Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 18, 2004 (2) PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF March 18, 2004— 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gay, Tragish, Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac Absent: None Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Jim Movius, Marc Gauthier, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of January 15, 2004. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items - None 5. PUBLIC HEARING —Tentative Parcel Map 11013 (McIntosh and Associates) (Ward 3) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report and including a memorandum from Mr. Grady dated March 15, 2004 modifying condition number 29.2 and a memo from Marian Shaw deleting condition number 3 and revising condition number 18. The following were corrections to the staff report: References to Section 17 on Page 2 should read Section 19. The table on Page 3 references Section 19 when it should say Section 17. Public portion of the hearing opened. Minutes, PC, March 18, 2004 Page 2 Brett Jolley spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation of approval. He stated that the Negative Declaration was not properly prepared. He then gave the Commission a 3-page handout showing guidelines as to how initial studies are to be prepared, and excerpts from the initial study. He stated that the box checked for air quality in the initial study prepared for the project was inconsistent with the determination that a mitigated negative declaration was proposed. Based on air quality impacts, his opinion is an EIR should be prepared instead of a negative declaration. Roger McIntosh, representing the applicant, stated they agree with the staff report and the memo dated March 18 from Marian Shaw. Mr. McIntosh said that condition number 3 on the memo should actually be condition number 4. He stated he is available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Blockley asked Mr. Grady to provide the Commission with a brief overview of how the EIR went for this project. Mr. Grady said the entire City in the Hills project was evaluated in an EIR. One of the principles of CEQA is not to have redundancy in the environmental review process. This project envisioned a parcel map and it was evaluated as part of the EIR. There was a finding that even with mitigation there would still be an air quality issue and a Statement of Overriding Consideration was done. An EIR is done to evaluate impacts, mitigate those that can be mitigated and those that you are unable to mitigate a Statement of Overriding Consideration is made. That was done for air quality for this project. Another EIR does not have to be done to arrive at the same point. Commissioner Tragish stated that he feels Mr. Jolley's comments are out of context due to the extensive work that has already been done regarding the EIR. He also said that right now there is a lot of sensitivity in the community about air quality and these things are looked at very thoroughly. He feels Mr. Grady addressed the issue more than adequately. Commissioner Tragish also said that Mr. Jolley should read the comments in the staff report and EIR because there are a lot of comments and mitigation in them that addresses all of the things that were raised in the negative declaration. Commissioner Lomas asked Ms. Shaw how the phasing plan and the deferred improvements go together? Ms. Shaw said the phasing plan makes provision for the major infrastructure improvements. The requirements for the phasing plan reads that all of the infrastructure requirements for that phase have to be complete before the first final tract map can be recorded in the area. Commissioner Gay said that there are about 38 conditions, mitigations and a variety of issues that deal with this parcel map and asked if there will be additional conditions put on each tract map. Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Tragish asked Ms. Shaw at what point in time 178 will be widened where it fronts this tract to the north? Ms. Shaw said the specific plan line for 178 goes diagonally above the R- 2 and C-2 area and they are responsible for reserving that right-of-way. The construction of the freeway is a regional project. Old 178 will be widened with Phase 5. Commissioner Ellison asked if the Statement of Overriding Considerations in the City in the Hills EIR would apply to future tract maps if they exceed the level of significance? Mr. Grady said the air quality studies that came in with the maps mitigated the admissions below the ten ton Minutes, PC, March 18, 2004 Page 3 threshold. That is all we require. Commissioner Spencer asked Ms. Shaw about the improvements that were deferred. Ms. Shaw said the improvements were just deferred until a later date— not waived. Commissioner Tragish asked if 178 should be widened before Phase 5? Ms. Shaw said that phases have to be evaluated sequentially so that we know what end will be started when putting a condition on a phase. For Alfred Harrell Highway an additional two lanes is on the Transportation Impact Fee program. At the time that the Public Works Director and the Traffic Engineer says that we need to start looking at designing that roadway, and it is ahead of Phase 5, they will do it. If they do it, they will get credit against the Transportation Impact Fee. If we do it, they don't get credit. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11013 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A and incorporate the revisions shown in the Planning Director's memo of March 15, 2004 and incorporate the revisions set forth in Marian Shaw's memo of March 18, 2004 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac, Gay NOES: None ABSENT: None 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Changes: 6.1a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 03-1169 (McIntosh &Assoc.) (Ward 4) Public portion of the hearing opened on December 18, 2004. Mr. Grady said there is a request from the applicant to continue this item until the next General Plan cycle and that staff is recommending approval of the request. No one spoke either for against the request for continuance. There were no Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to continue this item until the next general plan cycle. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac, Gay NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, March 18, 2004 Page 4 6.2a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 03-1473 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Ward 5) Public portion of the hearing opened. Mr. Grady brought to the Commission's attention a memorandum dated March 10 which provides some modifications to conditions that include 1a,b&c) and he also told the Commission that on page 8 of the initial study the boxes that were checked should have been checked "less than significant impact" instead of"no impact" and that page 9 of the response to comments states that implementation of the standards of Chapter 15.66 mitigates impacts to less than significant with mitigation. Mr. Grady then gave a staff report recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Joseph Austin, an engineer with the California Department of Oil and Gas, said they believe the discussion offered under Roman Numeral X for Mineral Resources would be more appropriate under the hazard section as it relates to how the public will be protected with oil field operations. They disagree with the "no impact" assessment and propose that the impact should be recognized as "potentially significant." Mr. Austin says that a discussion needs to be made on mitigation of the significant impacts to the oil field associated with the proposed change in land use and zoning. Without mitigation, such as a DI zoning, residential development is incompatible with oil fields. He then showed the Commission a map showing oil wells on the site that are idle, and are plugged and abandoned. He then gave his professional opinion that there may be some untapped oil sands behind casing that the operator hasn't tested. He has been in communication with the operator of record of the oil well and who stated that he did not have a record of a quit claim. Mr. Austin then passed out to the Commission a response they had to a letter received from Richard Dole dated March 12 which he didn't get a chance to look at until today (which is why it was submitted so late). One of the things they note is that the process for residential encroachment into oil fields is not consistent across city/county boundaries. If this were in the county, a residential development would end up with the residences and the oil wells and facilities with zoned drilling islands around them. The zone change is held in suspense until the tract map is recorded. This land use change and zone change does not recognize the oil field that this particular oil well drilled in the 1970's which produced many barrels of oil. It has been idle for several years but they see some significant potential. He stated he is available for any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Gay asked if they are making a specific request relative to the idle well? Mr. Austin said they believe the proper way to mitigate residential encroachment into an oil field is to include a DI zoning that would recognize and protect the oil field. Trish Harbinson, representing the applicant, spoke in favor a staff's recommendation. Regarding the drill site necessity, they feel that the appropriate time to address the issue is at the tentative map. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Grady if he thinks it is appropriate to put in a drill island at this time or at the time of the mapping? Mr. Grady said that he does not think it is appropriate at this time. He feels that it is the property owners and the mineral holders decision. That usually occurs early, if there are some early agreements, or at the time of the subdivisions when it is required that you either have the signatures waiving mineral interests or you provide a drill site where they can still drill for oil. Mr. Grady said we have ordinances in place to address that Minutes, PC, March 18, 2004 Page 5 issue. Commissioner Ellison asked if there are any lands zoned DI in the City of Bakersfield? Mr. Grady said there may be some in the northeast but without looking at a map he can't say for certain. Commissioner Ellison said the difference between DI zoning and a drill site is that a DI zoning allows drilling by right and a drill site requires a conditional use permit. Mr. Grady said that is correct. Commissioner Ellison said there is a difference between how the county and city handles the producing well issues. The DI zoning is definitely more conducive to further drilling activities. He feels that it is time the city start to consider a DI zoning and specifically placing these DI zones. Commissioner Ellison said as far as this project goes, a drill site might be adequate with the location of this well. But, he suggested that as we move through expanding