He urged the Commission to do a fair EIR on the proposed site with special attention to traffic, future growth, noise, crime, pollution and all of those things in this area. Public portion of the hearing is closed. Opened for Commissioner comments and action. Commissioner Blockley stated there is one item that he would like to see added to the EIR and that has to do with reuse of the property, or a study that may suggest that there isn't a need for it. He thinks the EIR should look at the probability of vacancy of building or buildings based on surveys of other large retail buildings in Bakersfield. Anticipated secondary uses, again based on experiences with abandoned buildings, or disused buildings this size or something comparable, impacts of conversion of commercial space to other uses, i.e., the appropriateness or inappropriateness of reuse as an industrial building or a manufacturing building, which you can anticipate from some other vacant similar size buildings. Suitability for commercial use since the depth of that Wal-Mart building is significantly more than a typical retail space. Suitability or unsuitability for use as an office, given the depth and lack of windows, and impact of anti- competitive deed restrictions that have prevented the reuse of other existing buildings in town. Commissioner Ellison stated he has some concerns about the adequacy of the impact report regarding traffic hazards and accidents. The traffic study that is used in the EIR for this project is based on the KernCOG traffic model and uses a projected 2020 population of 520,500. It is now known that the projected population is going to be more than that. His concerns are that the traffic model that is used needs to be re-run, and the traffic impact needs to be reassessed by this EIR as it lacks some adequacy in his opinion. He stated he looks forward to seeing the written responses and the final EIR. Commissioner Gay requested that the consultant address the effect of the replacement of the three acre park in the EIR and that it be replaced somewhere in the neighborhood by the developer in addition to any park fees. Commissioner Gay further stated that he also had an issue with traffic and circulation. He said he is extremely concerned about two access points. He doesn't feel they are adequate for a project of this size. The second item he had a concern about is the two parcels on the frontage. They are defined on the proposed map as a "not a part" and they do not appear to be under the same ownership as the applicant. He wants the EIR to look at the "not a part parcels" because any design by the applicant would have an effect on those two parcels. They would be the ones Minutes, PC, October 3, 2002 Page 4 that front White Lane on the east side of Colony. Commissioner Gay would like to have the reduced alternative consider development of the site under a stricter commercial zone designation, a 50% reduction of building square footage or rezoning only the southern portion of the site to commercial. Leaving the mobile home zone along the northerly portion of the site could buffer the existing homes. Commissioner Tkac stated that the EIR has adequately discussed some issues, and inadequately discussed others. One of the things is air pollution. The air pollution issue is that we are stuck in a valley and that there is not a whole lot we can do about pollution. Commissioner Tkac stated he feels that it's more in Sacramento than it is here. He agreed with the other Commissioners in that traffic is probably the biggest issue. He would like to see the traffic ingress and egress looked at and the freeway on and off ramps so that long waits aren't created. Commissioner Sprague stated he thinks traffic issues are big issues and agrees with some of his fellow commissioners regarding those studies and how they are done, and how they were done. He is also a little disturbed about urban blight caused by the bigger box stores coming in and replacing or moving the businesses from the central core to the outer sphere areas of Bakersfield leaving urban blight behind. Those stores have to be filled with another business, or they have to be demolished and another business has to go in there and try to make it in a different way. Urban blight is a major issue within the internal core, but it appears that urban blight is being compensated for with new businesses moving to town and incorporating into those areas. The noise issue, the traffic, the health and safety issues, the truck traffic, compaction units, traffic circulation in the parking lot; all those items will come before us in December under another public hearing of the site plan. We will get to see this under a planned commercial development as we did with other shopping centers; larger shopping centers in this town. At that point we have the opportunity to mitigate some of the conditions that you've been speaking of tonight, in addition to traffic issues and health issues. And he thinks at that point they will be able to mitigate some concerns. Commissioner Sprague said the Commission is definitely concerned about the neighborhood to the north and the traffic circulation in that area, and how it relates to Highway 99. Motion was made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to refer comments to staff for preparation of the Final EIR. