Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 20, 2003Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac, Commissioner Blockley Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: 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 February 15 and 20, 2003. Motion was made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to approve the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of General Plan Amendment 03-0008 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Agenda Item 5.2) (Ward 3) 4.2b Approval of General Plan Amendment 02-1158 (Castle & Cooke CA Inc) (Agenda Item 6.1) (Ward 5) 4.2c) Approval of General Plan Amendment 03-0012 (David Dmohowski) (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 6.2) (Ward 7) 4.2d) Approval of General Plan Amendment 03-0090 (West Star Construction) (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 6.3) (Ward 3) Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 2 4.2e&f)Approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-1248 (Porter- Robertson Eng) (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 7.3a&b) (Ward 4) 4.2g&h) Approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 03-0002 (Porter- Robertson) (Agenda Item 7.4a&b) (Ward 7) 4.2i&j) Approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 03-0005 (Gh. Mollagha Semi Tagrizi) (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 7.5a&b) (Ward 7) Public portion of the hearing opened. Commissioner Tragish requested that agenda items 4.2e & f removed from the Consent Agenda. A member of the audience requested that 4.2d also be removed. Public portion of the hearing closed. There were no other comments from the public or Commission. Motion was made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to approve the remaining items on the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Circulation Element Amendments: 5.1) General Plan Amendment 01-1023 (David Dmohowski) (Ward 4) Commissioner Gay declared a conflict of interest on this project. Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Public portion of the hearing opened. Jim Parker, representing all three of the affected property owners by the proposed realignment, spoke against the project. The concern was that if this is approved it would make San Joaquin's parcel of property landlocked. It is a triangular piece of property with the south and east boundaries being the Calloway Canal. Mr. Reyneveld's property to the south ends up with the collector cutting a diagonal through his parcel which will severely impact his development plans. One of the proposed purposes of the realignment is to promote safety and they submit that this is not the case. The primary purpose of the proposal they feel is to make Shell's property (Section 15) more developable. Willie Reyneveld, property owner, also spoke against the project. He stated that a relatively straight Landco drive alignment is a key for a variety of building sizes to meet his potential customer's needs. The buildable portion of the land he recently purchased is about 8.5 acres. The gross size of the lot is 12 acres. The proposed alignment would bisect the usable portion of his land in half diagonally. He would have two triangles and after building roads and setbacks he would be left with very little usable land. Also, he has a concern with the issue of road costs. He would have to bear the cost of constructing half of Landco Drive at this time but if the alignment goes through he would have to construct both sides of the road. The value of his property would be greatly reduced by this proposed road alignment. He feels that there are many options that can be explored by Shell to solve their safety concerns and still maintain the feasibility of his property. Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 3 Dave Dmohowski, with Project Design Consultants representing Shell Oil Products US, spoke in favor of the project. Because of urbanization in the area, Shell has safety concerns. This area at one time was considered one of the least likely to be developed. Shell has acquired over 250 acres of land to provide a buffer between the residential neighborhoods and their company. The proposal is consider an alternative alignment of Landco. The small storage tanks are within 50 feet of the planned alignment of Landco. They feel that it raises significant practical difficulties from a public safety point of view and it will provide security for those facilities in today's global environment. The proposed revised alignment takes the road approximately 450 feet away from the small tanks and about 350 feet away from the large tank. The tanks are intended to store flammable materials. If this alignment is approved, the applicant is prepared to request a Specific Plan Line Amendment. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Reyneveld if he was aware the tank farms were there when he bought the property? Mr. Reyneveld said yes. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Reyneveld if the seller told him there was an application to realign Lando when he bought the property. Mr. Reyneveld said no. Commissioner Tragish said he thinks the points Mr. Reyneveld raised are well taken as it will make it more difficult for him to develop his property but the problem is the fact that he should have been aware of the tank farms when he bought the property and that there are certain requirements for setbacks. Commissioner Tragish said there is a question in his mind about Mr. Reyneveld finding out everything he needs to know about this property before he bought it. Mr. Reyneveld said that all the information he has shows the alignment very clearly on that plan line. The area is well known to him as he has several businesses on the block of Landco that is developed. He was not aware of the realignment when he purchased the property or he would not have done so. Commissioner Ellison said that public safety is his number one priority when evaluating this application. The second priority is fairness to all of the property owners involved. Commissioner Ellison asked if the realignment of Landco can be approved even though the applicant does not own all of the property and there is opposition from the other property owners? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Ellison asked what safety studies were done to determine that the setback from the tank farm is adequate for public safety? Mr. Grady said there were no safety studies done for the proposed alignment. The city has adopted ordinances for new wells in relationship to roadways which allows them to be closer than they are here in this application. Commissioner Ellison said he has a concern regarding the safety of the cars lining up to the south at the railroad crossing. He asked if the city has looked at this issue since It will put the cars stationary and closer to the tanks? Mr. Grady said that they have not looked at that with respect to this particular project. The Fire Department may be able to address that issue. Dave Weirather, City Fire, said that they had not considered that prior to this meeting but in review of Commissioner Ellison's comments said that proximity to a fire will create more of a hazard. The degree of the hazard would be difficult to determine based on the nature of the fire. If there is a fire event in the tanks, the first priority would be to isolate the roadways and railroad and deny entry until the fire was under control. Commissioner Ellison asked Mr. Dmohowski if the applicant has done any safety studies to determine that this alignment is far enough away to be safe for the public? Mr. Dmohowski said they have not done a specific risk assessment for this particular alignment. The RBF EIR that was prepared for the Kyle Carter project several years ago did focus on those types of issues. Shell did purchase a very significant amount of real estate to provide a buffer between the homes and the facility. Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 4 Commissioner McGinnis asked staff what the present zoning is on Mr. Reyneveld's property? Mr. Grady said it is M-2. Commissioner McGinnis asked if Mr. Reyneveld would have a problem developing his land so close to the tanks? Mr. Grady said he does not believe he would have a problem because of the present zoning but there may be some standards that he would have to meet with respect to proximity of buildings to the tanks. There may be some setback requirements. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Reyneveld how he is going to develop the property if the road is moved over? Mr. Reyneveld said that is his point. Under the new alignment the buildings would be closer to the tanks. Commissioner McGinnis said that he has the same concerns regarding the safety issues but also has a concern about the property rights of anyone involved in this. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Dmohowski why the new alignment does not go around the tank and tie back in with the existing Landco alignment and proceed north? Mr. Dmohowski said the engineers may have a concern with the sharpness of the radius. If that could be accommodated, they would certainly take a look at it. This is a conceptual alignment. They would welcome any solution for Mr. P, eyneveld's dilemma that would still provide the capacity the city and county are looking for. Commissioner Tragish said he would like to see this continued so that they could come up with something more definitive as far as the alignment of the road. Commissioner Ellison asked if it is a correct statement from the other property owner, San Joaquin Facilities, if their property would become land locked and if so, if there is a way that access could be gained for the property owner? Mr. Grady said there is an existing 30-foot roadway easement that would provide access to the property. If that access is not sufficient there may be other opportunities as the area develops. Ms. Shaw displayed a map on the overhead and explained the options. Commissioner Ellison said he would be in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Tkac said he shares the same thoughts on safety as the other Commissioners. He is not sure a continuance is the best option and asked why if this is conceptual are they voting on it this way rather than something a little more concrete? Ms. Shaw said the Commission has in their packet a memo saying that it is a requirement of the circulation element that requires the applicant to prepare a new specific plan line to supersede the existing plan line that the county has. This would have to be approved by both the county and the city. This would have to be done prior to the Council hearing on this amendment. Commissioner Tkac said he would feel more comfortable with something a little more aligned before he could make this decision. Commissioner Tragish asked Ms. Shaw to explain why the conceptual alignment may not become the eventual alignment? Ms. Shaw said that her memo requires that it be taken from the conceptual stage to an actual legal description prior to the Council hearing. It may not be identical to the conceptual alignment but it would be based on the proposal. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Dmohowski if a continuance might be an opportunity to nail down a more specific alignment in conjunction with further discussions with the neighbors and then come back to the Commission after a short continuance? Mr. Dmohowski said they would be agreeable to a short continuance to look at the implications of considering other alignments. Commissioner Tragish asked if the April 3 meeting would given them sufficient time to reexamine this alignment? Mr. Dmohowski said he feels that Shell could meet with other property owners during that time. Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Ellison said he is in favor of a continuance because he is not sure this is safe enough. The public hearing was reopened until April 3, 2003. There were no further Commissioner comments. Commissioner Ellison made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to continue General Plan Amendment 01-1023 until the April 3, 2003 meeting. The motion was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Gay 5.2) General Plan Amendment 03-0008 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 3) See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments: 6.1) General Plan Amendment 02-1158 (Castle & Cooke CA Inc) (Ward 5) See Consent Agenda 6.2) General Plan Amendment 03-0012 (David Dmohowski) (Ward 7) See Consent Agenda 6.3) General Plan Amendment 03-0090 (West Star Construction) (Ward 3) This item was removed from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public. Staff report given recommending approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Gary Mulder, property owner, spoke in opposition to the project. He owns property on Tudor Way west of the project across Fairfax. He thought the CC&Rs restricted the property to four- plexes and now feels his privacy will be compromised with the 22 units going in. Dave Crinklaw, West Star Construction, spoke for the project. He stated they have R-2 zoning which would allow them just over 17 units on the 1.3 acres. They found they had a conflict with the general plan which only allows 9 units on the 1.3 acres. They feel that the surrounding area is all higher density and this piece of property would be consistent with what is in the area. They are proposing to build four, four-plexes. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 6 Commissioner Tragish said he feels the project is consistent with the neighborhood and is in support of the application. Commissioner McGinnis said he supports the project as it does fit into the neighborhood and Mr. Mulder's property is located across Fairfax which is a wide road. There were no other Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to change the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential) on 1.3 acres as shown on Exhibit A and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Chanqes: 7.la&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-0641 (Milazzo & Associates) (Ward 6) Public portion of the hearing opened. Staff report given recommending denial. Commissioner Tragish declared a conflict of interest on this project. David Milazzo, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the project and against staff's recommendation. He gave an overview of the project including favorable comments from adjacent property owners. Frank St. Clair spoke on behalf of the Winter Park Homeowners Association. They stated they were in favor of rezoning the area. There is a canal and a sump in between them that should buffer any noise and disturbance that might possibly come with the shopping center. Frank Tripicchio, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation. He stated he is not convinced that the evidence that has been provided supports the applicant's position. Nothing that has been submitted refutes the study and recommendation given the Commission by city staff. He feels that there is a lot of vacant land that still needs to be developed before a real need is proven for the rezoning of a "fourth" corner which goes against the general plan. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner McGinnis said that both sides have put on a convincing argument but that he agrees with Mr. Tripicchio as well as staff. There are a lot of commercially zoned properties in the area that are not being used and he feels that at this point in time he would agree with the recommendation made by staff. Commissioner Gay asked if the southeast corner that was approved for commercial approved Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 7 with a PCD? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Gay asked if the city has an ordinance preventing truck wells from being at the rear of the property if the property is adjacent to residential in a C-2 zoning? Mr. Grady said no but the noise that may be generated from that activity is required to be mitigated. Commissioner Gay said he opposed the southeast corner in November primarily because it was adjacent to the residents. At that time he felt the northwest corner would be more appropriate because of the canal being there for a buffer. Commissioner Gay said he supports the project. Commissioner Ellison asked if this area could use more or less density? Mr. Grady said he did not know the answer to that question at that moment. Commissioner Ellison said that what makes this site good for commercial development (the natural buffers) also makes it good for multi-family. Commissioner Ellison said that he thinks it would be premature at this time to let it go commercial. He feels that the current land use designation and current zoning is the best use for this property. He would support staff's recommendation to deny the request. Commissioner Gay said that if he supported this project it would be with a PCD on it. Mr. Grady said that the project is actually 11.62 acres in size but the actual number that was used for the traffic study is 17.83 gross acres. There were no other Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Gay 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 (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 17.83 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 and recommend same to the City Council. Mr. Grady said that staff's recommendation was for denial. We don't have all of the conditions to go with a recommendation for approval. If the motion is going to pass, he recommended that they continue this item until the next meeting so that conditions could be developed that would need to be applied to the project. Specifically, the conditions regarding improvements from Public Works. Mr. Grady said that a motion could be made on the general plan amendment as proposed. If it passes, the zone change could be continued until the next meeting. Commissioner Gay's motion died for lack of a second. Motion made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the request for general plan amendment to change the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 17.83 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Ellison, McGinnis NOES: Commissioner Gay, Tkac ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Tragish Due to the failure of the general plan amendment, there was no action taken on the zone change. 