HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 55-99RESOLUTION NO. 5 5" ' 9 9
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT P98-0991 OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN
BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield in accordance
with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on
MONDAY, March 15,1999, and THURSDAY, March 18,1999, on General Plan Amendment
P98-0991 of a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield
2010 General Plan, notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least twenty (20)
calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper
of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, such General Plan Amendment P98-0991 of the proposed
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as
follows:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P98-0991
SmithTechlUSA, Inc. has applied to amend the Land Use
designation from MC (Major Commercial) to HR (High Density
Residential) on 5.02 acres located along the north side of Bernard
Street approximately 1,000 feet west of Oswell Street; and
WHEREAS, for the above-described project, an Initial Study was conducted and it
was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment
and a Negative Declaration with mitigation was prepared; and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of
Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation
Procedures, have been duly followed by the city staff and the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 49-99 on March 18,1999, the Planning Commission
recommended approval and adoption of General Plan Amendment P98-0991 subject to
conditions listed in Exhibit "B" and this Council has fully considered the findings made by the
Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 65355 of the Government Code, conducted and held a public hearing on
WEDNESDAY, April 28, 1999, on the above described General Plan Amendment P98-0991 of
the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan, notice of time and place of the hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days
before the hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general
circulation; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings:
1. All required notices have been given.
The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have
been followed.
Based on the Initial Study and comments received, staff has determined
that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment. A Negative Declaration was advertised and posted on
February 8, 1999, in accordance with CEQA.
The public necessity, general welfare and good zoning practice justify the
amendment to the Land Use Element of the 2010 General Plan.
The proposed amendment to the Land Use Element is consistent with the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
The proposed amendment to the Land Use Element is compatible with
existing development adjacent to the site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Council of the City of
Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein, are true and correct.
The Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment P98-0991 is
hereby approved and adopted.
The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and
papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning
Commission to the City Council, is hereby received, accepted, approved
and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
The City Council hereby approves and adopts General Plan Amendment
P98-0991 of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, constituting changes as
shown on the map marked Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated as
though fully set forth, for property generally located along the north side of
Bernard Street approximately 1,000 feet west of Oswell Street subject to
conditions of approval shown on Exhibit "B".
That General Plan Amendment P98-0991, approved herein, be combined
with other approved cases described in separate resolutions, to form a
single Land Use Element Amendment.
......... o0o ........
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by
the Counci f the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
APR ~,~ 1999 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER
j
x ~ci lerk of the
APPROVED APR 2 8 1999
BOB
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Assistant City Attorney
MO:pas
S:gpa-mar%o991\mar,5
April 15, 1999
GPA/ZC P98-0991 Page 2
SITE PLAN COMPLIANCE LIST
Am
The following are specific items that the Site Plan Review Committee has noted that you
need to resolve before you can obtain a building permit or be allowed occupancy. These
items may include changes or additions that need to be shown on the final building plans,
alert yo~ to specific .fees, and/or are comments that will help you in complying with the
Ci.tV's development standards. Each item will note when it is to be completed and they have
been grouped by department so that .you know who to contact if you have questions.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - BUILDING (staff contact - Phil Burns 661/326-3718)
The applicant shall submit 4 copies of grading plans and 2 copies of the
preliminary soils report to the Building Division. You must submit a final soils
report to the Building Division before they can issue a building permit.
Include with the final site plan documentation, or show changes on the final plan
that the project complies with all disability requirements of Title 24 of the State
Building Code.
Structures exceeding 10,000 square feet in area shall require installation of an
automatic fire sprinkler system.
Before the Building Division can allow occupancy of this multiple-family
residential complex, they must inspect and approve the placement and colors of
the address numbers identifying each unit and/or building, and building/unit
location maps so that emergency personnel can easily find a specific unit when
responding to the site during an emergency.
Business identification signs are not considered nor approved under this review.
A separate review and sign permit from the Building Division is required for all
new signs, including future use and construction signs. Signs must comply with
the Sign Ordinance.
The Building Division will assess appropriate school district impact fees at the
time they issue a building permit.
B. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING (staff contact - Dave Reizer 661/326-3673)
The minimum parking required for this project has been computed based on use
and shall be as follows:
Number of Parking Required
Use Dwelling Units Ratio Parking
Senior Citizens 160 dwelling units I space/2 dwelling units 80 spaces
Apartments
The applicant shall submit one (1) copy of the final landscape plan to the
Planning Division, and include a copy of this plan with each set of the final
building plans. Building permits will not be issued until the Planning Division has
GPA/ZC P98-0991
Page 3
approved the final landscape plan for consistency with approved site plans and
minimum ordinance standards (please refer to the attached standards - Chapter
17.61).
Approved landscaping, parking, and other related site improvements shall be
installed and inspected by the Planning Division before final occupancy of any
building or site. Please schedule final inspections with Dave Reizer (805/326-
3673).
,
Parking lot lighting is required by the Bakersfield Municipal Code (Section
17.58.060 A). Lights shall be designed, arranged, and shielded to reflect light
away from adjacent residential properties and streets. All light fixtures shall be
between 15' and 40' above grade with illumination evenly distributed across the
parking area. Lighting direction and type of light fixture shall be shown on the
final site plan or included with the building plans.
Habitat Conservation fees shall be required for this project and will be calculated
based on the fee in effect at the time we issue an urban development permit
(includes grading plan approvals) as defined in the Implementation/Management
Agreement (Section 2.21 ) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation
Plan. Upon payment of the fee, the applicant will receive acknowledgment of
compliance with Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
(Implementation/Management Agreement Section 3.1.4). This fee is currently
$1,240 per gross acre, payable to the City of Bakersfield (submit to the Planning
Division).
A Park Development and Improvement Fee shall be paid at the time a building
permit is issued. We will base this fee at the rate in effect at the time the permit
is issued. The current fee is $615 for each independent residential unit.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT (staff contact - Greg Yates 661/326-3939)
Show on the final site plan all fire lanes as indicated on the returned site plan or
as they may be modified by the Fire Department. Spacing between each sign
identifying the fire lane must also be shown on the final plan that meets minimum
city standards. The applicant shall install all required fire lane signs before
occupancy of any building or portion of any building is allowed.
,
Show on the final site plan all on-site fire hydrant locations and required fire
flows. Based upon available information, the minimum fire flow requirement will
be 2000 gallons per minute.
The applicant shall install 4 fire hydrants as shown by staff on the returned site
plan. All fire hydrants must be purchased from the Fire Department. These
hydrants must be installed and in working order before building permits can be
issued to assure that adequate fire protection can be available during
construction unless other arrangements for such protection are approved by the
Fire Department.
GPA/ZC P98-0991
4.
D. PUBLIC
1.
Page 4
The applicant shall give the Fire Department one set of the engineered water
plans before the issuance of any building permit.
The applicant must request an inspection of any underground sprinkler feeds at
least 24 hours before they are buried. The Fire Safety Control Division (1715
Chester Avenue, Suite 300, Bakersfield, CA; Ph. 661/326-3951) must complete
all on-site inspections of fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems before any
building is occupied.
The applicant shall show on the final plan and install a 20' wide all-weather
emergency access as indicated by staff on the returned site plan. The Fire
Department must approve the final location and design of this access prior to
building permits being issued.
All access (permanent and temporary) to and around any building under
construction must be at least 20 feet wide, contain no vehicle obstructions, and
be graded to prevent water ponding. Barricades must be in place where ditches
and barriers exist in or cross roadways. Emergency vehicle access must always
be reliable.
Yellow stripes shall be used to identify areas next to all Fire Department
connections according to the Bakersfield Municipal Code (Section 15.64.140 d.).
WORKS - ENGINEERING (staff contact - Harry Afshar 6611326-3576)
The applicant shall construct 5.5' concrete sidewalks, at parcel frontage on
Bernard Street according to adopted city standards. These improvements shall
be shown on the final site plan submitted to the Building Division before any
building permit will be issued.
The applicant shall construct new connection to the public sewer system. This
connection shall be shown on the final site plan submitted to the Building Division
before any building permit will be issued.
All driveways, vehicular access and parking areas shall be paved with a
minimum of 2" Type B, A.C. over 3" Class II A.B. according to the Bakersfield
Municipal Code (Sections 15.76.020 & 17.58.050 N.) and the adopted standards
of the City Engineer. This standard shall be noted on the final site plan
submitted to the Building Division before any building permit will be issued.