the Sphere of Influence and further general plan amendments and conversion of ag land, that we strategically place and put DI zoning in the city. Commissioner Ellison asked Mr. Grady to explain the following statement from the staff report: (under soil quality) "the conversion of this project site to urbanization is appropriate for this area." Mr. Grady said the response is saying with respect to the soil type that it wasn't unique enough to suggest that the site should not be urbanized being that it is in the path of urban development, Commissioner Ellison said he does not know if that is enough of a conclusion for him to support the finding under soil quality. Just because the soil is not unique just furthers the argument that we should be doing it very carefully and under extreme consideration. The Commission is charged with interpreting and maintaining the general plan policies. Mr. Grady said that most of the land that is developed in the area is prime ag land. The general plan envisions that prime ag land would be consumed. When we do ag land conversion studies, we are not looking at the loss of just this one square, we are looking at ag land throughout the entire county as a percentage of what is available and as a percentage of what is lost. He has a table that shows that land is both lost and created. There is land that becomes better irrigated. The soil gets improved so that it can support agricultural crops. If the property is within the City of Bakersfield, it is going to be developed. That is the point of doing the general plan — to provide for areas that you will grow into. The Commission needs to understand that they will be converting ag land. The question is — does this conversion make sense in terms of the growth and development activity that is happening within that section of the city? There is no other way for the city to grow without some of this ag land being consumed. Commissioner Ellison said that one of the findings that must be made is the need to convert this land. He assumes the need would be because we need to build more homes and that it appears to him that the Housing Element had an inventory of adequate land zoned for housing to meet the housing needs of the city. How does conversion of new ag land and adding to that inventory satisfy the need if the need is already satisfied? Mr. Grady said you don't wait until the demand is overwhelming and you have no land to provide. You are providing land ahead of development. Commissioner Ellison asked whether the conversion of the subject site would put at risk the Williamson Act lands through pesticide restrictions or that we build homes there and people will complain about the dust. Mr. Grady said there are 640 acres in this section. Seventy-six of it is Minutes, PC, March 18, 2004 Page 6 under Williamson Act Contract. The majority of that property in that section is not going to be impacted by this site converting to an urban land use. The property to the east of this site on the corner is already designated for urban development. Commissioner Spencer said that he agrees with Commissioner Ellison and that the findings in the report are very weak for the conversion of this plan to urbanization. He feels that the site is located in an area of prime farmland and soils. Although it is located within the City of Bakersfield, Commissioner Spencer feels that we can't arbitrarily come out and say that the conversion of this land is appropriate which is under policy 14. If you have Williams Act Contract lands adjacent to the parcels that are under consideration now, we know that you can't utilize that property in a manner that is usable for farming or it is going to be restricted. Commissioner Spencer said that he cannot support the finding that says "it is appropriate for the area." Commissioner Blockley said he supports the conclusion of policy 14 but at the same time it does appear that the soil quality is prime farmland and that there is ample irrigation water available. Those are the things that would weigh against this being considered for conversion of farmland. However, the other eight items under policy 14 could be answered in the other direction. He feels that those eight outweigh the two and it is appropriate to convert it. Commissioner Blockley said he is not sure it needs a DI zoning. He said he feels they would not be serving those property owners if the ag land is converted to residential and made more difficult for mineral owners. Mr. Grady said the drilling operations would be grandfathered in as a result of the zone change if they are in operation now. From his understanding, there has not been activity on the site for some time. If they would want to restart once the zoning is changed, they would need a conditional use permit. Commissioner Lomas asked if the mineral rights owners were notified of the zone change? Mr. Grady said no. They are notified at the map stage. Commissioner Lomas asked how much usable farmland would be lost by having the residential close to the Williamson Act Contract land? Commissioner Lomas feels that a burden would be put on the owner and he would have to pay to get out of the contract. Mr. Grady said the property east of Buena Vista already encumbers what you can do with the ag property. There are residential subdivisions already under construction. The property west of Allen Road already has urban land use designations on it. This project would not cripple ag operations. They are impacted by the residential activity already occurring in the area. Commissioner