7.2a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-1144 (David Dmohowski) (Ward 3) Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 8 Public portion of the hearing opened. Staff report given recommending approval subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Dave Dmohowski, representing Rio Grande Limited, stated they agreed with staff's recommendation and the conditions of approval. Mr. Dmohowski stated that the applicant has agreed to a pro-rata fair share contribution to a traffic signal at Miramonte and Highway 178. They also asked that the city consider adding the Miramonte/178 signal improvement to the list of projects included in the transportation improvement fee program so that the basis is spread over a larger number of future residential lots. Public portion of the hearing closed. Commissioner Tragish asked if there has ever been an air quality study in this area? Mr. Grady said the decision as to whether or not we do an additional air quality analysis is done on a case- by-case basis but there was an air quality analysis for the entire Metropolitan planning area that was included in the EIR that was just certified for the general plan update. Commissioner Gay asked if there is anything that needs to be stipulated in the motion regarding the contribution for the traffic signal? Mr. Grady said it would need to be part of the motion. Commissioner Gay said he would support staff's recommendation with the contribution. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to change the land use designation from LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 20.70 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 incorporating the comments by Dmohowski tonight that a pro-rata share of the signal at Miramonte and 178 be incorporated into this and work with staff and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 20.70 as shown on Exhibit 2 incorporating the contribution as stated by Mr. Dmohowski on a pro-rata basis for the signal at 178 and Miramonte and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley 7.3a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-1248 (Porter-Robertson Eng) (Ward 4) Staff report given at Monday's pre-meeting. This was removed from the Consent Agenda by Commissioner Tragish. Staff is available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 9 Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition. Darcy Larman, representing Coleman Homes, stated they are recommendation and available to answer Commissioner questions. Public 3ortion of the hearing closed. here to support staff's Commissioner Tragish stated that he requested this be removed from the Consent Agenda because of a memorandum the Commission received from Mr. Grady regarding a letter from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The letter said that this application will not cause an increase in emission but future buildout emissions have a potential to exceed the district's thresholds and it goes on to state that perhaps now is the time to add some mitigation measures to cut into any particles that may build up over the threshold levels. Commissioner Tragish asked what type of testimony do they have to have this evening to have the ability to suggest or require any of the mitigations that were set out in Pages 2, 3 and 4 of the letter from SJVAPCD as part of the approval of the application? Mr. Grady said that it is a boiler plate letter that is sent out based on the size of the project meeting or not meeting some thresholds that they have in their guidelines for evaluating air quality emissions. With respect, to this project, because of the late date of receiving the letter, staff is still responding to this as it develops and the applicant has submitted an evaluation that shows that if they apply the mitigation that is in their letter, it would bring the ROG emissions down to 9.41 which is below the 10 tons per day. Unless the Commission wants a more thorough analysis, which would require a continuance of the project one meeting, staff would recommend that the Commission accept the emissions report that was provided by the applicant tonight and apply mitigation as set forth in the letter from the district. Commissioner Tragish said that at some point in time the city has to address some of the pollution problems and wondered if the Commission has to address them or should it be left up to the City Council? Mr. Grady said that the Planning Commission is charged with prescribing mitigation for environmental impacts from a project and the nature of that mitigation is not something the Commission would defer to the City Council. Commissioner Tragish said he doesn't feel he has had enough time to look at everything in the letter to see if they even apply to the project or even worthwhile to this particular project. He does think that as a Planning Commission they do have to start addressing these particular problems but many of the projects that come through already have the types of mitigation that are described in the letter. Ms. Larman said that they arrived at their calculations showing they could get below the ten ton threshold for ROG and NOX. The thresholds were obtained using standard construction within the Western Rosedale Specific Plan which required bike paths, equestrian paths and additional landscaping over and above the city requirements - not with all of the conditions suggested by the air district. Commissioner Gay asked if some of the issues raised by SJVAPCD are already incorporated through the process and if the general plan and zone change are approved tonight, if staff will be working with the applicant to bring him into compliance? Mr. Grady said there are some standard mitigation measures that the city has through our normal process that address some of the concerns expressed by the air district. Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Gay asked if the project were to be approved tonight, should they recommend attaching the items in the letter from the air pollution control district, or should they be more definitive or should they say the applicant should work with staff? Mr. Grady said that based on what the applicant is saying and staff who has worked on the project with the applicant it could be approved tonight but if the Commission is not comfortable with it, then the project should be continued so staff can provide the Commission something in writing that clearly identifies what the mitigation measures are that would take it below the 13 point something that was shown in the report from the district down to the 9 point something that the applicant is saying tonight. Commissioner Ellison said he feels that a lot of the air quality issues and questions could be solved with a workshop. Commissioner Ellison said that he would support a continuance on this project tonight but also would be in favor of an air quality workshop. Commissioner Tragish said he would like to look at the letter and read the staff report again. He might have some suggestions. He wants to make sure they are consistent and if they are going to address this project, then they need to address all the projects that come in. He would like a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Grady said there seems to be some confusion as to what is going on with the letter that was received from the air pollution control district on this project and how we handle the air quality issue on individual projects as well as how we handled it in the EIR. We are not ignoring air quality as a problem. We are evaluating it and addressing it in each project. The issue with this project is that we received a late letter from the district. The letter supplied some standard boiler plate language that they typically provide us with when they respond to a project. Sometimes the letter says it falls below the threshold. This is simply a matter where we received a late letter from the APCD. They provided us with an emissions evaluation on the project that said it exceeded the standards. The applicant provided a sheet with no backup saying what they would have to do to achieve these numbers. They provided you with that information tonight. It is not a representation of us having a problem with respect to addressing air emission on past or future projects. Commissioner Tkac asked how this letter is different? Mr. Grady said it is because they are actually suggesting mitigation that could be done to bring it down. They are not saying which ones would get it down. They are saying that if we apply the standard construction methods and run it through the model, the emissions fall below the threshold. Commissioner Tkac asked if there is a possibility that the standards have been moved up? Mr. Grady said no that what changes from project to project is the number of units. The size of the project determines what kind of letter the district will write. Commissioner Gay said that what he is hearing is that the Commissioners are not comfortable because staff has not had time to evaluate what the applicant has just given them today. He asked the applicant if they would consider continuing this project until April 3 to give staff time to understand their proposals to bring it under compliance. Mr. Porter said that they would be willing to continue it for two weeks to go over it with staff. Mr. Porter said that the APCD analyzed this assuming the worst case scenario and their layout is not that dense. They are proposing 390 units instead of the 479 units that could be packed on the property. Commissioner Tragish said he fully understands what Mr. Grady is saying but feels that the problems are cumulative as the neighborhood builds up and as roads become more used. What they can do about the problem may be better served in a committee or workshop. Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 11 There were no other Commissioner comments. Public portion of the hearing re-opened. Commissioner Tragish made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to continue Agenda Item 7.3a&b, General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 02-1248 until April 3, 2003. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac None Commissioner Blockley 7.4a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 03-0002 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 7) See Consent Agenda 7.5a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 03-0005 (Gh. Mollagha Semi Tagrizi) (Ward 7) See Consent Agenda 7.6a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 03-0009 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 5) Public portion of the hearing opened. Staff report given recommending approval with conditions. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Roger Mclntosh, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He requested that a PCD not be placed on the project. He then gave some history of the property. Property owners in the area agreed to be annexed into the city some time ago with C-2 and C-1 zoning. There were no PCD requirements placed on this site or any of the sites in the area. They are simply swapping one site for another. They feel the swap is good planning and cleanup for the fact that Pacheco Road will not be there in the future and they are merely putting it at the corner of an arterial and a collector which is where it should be. Mr. Mclntosh requested that there be one change in condition number one of Exhibit 2. He is requesting the deletion of the reference to Tract 6156. They feel it is inappropriate to reference a tract that may expire in 3 or 5 years, etc. The general plan should take priority over subdivisions. The developers of the residential properties to the north and to the east do not have a problem with the C-2 designation. Public portion of the hearing closed. Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 12 Commissioner McGinnis said there seems to be an equal swap from C-1 to R-1 and asked Mr. Mclntosh why they aren't going from C-1 to R-1 on the other one? Mr. Mclntosh said the property owner requested the C-2 designation. They looked at the impacts from traffic and air quality and found the trip generation off of the site would be the same. There is no other C-2 site within the area. They feel the area would be underserved with the C-2 designation. Commissioner Gay asked staff if the modification to Exhibit 2 is a concern to staff? Ms. Shaw said that Public Works has no objection. He doesn't agree with staff as to its being a equal swap. Commissioner Tragish said that he raised the PCD issue at the pre-meeting because of his concern that this property is on the far reaches of the city and this development will infringe upon the neighborhood and C-2 is an all inclusive zoning and you can put just about anything in there. He doesn't think it is an equal swap. He doesn't agree with Mr. Mclntosh about a PCD not having an equal advantage with the C-1 properties. He is at a better position and at a better corner. Commissioner Tragish said the reason he recommended a PCD was to have some type of control over the project when and if the actual site plan or development of the property comes up for review to make sure it is comparable and consistent with the area around it. Commissioner Tragish said he would like a PCD imposed on this project. Commissioner Gay said that from a real estate point of view he would support Commissioner Tragish's proposal for the fact that if for some reason it slips through the cracks and the neighbors do not get noticed at least there would be some control and a little more protection. Commissioner Ellison said that from a land use standpoint it looks like a good swap and through the other Commissioner comments, he would also support a PCD on this project. There were no other Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to change the land use designation from GC (General Commercial) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 11.98 acres and LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 13.90 acres as shown in Exhibit A and to delete in Condition 1, of Exhibit 2 any reference to Tentative Tract 6156 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 11.98 acres and R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to C-2 PCD (Regional Commercial-Planned Commercial Development) on 13.90 acres as shown in Exhibit B and to delineate any reference to Tentative Tract 6156 in Condition 1 of Exhibit 2 of the zone change and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 13 ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley 7.7a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 03-0047 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 4) Public portion of the hearing opened. Staff report given recommending approval with conditions. Dawn Silberberg, a resident on Birchhaven Avenue, spoke against the project. Her first concern is that all of the lots in the area are 18,000 square feet. She feels that if these lots are moved down to 10,000 square feet, it is not consistent with what they now have in the area. Her second concern is that the property has a two or three foot higher elevation than her property and if two- story houses are built her privacy will be ruined. She stated a concern about traffic on Jewetta and said that she feels strongly that these lots should be a minimum of 18,000 square feet. Norman Stone, a resident of Birchhaven whose lot would be next to the project, spoke against the project. He said that this could lead to a situation where his back lot would be contiguous to three other homes and it would diminish his property value. And, if a two-story house would go in, it would diminish his view and also his property value as it now stands. He feels that traffic would be a problem also. With Liberty High School there is already a traffic problem. Mitchell Westner, owner of the property, said he is available to answer any questions. Public portion of the hearing closed. Commissioner Tkac asked if there are any elevation problems with the areas? Mr. Grady said he did not know. Commissioner Tkac asked if there are any plans to widen Jewetta? Ms. Shaw said that this segment of Jewetta is in the county. If it were annexed, they would be obtaining the right-of-way and widening Jewetta as they go. They have been trying to work on this piece for a long while but they are somewhat hampered because it is in the county. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Westner what he is proposing for this property? Mr. Westner said if the concern is about two story homes he would agree to the homes on that side of the street being limited to one-story. Commissioner Tragish said that the 10,000 sq. ft. lots would change the nature of the area. This is a somewhat rural area with larger lots and with many residents having large animals. Commissioner Tragish asked if all of Jewetta is in the county? Ms. Shaw displayed on the overhead what portion is in the county. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Walker if he had any opinion as to whether or not this project would cause substantial traffic congestion problems other than what is there? Mr. Walker said that any increase in traffic will cause that whether it is one house or twenty. It will be a problem until Jewetta is widened out and fully developed. It is now a choke point in the county area. It cannot be widened until there is development along the county side of the road. Commissioner Tragish said the real issue is whether this project is comparable and consistent with the neighborhood and he doesn't think it is but would like to hear from the other Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 14 Commissioners. Commissioner Gay said he has a concern that there is no comprehensive plan. Commissioner Gay asked if the Commission could restrict the lot size to 14,000 sq.ft, or better so that it will be consistent with the area? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Gay said that he would support the project with the designation of a minimum size lot of 14,000 sq.ft. Commissioner McGinnis asked if this is a county island? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner McGinnis asked if there are any plans to annex any of the other parcels to the city? Mr. Grady said no. Commissioner McGinnis said the neighbors have submitted some good concerns. He thinks the problem is mainly Jeweta and until something is done to it, he feels it will remain somewhat of a traffic problem. Commissioner McGinnis said he doesn't see any reason to deny the application and would support it as it stands now. Commissioner Ellison said he agrees with Mr. Stone in requesting a comprehensive plan for the twenty acres. He asked staff if there is a possibility of the four parcels grouping together and coming in with a comprehensive plan? Mr. Grady said there was an application on the northwest corner of Brimhall and Jewetta and during that time there was some discussion about zoning and other uses but not about coming in as a planned development. Commissioner Tragish said he likes Commissioner Gay's comments. He sees it as a compromise. He feels that future applications will keep a continuity and does not see the need for a comprehensive plan. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Westner if he had an objection to the Commission requiring a minimum lot size of 14,000 sq.ft? Mr. Westner said they were planning on 12 to 14,000 sq.ft. lots and he said yes he would be willing to do that. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to change the land use designation from ER (Estate Residential) to SR (Suburban Residential) with a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet on 4.77 acres as shown in Exhibit A-2 attached draft resolution and recommend same to the City Council. Dawn Silberberg requested that the motion include a restriction of two-story houses on the north side. Mr. Stone requested some sort of alignment with the fence line on the property to the north. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Grady for a response to that request and was told by Mr. Grady that there is no requirement that the lot lines line up with each other. Commissioner Tragish asked if the motion should include a condition that there be no two-story houses built on the north side? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Tkac asked if the applicant would like to respond to that. Mr. Westner said he has agreed to the 14,000 sq.ft, lots and he would not like to be held to that condition also. He is accepting the 14,000 sq.ft, lots and would like it to stand at that. Motion denied by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 15 AYES: Commissioner McGinnis NOES: Commissioner Ellison, Gay, Tragish, Tkac ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to change the land use designation from ER (Estate Residential) to SR (Suburban Residential) on 4.77 acres with the provision that the lots will be a minimum of 14,000 square feet and that there will be no second story buildings constructed on the north part of the lots as shown on Exhibit A-2 and attached draft resolution. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Ellison, Gay, Tragish, Tkac NOES: Commissioner McGinnis ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley Commissioner McGinnis said that he voted no because he approves of the project the way it is designed and feels the applicant has made his concessions for the 14,000 sq.ft, lots and he thinks it is irregular that they are restricting him from building two story houses on any of his property. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from RS-5A (Residential Suburban-five acre minimum) to E/14K (Estate) on 4.77 acres including the second story prohibition that was stated in the prior general plan motion as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached to draft resolution and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Ellison, Gay, Tragish, Tkac NOES: Commissioner McGinnis ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley general 8. Commissioner McGinnis said he entered the no vote to be consistent with his vote on the plan. COMMUNICATIONS: None 9. ~COMMISSION COMMENTS: Minutes, PC, March 20, 2003 Page 16 Commissioner Tragish said he has a concern about the cumulative effects of approving some projects where they are close to the threshold that is put down by the air pollution control district. He is not sure if a workshop is necessary but he would like to see some guidance from staff or the other Commissioners. Commissioner Ellison said that for quite a while he has wanted a workshop on air quality issues and he feels like now would be a good time to have a workshop for educational purposes. One of his concerns is how to apply appropriate mitigations to the larger projects? He thinks they need to learn how to deal properly with air quality and development. He requested a workshop. Commissioner Tkac said it wouldn't be a bad idea to get an update on the air quality situation and whether or not there are changes that they need to know about. Commissioner Tragish said he would like a workshop. There are a lot of people that make presentations regarding what is available and what is being done by the South Coast District. His concern is that Bakersfield has a lot of development going on and he doesn't want to do anything that would add more work to staff. He thinks it would be worthwhile if staff can do it sometime in the future during the next 60 days so that staff can work it in their busy schedule. 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- 11. MEETING: It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on March 31,2003. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary April 22, 2003 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director