If a grading plan is required by the Building Division, a building permit will not be
issued until the grading plan is approved by both the Public Works Department
and Building Division.
Before you occupy any building or site, you must reconstruct or repair
substandard off-site improvements to adopted city standards as directed by the
City Engineer. Please call the construction superintendent at 661/326-3049 to
find out what improvements will be required.
GPAIZC P98-0991
6.
E. PUBLIC
1.
F. PUBLIC
1.
Page 5
You must obtain a street permit from the Public Works Department before any
work can be done within the public right-of-way (streets, alleys, easements).
Please include a copy of this site plan review decision to the department at the
time you apply for this permit.
A sewer connection fee shall be paid at the time a building permit is issued. We
will base this fee at the rate in effect at the time a building permit is issued.
A transportation impact fee for regional facilities shall be paid at the time a
building permit is issued, or if no building permit is required, before occupancy of
the building or site. This fee will be based at the rate in effect at the time the
permit is issued. Based on the fee schedule currently in effect for the 1998-1999
fiscal year and the proposed use, the rate would be $1,471.00 for each unit. The
Public Works Department will calculate an estimate of the total fee when you
submit construction plans for the project.
WORKS - TRAFFIC (staff contact - George Gillburg 6611326-3997)
Show on the final plan 42' (top-to-top) wide drive approach(es) as indicated by
staff on the returned site plan. Drive approaches must be centered on drive
aisles.
Two-way drive aisles shall be a minimum width of 24 feet.
Show the typical parking stall dimensions on the final plan. Minimum parking
stall dimensions shall be 9' wide x 18' long. Vehicles may hang over landscape
areas no more than 2~/~ feet provided required setbacks along street frontages
are maintained, and trees and shrubs are protected from vehicles as required by
the Planning Division.
WORKS - SOLID WASTE (staff contact - John Wilburn 6611326-3114)
Show on the final plan 4, 8° x 10' refuse bin enclosure(s) designed according to
adopted city standards (Detail #S-43). Before occupancy of the building or site
is allowed, 8,3 cubic yard front loading type refuse bin(s) shall be placed within
the required enclosure(s).
Before building permits can be issued or work begins on the property, you must
contact the staff person above to establish the level and type of service
necessary for the collection of refuse and/or recycled materials.
Facilities that require infectious waste services shall obtain approval for separate
infectious waste storage areas from the Kern County Health Department. In no
instances shall the refuse bin area be used for infectious waste containment
purposes.
Facilities that require grease containment must provide a storage location that is
separate from the refuse bin location.
GPA/ZC P98-099 ~
5.
Page
Facilities that participate in recycling operations must provide a location that is
separate from the refuse containment area.
The Solid Waste Division will determine appropriate service levels for refuse
collection required for a project. These levels of service are based on how often
collection occurs as follows:
Can or cart service '-
Front loader bin service '-
Rolloff compactor service --
I cubic yard/week or less
1 cubic yard/week - 12 cubic yards/day
More than 12 cubic yards/day
S:\G PA-MAR\0991 \Cond itions.wpd
CC
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
P98-0991
COLUMBUS STREET ~ ~
J I
I I cC
HMR HR
I I
AUBURN ST.
.MC
HILLS
I~LL
MC
HR
LMR/
LR
22
T29S, R28E
HIGHWAY 178
~L VIEW F(OAD
MC
MC
,//~ c;//
BERNARD STREET
BAKER'SRELD
JR'. ,4C. ADEMY HMR
~ LMR/I% ~ P~CO AVENUE
LR f PS
I
I
i LMR
I
GC
OC
J
HR
GC
GC
LMR/
LR
EXHIBIT B
General Plan Amendment P98-0991, Zone Change P98-0991
Conditions of Approval
Prior to ground disturbance, a field survey shall be conducted on the entire 5.02 acre
project site. The field survey shall be performed by a qualified archaeologist to evaluate
and recommend any measures. Proof of compliance with the recommendations
resulting from such survey shall be submitted to the Southern San Joaquin Valley
Archaeological Center at California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB) and the City of
Bakersfield, Development Services Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
(Planning Department)
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the proponent will submit to the City of
Bakersfield, Development Services Department proof of a recorded covenant requiring
occupancy of at least one resident per unit aged 62 years or over or physically
handicapped. (Planning Department)
Site access points shall be designed to prevent any potential conflict or interference with
the ingress/egress for/to the existing Tillerman Hills and French Quarter developments.