Lomas asked how much of a buffer zone the farmer would have to provide across Buena Vista to the east? Commissioner Gay said that it is his understanding that the farmer has to hand apply anything within a '/ mile. He would assume the farmer has already been impacted by Buena Vista School which has been there for a long time. Commissioner Tragish said that it is a very difficult decision to make regarding the preservation of agriculture but the fact of the matter is that if we take too strong of a position, an unreasonable position, housing will go through the roof. You will have higher costs. Ms. Harbinson, representing Smithtech USA, said that on the western 20 acres there is a surface waiver on the property. The surface waiver means that the mineral rights owners have waived their right to the surface for 500 feet. Meaning there cannot be a new well drilled on that 20 acres. The idle well is located in that area. There is no waiver on the eastern 40 acres but when the tentative map is submitted the mineral rights owner will then decide what he wants and a drill site would be designed in the map if necessary. Commissioner Tkac said that as long as this developer and the property owner who has sold this property are following the zoning laws and regulations, he thinks this is the highest and best use Minutes, PC, March 18, 2004 Page 7 for this piece of property. If it paid to farm and drill oil on this property, he is sure the property owner would be doing that. This property is in the path of development. Commissioner Ellison said he appreciates all of the Commissioner's comments, but what he sees is a cascading effect where we avoid dealing with the existence of prime ag land there. He will not be supporting this general plan amendment. Commissioner Lomas asked why the Division of Oil and Gas is notified at this time if the mineral rights question doesn't come into effect until the tract map stage? Mr. Grady said that is because it is one of the agencies we are required to send information to at the time we are doing these kinds of projects. It is their job to supervise the drilling operation, maintenance and plugging and abandonment of oil, gas and geothermal wells and the operation, maintenance and removal of tanks and facilities including certain pipelines located in oil and gas fields. Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Austin if it can be addressed at the tract map stage, why is he so adamant that he wants something done at this juncture? Mr. Austin said he is here tonight speaking of the conservation of oil and gas. What they have noted in this process if an R-1 site is approved, when it comes to a tract map, the Commission does not have the authority to condition the tract with a DI zoning. You can only put a drill site zoned R-1 on it which requires a conditional use permit. The mineral owners are different from the well operator at this point. The well operator can drill and operate a well by reason of a lease. Mr. Austin said that the well operator is not aware of signing any quit claim to the lease. If you have a waiver of surface entry from the mineral owner, it is his understanding that if there is an outstanding lease, they may not have the right to waive rights they have granted someone else under a lease. The well operator has told him they have had no notification of this hearing. Commissioner Lomas said it is her understanding that the Commission just needs to make sure it is available. Mr. Grady then discussed the city's policy regarding the drill islands and mineral rights holders. Mr. Grady said that the applicants and mineral rights holders are working behind the scenes to solve this. Every issue out there is not an issue for the Planning Commission or staff to solve. Mr. Grady said that the interest that is in front of them for which they have a decision to make on is the real property interest. If they want to change policy to start notifying mineral owners for zone changes and general plan amendments, it would take a policy change. There is no legal requirement for staff to do that and they don't lose any rights by having those rights exercised at the time they come in with a subdivision. They still will be provided access to minerals. Commissioner Lomas said her biggest concern was the Williamson Act property owner and that concern was alleviated by the school being there. Therefore, she cannot consider this as farmland that needs protection. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 60 + acres as shown in Exhibit 2 and to include the memorandum from Marian Shaw dated March 10, 2004 and reflect that under the Negative Declaration Page 8 (Mineral Rights) that instead of the box being checked "no impact" it should be checked "less than significant impact" and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, March 18, 2004 Page 8 AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Lomas, Tragish, Tkac, Gay NOES: Commissioners Ellison, Spencer ABSENT: None Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from A-20- A (Agricultural-20 acre minimum) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) as shown in Exhibit 2 more fully described in Exhibit 3 and include the memorandum from Marian Shaw dated March 10, 2004 and reflect that under the Negative Declaration Page 8 (Mineral Rights) that instead of the box being checked "no impact" it should be checked "less than significant impact" and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Lomas, Tragish, Tkac, Gay NOES: Commissioner Ellison, Spencer ABSENT: None Commissioner Ellison said that his no vote was explained by his comments that were already in the record. Commissioner Spencer said his comments were also already noted on the record. A ten minute recess was taken. 