Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 16, 2003 Pre-Mtg.Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Gay, Tragish, Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer Commissioner Tkac Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Marc Gauthier, Jim Movius, Pam Townsend Vice-Chairman Tragish conducted the meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of May 1,2003. 4.1b Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the vacation of the 20-foot th th wide alley west of Chester Avenue between 26 and 27 Streets (Block 486). (City of Bakersfield) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 2) 4.1c Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the vacation of the flowage and drainage easement and the temporary access and storm drain easements westerly of South "H" Street, between Berkshire Road and Hosking Avenue (in Tentative Tract No. 5738). (City of Bakersfield). (Ward 7) 4.1d Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on Tract 6045 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 5) Mr. Grady said they would be adding agenda item 4.1e which is an acquisition of some property as a buffer zone next to the city landfill. Commissioner Lomas asked why vesting rights were denied in 1988 on agenda item 4.1d? Mr. Grady said that they would have an answer by Thursday night. Minutes, PC, June 16, 2003 Page 2 Commissioner Tragish asked if the consistency finding that will be added to the agenda for Thursday has been properly noticed? Mr. Gauthier said it is not a public hearing and all that is necessary is posting of the agenda. There were no other questions from the Commission concerning the non-public hearing items. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approve withdrawal by applicant of GPA 01-1023 (David Dmohowski) (Ward 4) There were no questions from the Commission concerning the public hearing item. will be voted on Thursday night. Item 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Chanqes: 5.1a,b&c) General Plan Amendment/ZC 03-0014 and Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Marino Associates) (Ward 4) Commissioner Gay declared a conflict of interest on this project. Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions. Staff is recommending C-2 instead of a C-2 with a PCD overlay. Commissioner Lomas asked if on this project they had a choice of imposing a future air quality impact fee? Mr. Gauthier said yes that we gave them the option that if in two or three years when they have commercial development or the homes coming in, that if we had an area-wide answer, they could use that. If we don't have an area-wide answer, they can use other options. They can agree to a future fee that is not yet set. Commissioner Lomas asked if the same thing can be done on a traffic impact fee as the future fee may be higher than the one today? Mr. Grady said that in practice any fee which is adopted between the time the general plan is approved and the map is filed, will be applicable to the map when it is filed. In this case, the mitigation is being proposed and because it is new staff had discussions with the applicant to make them aware that this is something that could happen in the future and would be an option available to them. The traffic impact fee is already in place and is already being identified as mitigating traffic related impacts. Commissioner Lomas asked if the fee is not imposed until a map is drawn why do the conditions refer to a specific fee? Mr. Grady said it is a fee that is applied when the subdivision is approved. Mr. Gauthier said they want to make the applicants aware of what the fee is right nOW. Commissioner Tragish asked if this indirect source payment in the future condition would be in addition to any traffic impact fee that is paid now? Mr. Gauthier said yes. It is a separate issue. It is an addition. Commissioner Blockley asked if this is a case of leapfrog development? Mr. Gauthier said no. Minutes, PC, June 16, 2003 Page 3 He said that he will bring a more current map on Thursday showing the area. The general plan map shows county-approved development five miles to the west. Commissioner Blockley said there is Ag surrounding the project and it seems to be out there by itself except for residential across the street. Mr. Gauthier said that may be one of the reasons Commissioner Blockley might choose not to vote for it - to let other development take place first. That point of view is another school of thought. Commissioner Ellison asked if the SJVAPCD will determine whether the mitigations for air quality are reached? Mr. Gauthier said yes. Commissioner Lomas asked for a map of the subdivision to the west. She wants to see how the commercial site lines up with the southern border of the site. She asked how far away and how big is the large commercial site that was approved by the Rosedale Specific Plan from this site? Mr. Gauthier said he would have the answers by Thursday. Commissioner Lomas said that since the site configuration is changed if this is within % mile of the other commercial to the west? Mr. Gauthier said he will show on a map the commercial designations within the area but the staff report discusses where each commercial is and how big they are. He will check to see if the % mile has changed. Commissioner Tragish said that it is his understanding that if