Said design shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (Public Works
Department)
The median constructed in Bernard Street with the East Hills Mall development ends at
the west property line of the project site. To facilitate east bound to north bound left turn
access, the developer shall narrow this median to add a left turn bay in it, as needed, to
meet left turn design standards. The two-way turn lane along the frontage should
remain to allow for full access to the existing Tillerman Hills and French Quarter
developments. (Public Works Department)
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall pay the Phase II (or
subsequently revised) Regional Impact Fee. (Planning Department)
The final development plan for the Planned Unit Development project shall be submitted
to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
The preliminary development plan shall be modified to include additional landscaping
amenities conversely reducing the amount of parking.
The preliminary development plan shall be modified to include additional landscaping
along Bernard Street,
The preliminary development plan shall be modified to include the completion of the
block masonry wall along the north side of the project site with the project development.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 18
8.5a)
8.5b)
General Plan Amendment P98-09~USA. Inc.
Combined with 8.5b bel~''/
/
Zone Change P98-0991 - SmithTechlUSA. Inc.
Staff report given.
Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition.
Patricia Harbison with SmithTech/USA, the representative of the applicant on this
project stated they agree with staffs report.
Public portion of the meeting closed.
Commissioner Boyle inquired of Ms. Shaw his concern of the apartment buildings
to the south, and to the west where there are two schools (Bakersfield Junior
Academy and Heritage Academy), a large intersection and a movie theater
between New Market Way and the project and whether there was going to be a
traffic problem. Ms. Shaw responded that the Traffic Engineer indicated that with
the separation between the driveways shown on the application, and the location
of the driveway across the street he does not see a problem with a left turn
conflict.
Commissioner Boyle asked if the standard is seven trips a day for apartments,
and Ms. Shaw responded yes for regular multi-family. Since this is age
restricted, it will be a lower amount.
Commissioner Boyle questioned if they feel okay with these traffic indications,
and if there is nothing they should do to mitigate the traffic, to which Steve
Walker, of Traffic and Engineering, responded that based on the information
provided, and the traffic study, and what is being proposed for the type of use,
the trips per dwelling unit would range from .1 to .27 per unit as compared to 7 or
10 for a single family home. They're only going to get between 16 and 43
movements in and out during the peak hour time, as compared to commercial
land use where you would get up to 420 tdps during a peak hour. The current
zoning has a much greater potential of trips and potential conflicts. The use
proposed is probably one of the best you can have for this area, and he doesn't
see that there would be a need for additional controls such as a median.
Commissioner Boyle asked if the block wall would go down the entire property
line to which staff responded that there is a requirement for separation between
residential and commercial with a block wall, and that would come in at site plan
review.
Commissioner Boyle inquired if the lighting on the back side of the commercial
property is consistent with the type of lighting normally put in when commercial
abuts to residential, to which staff reported they did not know.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999
DRAFT
Page 19
Commissioner Boyle stated that he is in support of the project.
Commissioner Dhanens asked about condition No.4 placed by Public Works
stating "If a grading plan is required by the Building Division a building permit will
not be issued until the grading plan is approved by both the Public Works
Department and the Building Division" and why the Public Works Department
would want to review this. Staff responded that Public Works reviews all grading
plans along with the Building Department.
Commissioner Dhanens asked Patricia Harbison from SmithTech if they had in
preparation of the plan intended to provide a flat area in the center of the site in
order to place the structures with a series of slopes around the perimeter, to
which Ms. Harbison responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Dhanens asked if the Fire Department is aware of the grading
situation as reflected on the grading plan and are satisfied with respect to the
slope of that driveway, to which Ms. Harbison responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Dhanens stated that he would support the change from the MC to
the HR, but questions the design of the facility on that particular property. He
further inquired if the number of parking spaces could be reduced to eliminate
some of the asphalt that comes with putting in 60 more parking spaces then you
really need, and further inquired if that is something at the PUD level that the
Planning Commission has the authority or purview to address to which staff
responded that because it is a PUD the Planning Commission does have the
opportunity to address design concerns.