6.3a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 03-1537 (Marino and Associates) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report and including a memorandum from Stanley Grady modifying some conditions. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Jim Marino, representing the applicant, said they are in agreement with staff. He is available to answer any Commission questions. Paul Ridenour, the applicant, stated they intend to build the entire perimeter of the facility in the first phase. The remainder will be phased but it will look completed from the outside. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tkac asked if they are making provisions for the height of the fence and the RVs that will be stored there? Mr. Marino said that a lot of the RVs are going to be covered and that there are height restrictions on the covers for the first 50 feet and they are very much aware of what the setback would be. Mr. Marino said that if he would like to change condition B1 to add on to the end "within 50 feet of the western project line or the R-1 zoned property to the north" that would be fine with them. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Marino if the height of the poles has anything to do with the number of poles needed? Mr. Marino said a higher light pole would cover more area so that you can ultimately have fewer poles. That is the one condition that has not fully been resolved and they plan to continue working on it. Mr. Marino said that the poles are painted brown and staff does not like the way they look so they are trying to design a pole and being sensitive to the Minutes, PC, March 18, 2004 Page 9 color. They would come back to change that condition if they can come up with something that will work. The lights are fixed but they are also able to change the lights and maintain them from the ground. They went through the site study where they considered how far away you had to be from the backyards of Windchime Court so that you couldn't see the tops of the lights. Commissioner Blockley and Tragish mentioned they had spoken to Mr. Marino about the project. Commissioner Gay asked if any fire access or fire safety was being taken away from the subdivision by the knuckling at Crosswind? Mr. Grady said that if the knuckle is placed there, you can still provide emergency access for fire. It just cleans up the end of the street and it clearly states that this project is not going to be connected with the residential neighborhood. They will have their access off of Wible. Commissioner Gay said he has a concern about air quality and asked why we are giving up on paved RV parking? Why not waive that at the present time? If the air quality comes back at some point and we have to mitigate to get some ROG/Nox or something else, we should be able to have them take the gravel out and put in paving. Commissioner Gay said he sees that as an issue down the road if a lot of dust is being created and asked if they could reserve the right to have them pave it at a future date? Mr. Grady said no. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to change the land use designation from HMR (High Medium Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 15 acres as shown on Exhibit 1 and also to modify the condition that there will be a six foot monument sign instead of a ten foot monument sign and Mr. Grady's memorandum of March 18, 2004 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Gay ABSENT: None Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) on 15 acres for a Derrel's Mini-Storage and recreational vehicle RV storage facility as shown on Exhibit 2, 3 and 4 including a modification to the condition that there will be a six foot monument sign instead of a ten foot monument sign and Mr. Grady's memorandum of March 18, 2004 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Gay ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, March 18, 2004 Page 10 Commissioner Gay said he doesn't think they did enough to help the neighborhood. He disagrees with the 40-foot security cameras that may be looking in back yards and disagrees with the gravel in the RV parking. 6.4a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 03-1545 (Blumer Development) (Ward 3) Commissioner Tragish declared a conflict of interest on this project. Commissioner Blockley left the podium because of illness. Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Public portion of the hearing opened. Jeff Martin, property owner, spoke in opposition to the project. He objected to the project for the following reasons: apartments, lower residential values, increased crime and traffic congestion. Mr. Martin said the neighborhood already has numerous large apartment complexes along Auburn within close proximity to the proposed development. In addition, there is vacant R-2 and R-3 in the immediate area that could be utilized for this purpose. He requested that the following questions be addressed concerning this project: • The traffic analysis letter proposes a maximum of 281 units. The Planning Department suggests 213. • The traffic analysis letter also states the proposed traffic will be distributed east and west along Paladino Drive. Paladino exists as a non-vehicle travel way to Morning Drive. In addition there is