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Tkac, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish PUBLIC HEARING - Receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Chanqe 02-0030. The project is a shoppin.q center on 78 acres located on the west side of Gosford Road, between Pacheco Road and Harris Road. (Castle & Cooke, CA Inc.) (Ward 5) An overview of the project was given by Stanley Grady, Planning Director, and Chad Beckstrom of Jones and Stokes, whose firm prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Minutes, PC, October 3, 2002 Page 5 Public portion of the hearing opened. Thomas Robinson spoke against the project. He made objection to Vice Chairman Tkac's remarks regarding air pollution. He feels that we should work on traffic elimination not a build up of it. We can encourage technical job producing company's; not mega stores or discount stores whose sole purpose is to provide the consumer of their every need regardless of cost to the environment or the fiscal impacts on our surroundings. He stated he is not against growth in Bakersfield but how many Wal-Marts do we need? He also has concerns about leaving another building empty as Bakersfield already has a lot of empty buildings. Cheryl Kingsley asked who the tenants were going to be to which Commissioner Sprague stated they did not know. She stated her belief that anytime you have a general plan in force you should uphold it. Dorothy Montgomery, Bernice Powell, Kathleen Windsinger, Martina Flores, Chris Snyder, Ernestine Edwards, Tom O'Hanlon, Liz Robinson, Jim Arnold, Emily Longhard, Marie Lenzi expressed their concerns against the project which included: urban blight, traffic congestion on Pacheco Road, air quality, proximity to each other, trash on the property and in nearby residential neighborhoods. Sheila Stubblefield, President and founder of The Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control, thanked Commissioner Ellison for his heartfelt comments. She knows the Planning Commission has a difficult job trying to balance economic development with growth and urban sprawl. She said that since this wasn't on the agenda (meaning a Wal-Mart being built) it is difficult because she doesn't know if there's been an EIR released to the public. She said that the same issues apply that you heard people talking about during the earlier project discussed - traffic and air pollution. She asked the Commission to consider economic development that is going to limit air pollution for her children, for everybody else's children and grandchildren. Peter Gallagan said that they are opposed to any retail business in this area. He lives off of Harris Road. From the auto mall to Gosford there are three elementary schools and four parks. There are tons of little kids in his neighborhood who must cross Harris to get to school. All three of those schools are on the south side of Harris, and if you let a retail development go in there, it's going to increase traffic tremendously down Harris Road. Mr. Gallagan stated it is also going to increase traffic getting off Highway 99 at White Lane and Panama and is afraid he will have to drive to Pumpkin Center in order to come back to his residential neighborhood. Richard Crane stated that he was not aware of this project until Monday and hasn't had time to give some comments that might be effective about what should and shouldn't be included in the EIR. Mr. Crane asked how in the future he can get information that tells him when block buster shopping centers are going to be on the agenda so that he doesn't have to attend every one of the public hearings? He also said that the comments he made earlier would apply also to this project. Al Black stated his objection to the Vice-Chairman's comment on air quality and stated his concerns about leaving vacant buildings in town. He challenged the Commission to do a before and after study on the quality of life in the towns that the Super Wal-Marts have been constructed in throughout the United States. Herman Lee stated his concerns about traffic and urban sprawl. He also commented on all the construction being done in the southwest instead of downtown and East Bakersfield. Linda Arnold made the following statements: "Take it to heart. These people really want you not to have Wal-Mart here in town. Please! We're serious! We're really serious. We really don't want it. We don't want any of them. This is from my heart. And all of these other people too. Please! We beg of you. We don't want it period." Minutes, PC, October 3, 2002 Page 6 Vickie Prescott stated she would like to see some additional parks or something else other than a great big building. Cindy Fabricius made the following statements: "1 do believe you. I believe that each one of you said and mean that you live in the community and that you take to heart what we say. I' m telling you that it is on record that since 1993 Wal-Mart has been sanctioned in court 86 times for providing and hiding evidence. I'm telling you that there are 45 empty WaI-Marts in the state of Texas. There are 34 empty standing WaI-Marts in the state of Georgia. There are 27 in Utah. Find them. Go look at them. They are empty. When Wal-Mart moves on they leave their boxes. Those boxes are not bought up by others; who can afford that huge of a store; that huge of a rent? And who can afford to fight Wal-Mart at that huge of a price? All of these people trust you. I trust you. You live in Bakersfield fight for Bakersfield. It is about justice. It is about jobs. It is about environment and it is about our future, your future. These people's future depend on some serious planning. Some serious growth; some serious jobs, some serious benefits. Or we can all join your social service program and get our benefits for free." Mike White stated that the EIR excluded economics. The projections of our market area should be included. He feels that the Commission should not allow the zone changes without an EIR report that includes