Commissioner Dhanens stated he does not find the issue regarding the block
wall in the site plan review in the PUD application.
Mr. Grady responded to Commissioner Dhanens question regarding the block
wall stating that the commercial zone does require block wall buffering it from
residential uses. This is an infill where you are asking to change from an MC to
HR, and it's a PUD, so you have the latitude to require that on this individual
because he is placing the residential in between the commercial. You also have
some additional issues with the topography where a wall may not be practical or
serve any useful purpose because this is elevated higher than some of the
commercial, or there may be a more particular spot such as the area where
Commissioner Boyle was talking about that you would want to see a wall
extended. That issue was not evaluated with that level of detail by staff, and will
require some further time for us to be able to appropriately respond to it.
Commissioner Dhanens inquired if this issue is something that should be
evaluated further, or if the zone change and land use change was approved, it
could be worked out at a later time with staff, to which staff responded that if
there was something particular with respect to the wall, the motion could be
DRAFT
Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999
Page 20
conditioned in such a manner so they could address that. He stated that if it is to
look at it entirely on its perimeter he has faith in the staff that reviewed the project
that they evaluated that, and if they thought it was meritorious they would have
put it on as a condition.
Commissioner Dhanens further commented that the pads on the grading plan am
around the 66 foot elevation; the back of the property is around the 75 foot
elevation, so the commercial piece is going to set up higher than the residential
piece, and then the residential piece will have a three story wall, and then you will
have a situation where there will be second or third level windows that you might
be able to look out directly at the back end of commercial piece, where typically
you would want the buffering to occur.
Staff responded that they could approve the project with the condition for a
further look at the wall and the cross sections through the site related to the wall,
and require that the final development plan be brought back to the Planning
Commission, although typically it is not.
Commissioner Dhanens stated that the design needs to be studied further so
these relationships get handled a little bit more closely. He would be inclined to
pass the General Plan Amendment and not the PUD until there is another PUD
that comes back and addresses some of those issues differently, in its entirety,
as opposed to sticking with that particular plan, that by its very nature is not
responding to the site that it sits on.
Commissioner Ortiz stated that he thinks this is a wonderful project and it is the
right place for it and is easily accessible to senior adults.
Commissioner Boyle stated that he is not overly concerned with topography
issues given the nature of the building, but do think the issues on the block wall
make it worth while to take a look at a final development plan. He would support
the project with a condition to returning the final development plan to the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Ortiz stated that it may be advantageous to have more open
space in the middle instead of carports.
Commissioner Boyle questioned what the end of the building is going to look like
facing the street.
A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz,
to adopt the resolution making findings and approving the negative declaration
approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation from MC to HR on 5.02 acres, and recommend the same to City
Council with the condition that the final development plan be brought back to the
Planning Commission.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999
DRAFT
Page 21
8.6)
Commissioner Dhanens inquired of Mr. Grady if they need to specify what issues
they will be looking at in the final plan, or if it was all wide open and fair game, to
which Mr. Grady responded that they would need to specify what you want them
to present to you in the final plan that's different from what you have in the
preliminary plan.
Commissioner Boyle amended his motion to include in the final development
plan the issues of the block wall on the north side of the property, the end of the
building on the south side of the property, landscaping, and the issue of the
parking.
SmithTech requested clarification on the end of the building to which
Commissioner Boyle responded he would leave it up to SmithTech, but
something that would make it more attractive from Bernard. Commissioner Ortiz
seconded the amended motion. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn,
Tkac
NOES: None
A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz,
to adopt the resolution to making findings approving the negative declaration
approving the requested zone change from R-1 CH to PUD on 5.02 acres as
shown on Exhibit "A" through Exhibit "E" and recommending same to City
Council with the additional condition that they bdng the final development plan
back to the Planning Commission addressing the issues previously discussed on
the south end of the appearance of the fascia, the landscaping on the south end
of the building, the parking, and landscaping and open space issue, and the
block wall on the north. Motion was carded by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavom,
Tkac
NOES: None
General Plan Amendment P98-0960 - City of Bakersfield
Staff reported that there w nothing to add from Monday's meeting.