existing roadway that connects to Fairfax Road. The City generally requires a traffic study for impacts of additional peak project vehicle trips exceeding 50 per day. Has this requirement for a traffic study been waived? • How does this relate to an air quality study? An air quality study is required if the project exceeds 220 apartment units. Planning suggests 213 and generally 75 percent of the net density. Has the requirement for an air quality study been waived as well or will the number of units be restricted on the development to 219 units? • Where will the secondary access be? • Can a waiver of access be placed along the southerly boundary of the development to ensure that future traffic will not access Bald Eagle Street? • Would like a PUD to give the Commission a chance to review the proposed project as well as the adjacent property owners by public hearing process. Barbara Wetteroth, homeowner in the area, said her concern is the access to the area. Morning Drive seems to be the only north/south access to that area and this would greatly impact all of the people in the area. She would like to know what plans are for traffic access. The increase in density would multiply the traffic. Harold Robertson, representing the applicant, said he would like to address conditions 2 and 3 of the conditions of approval. They have no objections but would like some clarification. He believes the conditions would be applied at the time of development as opposed to the GPA and zone change. He feels the conditions would be more applicable at the time of development of the site. Condition two is the fully executed dedication of Paladino to arterial standards and Minutes, PC, March 18, 2004 Page 11 condition three is a comprehensive drain study to be submitted over the project. They have reviewed the remaining conditions and are in agreement with them. Mr. Robertson said this application is for an R-2 CH and feels that with site plan review there would be an opportunity for the public to comment and he feels that a PUD is not necessary. As far as the comment to restrict the access, he feels that at this point in time, since the scope of the project is not known, if it becomes a church site, then it might be desirable to have access to the south. The site is bounded on the west and the east by Southern California Edison tower lines. On the west side the easement is 150 feet wide and 200 on the east side. It cuts down the area significantly and provides an adequate buffer between this project and any development. The applicant in this case recently sold the property to the east and it is in the process of obtaining construction approval for 173 lots. With that subdivision Morning Drive and Paladino Drive will be constructed to arterial standards per the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Blumer recently received approval for Tract 6202 which is west of the project which will be a private gated community consisting of 100 lots. Paladino will be constructed through these projects from Morning Drive to approximately 2,000 feet west of this project. Public Works has said that Paladino Drive will be graded out to Fairfax and with the increase in construction and traffic impact fees, there is a greater possibility that Paladino Drive will be constructed and tied into Fairfax because there will be a need for circulation. As these projects are developed, there will be enough fees generated that a developer would more than likely want to do that just for circulation and sales within his development. Steve Blumer, the applicant, stated that this site was part of the property to the east and with the tower lines and high pressure gas line, he looked at different things for the best use of the site. He understands the public's concern about apartment complexes and what they may or may not bring. He wants to assure the public about what his intentions are. The proposed properties on both sides of this site are bigger lots, higher dollar, more upscale property than anything in the immediate vicinity and one of the last pieces he will buildout on will be this piece. One of his concerns is whatever he does with this piece will impact his own properties more than any of the properties in the surrounding areas. He has 16 usable acres out of the 30 and he is trying to figure out the best use for the land without deterring from not only the rest of the neighborhood but his properties as well. The maximum amount of density is in the 200 range but he does not want to see that kind of density either. His number one choice would be a Church site. He does not foresee anything being built for sometime. Regarding the concerns about the access, Mr. Blumer said he would be able to address that when they come back with an actual parcel map with some shape or form. He doesn't think a PUD is required or necessary for this project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Ellison stated that he likes this project. The applicant has worked within the constraints of the project site. The R-1 to R-2 CH lends itself well to this type of zone change and general plan amendment. Commissioner Ellison does not agree with a PUD being put on this site. A site plan review could facilitate the development with all the restraints that are already on the project. He also feels that this area could use additional R-2 zoning. Commissioner Ellison asked why a traffic study was not required? Mr. Walker, Traffic Engineer, stated that there was a traffic study. It was not required to have a traffic impact