the applicant agrees to participate in the car crushing condition, he does not have to pay an indirect source payment in the future. Mr. Gauthier said yes that is correct. Commissioner Tragish asked who supervises the car crushing? Mr. Gauthier said it is the oversight of the air pollution control district. Commissioner Tragish asked how they determine that enough cars are crushed or how many needs to be crushed? Mr. Gauthier said that you give someone the make, model and year of a car, they can tell you how much pollution it puts out. Commissioner Tragish asked if a project is in compliance today, will it be in compliance 5 years from now? Mr. Grady said it will not change. The emissions that are generated from that project today are fixed emissions based on how many units will be built and how many trips will be generated. Commissioner Tragish asked if the C-2 will be a regional center and if they can put anything they want in there? Mr. Gauthier said it will probably be a Neighborhood Commercial and yes they can put just about anything on the site. Commissioner Tragish asked if the applicant owns most if not all of the land in the block area? Mr. Gauthier said yes. Commissioner Tragish asked if it wouldn't be more practicable to bring the whole piece in now for rezoning rather than piecemeal? Mr. Gauthier said he doesn't know the owner's agricultural plans. He is actively farming. There is nothing in State law or local ordinance that prevents him from doing it this way. Commissioner Tragish said he agrees with Commissioner Blockley that the whole area is pretty heavy agricultural. While the general plan and zoning may have changed on some of this property, realistically it is still pretty solid agricultural and to a certain degree it seems like they are jumping out to that area. Commissioner Tragish asked why staff dropped the PCD? It would seem that it would lend itself to this type of commercial zoning in this particular type of area. Mr. Gauthier said that it was put Minutes, PC, June 16, 2003 Page 4 on inadvertently. Typically, the Planning Commission adds that because of some unusual circumstance or controversy by adjoining property owners. From staff's perspective this is a very typical neighborhood commercial use adjacent to lands that are of compatible land use. Commissioner Tragish asked what triggers an EIR? Does the project have to be of a certain size? Mr. Gauthier said there are different thresholds for any particular environmental issue so there are different sizes and land uses which would necessitate an EIR. For instance, air quality when going over ten tons. Agricultural tends to be over 100 acres in size. Commissioner Tragish asked staff to find out by Thursday whether or not the applicant owns over 100 acres adjacent to each other. There were no other Commissioner comments. Items will be voted on Thursday night. 5.2a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 03-0339 (Kyle Carter Homes) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions. Applicant has requested this item be put on the consent agenda for Thursday night. Commissioner Tragish said he was concerned about losing over 6,000 sq.ft, of open space. Mr. Gauthier said this is a golf course, not a park. There were no Commissioner comments. Items will be voted on Thursday night. 5.3a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 03-0343 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 1) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions. Applicant has requested this item be put on the consent agenda for Thursday night. Commissioner Gay wondered why without this project the Level of Service for seven of the 12 intersections is C, D, E & F but when they put the project in, it looks like it improves slightly to C, D & B? Ms. Shaw said she would have to refer to the traffic division for an answer to this question. Commissioner Gay asked why the traffic impact fee was based on 400 units instead of 360? He said an answer by Thursday would be sufficient. Commissioner Ellison requested a copy of the air quality study. Commissioner Lomas asked if there is an advantage to a developer to ask for a PUD instead of just an R-1 zoning? Mr. Gauthier said there is if what he has in mind is an unusual or optional subdivision. When he wants to look at the development all at once, his vehicle is for a PUD. He wants to go down a specialized road to make this development work. Commissioner Tragish asked that since this is a PUD if it would come back to the Planning Commission or would it be under staff's review? Mr. Gauthier said it would be a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission. There were no other Commissioner comments. Items will be voted on Thursday night. Minutes, PC, June 16, 2003 Page 5 5.4a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe No. 03-0362 (Robert Dean) (Ward 1) Staff report given recommending approval. Commissioner Tragish asked staff for the benefit of the new members to reiterate the standard of review for general plan amendments as far as the level of the Commission's discretion in determining whether to approve or deny these applications. Mr. Gauthier said that the Commission has the ultimate discretion. They could say it is premature. They don't have to make any findings. They can just deny it. Commissioner Gay asked that since the airport is in the vicinity if there is a need for an H overlay or a covenant that might show a flight pattern? Mr. Gauthier said those zones of compatibility are not mandated for this project but the Commission could if they wish but it would be in addition to, more restrictive than, the existing land use compatibility plan for that particular airpark. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Gauthier to check by Thursday whether this project is in the flight pattern. Commissioner Lomas asked if there is a letter of opposition regarding the project? Mr. Gauthier said no. The adjacent property owner's concern is that this project might infringe on their property rights and for any future plans they might have. Commissioner Spencer said that the ten findings appear to be adequate and he finds no problems with this project in that it is ready for development of residential use. Mr. Gauthier said staff concurs with that observation. Commissioner Tragish asked for a copy of the street and lot design for the R-2 by Thursday. Mr. Gauthier said yes. There were no other Commissioner comments. Items will be voted on Thursday night. 5.Sa&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 03-0394 (City of Bakersfield) (Wards 1-7) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions. Applicant has requested this be placed on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Tragish asked if all of the sites are already built out? Mr. Gauthier said he did not think so. Commissioner Tragish asked if it is inappropriate to lump all of these projects together? Mr. Gauthier said no. Commissioner Spencer asked if all of the property owners were notified of the zone change? Mr. Gauthier said that because there were more than 1,000 property owners, he was allowed by law to use an 1/8 page in the Bakersfield Californian. There were no other Commissioner comments. Items will be voted on Thursday night. 5.6a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 03-0418 (Mark Ponder) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions. Minutes, PC, June 16, 2003 Page 6 Commissioner Gay asked where the "remainder piece" is going to be commercial and if it is larger than five acres.? Mr. Gauthier said he would look into it by Thursday. There were no other Commissioner comments. Items will be voted on Thursday night. Vestinq Tentative Map 6155 (Porter-Robertson Eng) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions. Applicant has requested this item be put on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Tragish asked if it would be inappropriate at this time to ask any of the Commissioners if they have any request to take an item off of the Consent Calendar at this time that they do it now? Ms. Gennaro said she would encourage the Commission do that. There were no other Commissioner comments. Items will be voted on Thursday night. Commissioner Tragish asked the Commission if there are any items the Commission wants off of consent at this time? Commissioner Lomas said that since all of these are General Plan Amendments she doesn't feel that any of them should be put on consent. Ms. Gennaro said that they routinely put matters on the General Plan Amendment calendar on consent as long as the Commission does not have any additional questions. A member of the public can also have it removed on Thursday night. Ms. Gennaro then reiterated what items would be on the consent calendar: 5.1a,b&c would not be on the consent calendar; 5.2a&b would be on the consent calendar; 5.3a&b would be on the consent calendar; 5.4a&b also if staff has answered the Commission's request; 5.5a&b and 5.6a&b and item 6 would all be on the consent calendar. 5.1a,b&c would be the only item left on the regular agenda, Commissioner Gay requested that 5.4a&b not be placed on consent as there are some adjacent property owners that may want to speak. Commissioner Tragish agreed. Commissioner Ellison said he had some questions regarding the air quality study on item 5.3a&b and requested it be pulled off of consent. Ms. Gennaro said that she has been informed by Mr. Grady that the air quality study is in his packet. Commissioner Ellison asked if he would still have the opportunity on Thursday to pull it off of consent if he had questions? Ms. Gennaro said absolutely that all of the Commission has the option to pull anything off of the Consent Calendar on Thursday evening. Commissioner Ellison said that would satisfy him. Commissioner Lomas said that since the presentation stated that there is some opposition from the northern parcel she feels 5.4a&b should not be on the Consent Calendar. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Grady said that in the event there is not a quorum for General Plan Amendments they need four votes of a majority of the sitting body. Not just four of the members present. If there is not an affirmative group of four, they will not be approving the General Plan Amendment. Also, if any of the items are continued, they would not be able to be heard until July 17 as there are no items scheduled for July 3. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: Minutes, PC, June 16, 2003 Page 7 This will be discussed on Thursday. 10. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:46 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Ju~y 25, 2003 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director