Pubhc portion of the meeting w opened. No one spoke in opposition or in
faVOr. ~
Public portion of the meeting was clos .
Commissioner Boyle asked if the Commissi decides to delete the collector do
they have any way to control the future layout o e streets in this area so that
there will be some type of north/south traffic, even 't is not a collector, to which
staff responded it would be up to th .... with subdivisions.
t
Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999
DRAFT
Page 22
Unless they designate a collector they would design the street network to
accommodate their subdivision.
Commissioner Boyle inquired if it was a good idea to have such a huge gap
between Morning Drive and Fairfax with no through roads, or no guarantee that
there will be a through road, to which staff responded that there are topographic
constraints out there, and because of the topography they are not going to get
the density that would normally require a collector at midsection. They don't see
any problem with the deletion of this collector.
Commission Sprague inquired if the property owner had been contacted
regarding this and if there had been any reply, to which staff responded that they
contacted them by mail, but the address is in Montana. They have not talked to
them by telephone, but the owners were all notified in writing, but none have
called.
Commissioner Sprague stated that he is reluctant to remove that easement
without the preperty owner knowing that it is being removed, because at a later
date he can come back and say he didn't get notice. Commissioner Sprague
recommended the Planning Commission continue this item until a public hearing
notice could be sent by certified mail to the property owner to make them aware
of the fact that they want to delete that access. He further stated that he thinks
that access will be needed at a future time as the property develops out there.
Staff commented that there was an offer of dedication on this collector, and that
was vacated in 1987. At this time there is no right-of-way. There is only a line on
the map for a collector.
Commissioner Sprague commented that there is no dedicated access, and there
is no tentative map there, to which staff affirmed.
Commissioner Sprague inquired if there is a dedicated access proposed north of
Paladino, to which staff responded in the negative.
Commissioner Boyle inquired if the park mentioned was on land that was owned
by Mr. Heisey, and the collector would be real close to his property, to which
staff responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Boyle inquired if we notified people within 300 feet in this situation
or if it is just the property on which the collector is located, to which Staff
responded it is within 300 feet.
Commissioner Boyle questioned if Mr. Heisey got notice of this, to which Staff
responded that everybody within 300 feet was on the mailing list and got a
notice.
Commissioner Dhanens inquired if the property owner wanted the right-of-way
back how would they go about that, to which staff responded if this is approved
there is no collector designation on the map.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999
DRAFT
Page 23
8.7)
Commissioner Dhanens stated that based on the fact that it is vacated and they
have made an attempt to notify the surrounding property owners, per ordinance,
he would be in support of staffs recommendation to delete the collector status,
and would be prepared to make a motion to do so.
Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner
Boyle, to adopt the resolution approving the proposed General Plan Amendment
with findings as presented in said resolution, see Attached Exhibit "B" and
recommending the same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn,
Tkac
NOES: None
General an Amendment P98-0968 - Castle and Cooke. CA. Inc.
Staff reporte hat there was nothing to add from Monday's meeting.
Public portion of e meeting was opened up.
Roger Mclntosh, with artin-Mclntosh Engineering, representing Castle & Cooke
stated they just receive approval from Seven Oaks to add an additional 9 hole
golf course west of Buen Vista. They want to make the street more friendly
rather th ody uses like Grand Lakes.
Public portion of the meeting w"a~closed.
Commissioner Dhanens asked
has seen the layout shown tonight,
met with Staff, and believes that Mr.
particular layout in the past, although it
because they were waiting for the meml
concept.
if this is the first time that City Staff
Mr. Mclntosh reported that they have
has seen something similar to this
not a formal part of their application
it Seven Oaks to approve the
Commissioner Dhanens inquired if staff could an opinion on Mr.
Mclntosh's justification for the deletion and use as for a finding and voting
on tonight to which staff responded that they have ex non-support for the
original request because it was such an integral part >revious EIR, the
circulation element. Just off the cuff, he doesn't think it be a problem if it
was eliminated, however, he is not ready to make a decision nd believes that
Mr. Mclntosh could provide the numbers and bring it back in two weeks.
Commissioner Dhanens agreed with staff on this and would not ~pposed to
continuing this matter so the analysis can be done.