the impact on our economy which is our environment. Mike Rivas spoke in favor of Wal-Mart. He said that he feels Bakersfield is a great place to live and people should think about what they come up to say. There is dust in his neighborhood from construction of an Albertsons. People should not bash other retailers, whether it is Wal-Mart or not. They need to think about other businesses that are impacting neighborhoods Richard Groves stated the EIR should address a concern he has about the cargo containers that are brought in by Wal-Mart every Christmas along with the air quality. Public portion of the hearing is closed and opened for Commissioner comments and action. Commissioner Blockley requested that the EIR address the same points in terms of reuse of the buildings. This may be a different situation since it's a mixed use center, and the buildings aren't as large, with one exception. But, that one exception has tremendous depth to it, and that would be something you would subdivide that would be less than ideal as retail. The pros and cons of this should be addressed. Commissioner Ellison asked staff if they know if Wal-Mart will be located in this project to which staff responded that project, unlike the other project, was submitted without the names of the tenants. Commissioner Ellison addressed the comment by Sheila Stubblefield about noticing. "Noticing of these projects is very important and City staff does their job. They make sure that they comply with noticing." In regards to the adequacy of the EIR, he has the same concerns as he did with the first one, and that's the traffic study. The KernCOG model using the projected 2020 population of 520,500 when the actual projected population is much higher. He would like to see the final EIR address that issue. Commissioner Gay stated that he was a little disappointed by Ms. Stubblefield's comments. If she had been watching it was noticed, and the first scooping meeting was held on June 20, 2002. Disappointed that she would make an accusation to staff that they did this underhandedly. Underhandedly is sending out flyers to blanket neighborhoods that don't have an impact with this particular evening. Commissioner Tkac said that the cargo containers is an excellent point, and he would like that to be incorporated in the EIR. He does not like seeing those cargo containers all around during Christmas time. He would like the traffic issues studied and looked at. He explained his point about the traffic issues. The City of Bakersfield has a lot of smog because we are down in a basin and there isn't a whole heck of a lot that we, personally, can do about it. We do have a problem down here in this end of the Valley. We're not getting anymore freeways in through this Minutes, PC, October 3, 2002 Page 7 area; that's one of the problems that might be looked at --- and what he means by Sacramento is that's where some of these policies are made. He would love to have less smog in this area. He wants to breathe a lot easier also. Commissioner Sprague incorporated his comments from the last item on Panama into the final draft. In responding to Mr. Grove's comments Commissioner Sprague stated he read in the EIR that the containers are not allowed in these centers. It is in there; it will be addressed again. Your comments will be addressed in the final draft and we will listen to those again. We're all concerned about air quality. There are sometimes things you can't do to mitigate it, but there are things possibly that we can do to mitigate it. Those items will come out in the final draft and in the site plans we will be looking at those items. Motion was made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to refer comments to staff for preparation of the Final EIR. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Tkac, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ASSOCIATED REZONINGS: 9.la&b) GPA/ZC No. P01-0756 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending denial of the project. The public portion of the hearing was opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Roger Mclntosh stated the applicant is a private property owner who is requesting this general plan amendment and land use element change and zone change. He stated that this policy has been in the plan for some 15 years now, and has been the one policy that has been the most continuous issue on all commercial general plan amendment applications. This half mile separation policy's intent is to discourage strip centers. There are a number of policies in the plan that override this half mile separation. This plan is to make sure adequate lands are set aside for neighborhoods serving commercial uses adjacent to designated residential areas. Policy number 18 talks about the depth of new commercial development being at least half the length of the street frontage. Number 22 encourages the clustering of commercial development in compact areas rather than extended along streets and highways. Number 23 provide for infill of commercial land uses to be compatible with the scale and character of existing commercial districts and corridors. He stated that it is inappropriate to consider the prospect of there being a commercial project at the northwest corner because it is not in front of the commission at this time. He showed the existing commercial around the site/intersection. There is a one mile separation. This use supports the neighborhood and complies with the half mile separation. None of the other corners can support what the applicant is proposing to put on this location. The 8 % acres to the north runs from Summerfield Drive to Stein Road and Panama Road. The