report but there was an analysis done. The traffic analysis showed, with a development of 281 units, 56 additional vehicles over the amount of the existing zoning. Public Works policies state that where there is a general plan amendment, if the expected land uses to intensify would increase Minutes, PC, March 18, 2004 Page 12 the peak hour of more than 100 vehicles, there would need to be a traffic study. The distribution of the traffic will be on Paladino to Morning Drive to Fairfax. He sees no connection to the residential street. It does not connect to the property and it is a good 150 feet away from the southern edge of the property and he has no indication there is going to be a connecting road to the development. Mr. Walker said there will be an increase in traffic on Morning Drive and Paladino. Morning Drive is an arterial. It is designed to carry up to 48,000 cars a day. Commissioner Lomas asked why the project isn't limited to 213 units as mentioned in the staff report in two places? Mr. Grady said because we have never done that. Unless there is some environmental reason, we have not just decided to limit the number of units that a person can build on his project. Commissioner Lomas asked what the maximum number of units are that could built under an R-2 zoning? Mr. Grady said that what has been provided to them is the limitations on the site based on the encumbrances on the site. There is more room between 213 and the upper number that would trigger an air quality study. Our estimate shows it did not trip a cursory analysis before a full blown air quality study has to be done. Commissioner Lomas asked if the Commission is able to put a limitation of 213 units on the site? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Lomas said that with the absence of a PUD, she would like to see a limit of 213 placed on the project. Commissioner Tkac asked about condition two and three and whether or not the applicant's request is possible. Ms. Shaw said she has no problem with that being done Commissioner Gay asked if there is a way this site could go down and eventually access Bald Eagle and/or do we provide waivers of access on mixed uses where we have multiple family and single family and how do we accomplish this? Ms. Shaw said that generally a waiver of access is provided at the map stage. She does not recall the last time they have asked for a waiver of access against a property line that isn't a street but they could do that. Commissioner Gay reiterated that this project could not develop until the developer builds Paladino to the property line if he has not constructed his site to the east? Ms. Shaw said yes. Commissioner Ellison asked Ms. Shaw her recommendations for changing the wording on conditions two and three. Ms. Shaw said her recommendation is that both conditions add the wording preceding the sentences "Upon further subdivision or development of the GPA area, ...." Ms. Shaw said the Commission could require a limit of 213 units and also require access off of Paladino. Mr. Robertson said that if the Commission chooses to place a number on the site limiting the number of units to 213, he would also like to add that the developer would have the option to provide an air quality study if he exceeds that limit to prove that they are still below the thresholds that are allowed. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, 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 29.56 acres as shown in Exhibit 1 and recommend same to City Council including the memo from Stan Grady dated March 18, 2004 adding the condition of approval that the number of units is limited to 213 and if the developer exceeds 213 the developer has the ability to submit an air quality study and provide mitigations as necessary and changing conditions two and three adding the language "Upon further development, the developer shall provide..." and "Upon further development, the developer shall submit...". Motion carried by the Minutes, PC, March 18, 2004 Page 13 following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Gay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Blockley, Tragish Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to R-2 CH (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling-Church) on 29.56 acres as shown in Exhibit 2 and recommend same to City Council including the memo from Stan Grady dated March 18, 2004 adding the condition of approval that the number of units is limited to 213 and if the developer exceeds 213 the developer has the ability to submit an air quality study and provide mitigations as necessary and changing conditions two and three as noted in the previous motion. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Gay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Tragish 7. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Grady said staff will provide a memo to the Commission regarding ag buffers. Mr. Grady commented that the Commission should give consideration to adopted policies, ordinances and regulations when deciding to limit the number of units in a project. Mr. Gay said he appreciates Mr. Grady's comments but the Commissioners have a concern that the developers are ducking under the radar by quoting the minimum site and then they turn around and exceed what they were doing which then violates some part of air quality. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None 9. ADJOURNMEMT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director Minutes, PC, March 18, 2004 Page 14 April 26, 2004