area is separated by an alleyway, a public right-of-way so that the effected area left over west of the alley is about 6.3 acres on the assessor's map, and then probably a little over two acres to the east. Six acres is not enough to support a grocery store given the fact that most of the existing commercial centers in town are well over that. They have 10 acres for a retail big box user with 78,000 square feet, with associated retail and a fast food site. The average site in the city of Bakersfield is 13.5 acres. He stated that regarding the opposition from the property Minutes, PC, October 3, 2002 Page 8 owner to the north, the big box users, the grocery stores have specific requirements and they require that sea of parking. With this project there is an intersection, a corner, that has two corners already designated as commercial. One corner is already being built as office commercial, and it will be difficult to find a grocery use on the other piece. The area will be under served because it will not meet the big box requirements. Therefore the half mile separation should not be considered in this case because there is not an opportunity to put a grocery store at this intersection. Mr. Mclntosh requested that the Commissioner overturn staff's recommendation for denial and approve the application. Jon Etchechury gave a family history/background. He stated that the project would work for the benefit of the City. Doug Minter stated that the configuration of this project is important and they would appreciate the Commission's consideration. David Milazzo representing the northwest corner of the intersection stated he concurs with Mr. Mclntosh. Hearing opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. Frank Tripicchio stated that as a representative for the Kern County Electrical Trust Retirement Fund which owns the parcel at the northeast corner of Panama and Stine, that the property is owned by residents of this community and is part of their retirement fund. He does not agree that his site is not suitable for a grocery store. With regard to the 13 acre for an average commercial site would mean that the project before the commission falls short of the average acreage. The issue regarding air quality is more of a smoke screen then really an actual reason why they need another center at the southeast corner. He thinks that in this present economic situation with the type of development and the residential development in the area, this project is very premature. Public portion of the hearing was closed and opened for Commissioner comments. Commissioner Ellison stated his concern is that this project already has residential on one side of it. He stated that he might consider approving this project if there was a PCD on it. Commissioner Gay asked staff if there is a map designed for this property to continue the residential neighborhood to the east to serve this property to which staff stated that they have not seen a subdivision map on this parcel. There is a stub out that is designed to provide access to this property at the south. Commissioner Gay stated that he has a concern that the adjacent homeowners may object to this project. He stated that he concurs with some of Mr. Mclntosh's points, and that he hopes that Mr. Tripicchio is a good neighbor and removes their illegal billboards on the site and comply with City requirements. Commissioner Gay inquired of staff if C-O zoning would have the same impact in traffic to which staff responded that the traffic engineer would have to respond. However, staff stated that from a land use standpoint they would look at an office commercial as having less of an impact then a retail commercial. Commissioner Gay stated that with a 15 acre site located at the northeast corner of Ashe about a half mile to the west, and that Mr. Milazzo's project probably should not be considered, he would say that the northwest corner is probably better suited for a center. If it were a C-2 site it has the canal buffering the homeowners on the west, it has a street buffering on the north which would better protect the neighbors. They are better served with those buffers than trying to accommodate the neighbors here, as there will be a similar problem with the electrical union site on the northeast corner because it's going to be extremely difficult to do sound, light and other protections there. He stated that he would lean Minutes, PC, October 3, 2002 Page 9 towards the applicant coming back for a C-O zoning. Commissioner Blockley stated he is undecided and that it is unusual for staff to recommend denial of a properly prepared application and that is something to consider. Commissioner Sprague stated that the half mile policy in the general plan has been used several times to consider items, but they've been used mainly to consider larger type commercial developments and PCD's. The small strip type areas don't really fall within the realm of policy number 19. He stated that he's not in a mode to accept staff's recommendation because the areas in that particular quadrant need to be serviced with general commercial, service stores and grocery stores. He stated that he likes both projects. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if it were to be approved as a C-2 commercial site if there would be traffic problems and contamination from vehicles in that area with all four corners being commercial sites, to which staff responded that the current project's traffic study had an adequate finding with some mitigation measures. The mitigation measures would satisfactorily meet the requirements and policies of the general plan. Commission Sprague stated that at this point, it is his opinion that the development of this corner will not effect the property on the northeast corner, but will actually enhance it. He stated that he thinks they need commercial to serve the area, and he would be in favor of approving with a PCD overlay. Commissioner Ellison asked staff how to put a PCD overlay or zoning on the project and which would be more appropriate on the C-2 to which staff responded that it is up to the Planning Commission as to whether they want the site plan to come back to the Commission, or if they want to hold the zoning and require that the applicant bring the site plan back as part of a zoning for the property. The difference is that once the zoning is given to the applicant with an overlay requirement, the Commission would review the site plan. With the other option, the land use change would be given and not the zoning and a site development plan, and that would become the zone. Commissioner Ellison stated that he would be in favor of the PCD zoning. Commissioner Gay inquired if the Credit Union site at the southwest corner would have decel lanes to which staff responded that it was their recollection that there were two decel lanes required. The decel lanes would also be required on these other projects also. Commissioner Gay asked staff about a PCD overlay to which staff responded that the general plan amendment would be approved with a condition that the project be brought back as a PCD zone change, and then deny the requested C-2 zoning. Staff further stated that the property to the south would be developed with commercial, and that hasn't been discussed. Staff indicated that consideration should be given to what this proposal means if there is commercial on the south. Mr. Grady reminded the Commission that there are two commercial centers within one mile of this intersection including a grocery store. The Commission would not be depriving the neighborhood of a grocery store by not approving the project and the Commission may indeed consider a pending application for the other corner when considering whether or not to approve this project. Commissioner Gay commented that he has concerns about the neighboring property to the east Minutes, PC, October 3, 2002 Page 10 and that a PCD would help. Mr. Mclntosh stated that there is another option the Commission could consider and that is to approve the zoning as a C-2/PCD. Commissioner Blockley stated he can be persuaded that it would be okay to make the land use change without the zone change; approve 9.1a and not approve 9.1 b. Commissioner Sprague stated that it would be appropriate to approve 9.1a and it would be appropriate to approve 9.1b but with a C2/PCD overlay as long as the site plan is brought back before the Commission to have the ability to condition the development to protect the homeowners to the east. Commissioner Gay stated that he would go with staff's recommendation because he has some concerns with the residents already there, and he would rather see the applicant come back with a specific proposal and would rather have Mr. Mclntosh get approval from his applicant and bring back the PCD acknowledging what they want to do with the south property and go from there. Mr. Minter stated that the property to the south has been purchased for a church. Mr. Mclntosh stated that he would like to explain the PCD concept to the applicant. Commissioner Ellison stated that this might be premature at this point to put in a commercial and to keep it residential, but would consider a PCD. A five minute break was taken. Mr. Mclntosh stated that the area to the south of the site is to be a church and the neighbors were notified of this application and no one showed up. If the zone change is denied to C-2 you have to wait for a year to apply for another zone change. The applicant would agree to a C- 2/PCD which would give the C-2 designation and the requirement that a PCD come back before the Planning Commission. It is noticed again to the neighbors and the concerns can be addressed. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt the resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LR to GC on 8.92 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Tkac, Sprague NOES: Commissioners Gay ABSENT: Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt the resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from R-1 to C-2 PCD overlay on 8.92 acres as shown on Exhibit 2, more fully described on Exhibit 3 and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Ellison, Tkac, Sprague NOES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay Minutes, PC, October 3, 2002 Page 11 ABSENT: Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish 9.2) General Plan Amendment No. P02-0623 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 3) The applicant requested a two week continuance of this project. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to continue this item until October 17, 2002. AYE: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Tkac None Commissioners McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish 10. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Grady reminded the Commission that the second joint meeting with the County to discuss the general plan will be held on October 28. It will be held at 6:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers. 11. ~OMMISSION COMMENTS: None 12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: It was decided there would not be a pre-meeting on October 14, 2002. 13. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary October 25, 2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director