Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 16, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 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: Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Marc Gauthier, Debbie Lewis 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS - None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items - None. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a&b Approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1336 (Porter- Robertson Eng.) (Ward 4) Public hearing opened. No one spoke for or against the Consent Calendar. No commissioner comments were made. The public hearing was closed. Motion made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner Lomas to approve the Consent Calendar for public hearing items. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Changes: Items 5.1 to 5.8 were heard on Thursday, December 9, 2004 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Changes: 6.1 General Plan Amendment 04-0838 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 1) The public hearing was opened. Staff's report was given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Dan Billings, retired Public Defender, stated he lives a block south of Maple, and inquired what a four-plex is. He pointed out all of the cars and trash in the area. Don Kincaid, the general contractor and developer, stated that he concurs with Staff's findings. He stated that they are installing parking garages. He further indicated that these might be turned to condos which would reinstate the pride of ownership and cleanliness of the area. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ellison stated that the General Plan should always take precedence over zoning, and does not know how there got to be R-3 zoning on an LR area for an area that's predominately built up with single family residence. (Commissioner Tkac joined the Commission.) Commissioner Gay inquired of Staff if with the R-3 zoning the applicant could build right now with the current zoning. Staff responded that with the General Plan designation of LR the maximum allowance is for a single family house with a second unit, and the R-3 zoning would not rule based on the Site Plan Review Ordinance. Commissioner Gay commented that there currently appears to be some conversions or multiple family going on under the R-3 zoning, to which Staff responded that they did not do a field survey to see if there had been garage conversions. Commissioner Gay inquired if the applicant was allowed to put in a triplex or four-plex if the City would require a trash enclosure. He commented that technically the neighbors' comments appear to be more related to code enforcement issues. Staff responded that site plan review would require trash enclosures. Commissioner Gay indicated that he would tend to support the development because it would be consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the landscaping, to which Staff responded the applicant was provided an exemption for infill. Commissioner Blockley indicated that it could be denser with less landscaping. Commissioner Tkac stated that he agreed with Commissioner Gay that there is a code enforcement issue. He inquired of Staff if there has been CUP's asked and/or required for some of these properties with lesser zoning so there can be more people to which Staff responded that they are not sure if there are CUP's as it was not something that Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 3 was looked at. Commissioner Tkac inquired what the maximum allowable density is in this particular property under the new designation if granted, to which Staff responded the maximum would be four units on the property. Commissioner Tkac reiterated that the issues raised by the neighbor appears to be more of a code enforcement issue and that the Planning Commission cannot put conditions on the project regarding the issues raised. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Staff what a current single residential property owner could add to his property. Staff responded that if they could provide parking a second unit could be added. She further inquired what the applicant can put on his property, to which Staff responded that he could do a single family home with a second unit which is essentially a duplex. With the requested four-plex eight parking spaces would be required. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Mr. Kincaid what size the car garages would be, to which Mr. Kincaid responded that they are building four dual car garages. Commissioner Tragish commented on the issues raised about code enforcement. He further stated that he did not think that condominiums would be appropriate in the subject area. He stated that a four-plex would be too much and could see a duplex as more appropriate. Commissioner Ellison reiterated that it is not good planning to change the General Plan to fit the zoning. Commissioner Ellison inquired about property to the west that is not conforming to the General Plan, to which Staff responded that the other project was approved in 1986, and during that time the zoning was the determining factor, and the General Plan consistency requirement was not adhered to. Commissioner Ellison stated that he would not be in favor of the project. Commissioner Tragish inquired if given the current LR designation, if the applicant is limited to building a single-family residence per 1 acre to which Staff responded that the applicant can put a single-family house on the property and add a second unit. Commissioner Gay inquired what the intent is, to which Staff responded that they have looked into the consistency issues. Commissioner Gay stated that he would now not be in favor of the project. Commissioner Blockley stated that he cannot support this project. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Ellison to adopt a resolution denying the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LR to HMR to achieve consistency and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish. NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 4 6.2a&b General Plan Amendment 03-0340 (Pinnacle Eng.) (Ward 3) Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Gordon Nipp, from the Sierra Club, gave his presentation, asking to incorporate Dr. Unger comments regarding Tract 6137. Commissioner Tragish commented that since the referenced comments from Dr. Unger were not presented for the Commission to review that it would not be appropriate to incorporate them into this record. Matt VoVilla, with Pinnacle Engineering, and representing the applicant, indicated they are in receipt of the conditions of approval and agree to the same. Commissioner Gay commented about the issues of an open channel versus encased piping, and that Mr. VoVilla's comments were that it is a large enough volume that it is not able to be put in a pipe, and that it would be an open channel. Commissioner Gay inquired if this will be consistent with future development, to which Staff responded that the standards would cover either way. Staff indicated that they are comfortable with the standards in place with regard to open channels. Commissioner Ellison inquired about the Blunt Nose Leopard Lizard Study, to which Staff responded that it is a practice to require that analysis at the time the subdivision comes in. Commissioner Ellison stated that he would feel more comfortable having it as a condition. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the open/closed channel. She stated that she wants a consistent standard. She stated that she would like to continue this so consistency can be established. Commissioner Tragish read the Sierra Club's statement that "We wish to have the developers pay $1,200 a house as some type of emissions fee or air quality mitigation fee," Commissioner Tragish stated that he has never found the nexus, or connection, of what they want for$1,200 and what is actually going to mitigate the air quality. Commissioner Tragish further commented that he would not have a problem continuing this project. Commissioner Blockley commented on the maintenance issues. Commissioner Ellison moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use map designation from OS (Open Space) and LMR (Low-Medium Density Residential), GC (General Commercial) and RE (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 70 acres, including the December 16, 2004 memorandum from Mr. Grady, and including the condition that the applicant shall submit a blunt nose leopard lizard study with a subdivision application and recommend the same to City Council. Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison NOES: Commissioner Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish. ABSENT: None Commissioner Gay stated that he has issues with the closed/open channel consistency, as well as the memo regarding the flood channel. Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 5 Commissioner Tkac reiterated Commissioner Gay's denial comments, although he is not so worried about the maintenance part of it. Commissioner Lomas stated that she wanted to continue this project to work at the issues, so when it was brought to a vote she had to vote no for the drainage issues. Commissioner Spencer reiterated Commissioner Lomas' denial comments regarding drainage. Commissioner Tragish stated he would have liked it to have been continued as well to address the drainage issues. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Ellison to continue the General Plan Amendment Zone change 03-0340 in both parts to the March cycle. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: NONE 6.3a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 03-0746 (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 3) Public hearing opened. Staff's report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Roger McIntosh for the applicant stated they agree with Staff's recommendation. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Gay stated he supports the consolidation of the zonings. Commissioner Ellison stated that he thinks the consolidation is good planning. Commissioner Ellison moved, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment by changing the Land Use Map Designation for City in the Hills from GC (General Commercial) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 16.02 acres, GC to HR (High Density Residential) on 6.01 acres, HR to GC on 11.81 acres, LR to GC on 7.20 acres, LR to HR on 0.26 acres, and limit the number of single family residential lots to 2070 multifamily residential units to 735, and commercial gross leasable floor area to 1,015,706 sq. ft. for the entire City in the Hills project area, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish. NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Ellison moved, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from C-2, (Regional Commercial) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 16.02 acres, C-2 to R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) on 6.01 acres, R-3 to C-2 on 11.81 acres, R-1 to C-2 on 7.20 acres, R-1 to R-3 on 0.26 acres, and limit the number of single family residential lots to 2070, multifamily residential units to 735, and commercial gross leasable floor area to 1,015,706 sq. ft. for the entire City in the Hills project area, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish. NOES: None ABSENT: None (break taken) 6.4a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0814 (Porter-Robertson Eng.) (Ward 4) Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Ron Lancaster, lives on Shane Rd., read Mr. Bedke's letter into the record as he could not be present. Mr. Lancaster stated that they would like the opportunity to meet with McMillan Homes again, and requested that the Commission deny the change on the 18 acre parcel. Robin Rossi reiterated previous comments. She stated that 6,000 sq. ft homes is a lot of homes for an area that already has larger 3 acre properties. She stated that she would like to have consistency in this area. She further indicated that there is no consideration being made for traffic concerns and the way of life that current exists in the area. Barbara Mae, resides at 11544 Snow Road, stated that if she has her choice she prefers that there be no change, but that if there is change she requested Option A which responded to the 14 homes on the 18 acres, and as much buffer as possible, and access to the back of the properties as is currently the situation. Dominic Patino, a landowner on Snow Rd., referenced Commissioner Ellison's statement regarding not changing General Plans, and therefore, this current General Plan issue should not be changed. Gary Buntmann, Vice-President and Co-Owner of Crimson Resource Management Corp, which is the mineral owner under both the 18 acre tract and the 82 acre tract, stated that they would like to go on record that the City has confirmed that Crimson was not on the notice list for these hearing and they have requested that the City amend its notice list so that they become a part of this process. Crimson requested a continuance so that they can further study the situation and respond appropriately. Mr. Buntmann stated that trying to impose an incompatible use, such as residential housing, into an active and significant oil field is a danger to the health and safety and welfare of the citizens of Bakersfield. He stated that the current property site is one of Crimson's most significant assets. Darlene Matta, representing McMillan Homes, stated they have reduced the density to Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 7 19 parcels and would be willing to reduce it to 14 parcels. She commented on discussion at the neighborhood meeting including 1) the multi-use trail, 2) the location of fences or block walls, 3) access to properties to the east, 4) the size of the buffer lots to the north and 5) the total number of lots on the 18 acres. Ms. Matta indicated that they did contact the North Kern Water Storage District and asked them what the requirements would be adjacent to the canal when urban development approached the area, and it was indicated that this canal, in accordance with City Municipal Code, would be required to be fenced with a six foot chain link fence at a minimum in accordance with City Engineering standards. It was further indicated that any access to the canal would be trespassing according to the opinion of the Water District, and therefore there would be no further access for the horses to get to the canal bank and ride along the bank. Ms. Matta further commented that since the meeting there does appear to be agreement for the need for a block wall and she indicated that it should be addressed at the tentative map stage. She stated that they would like an opportunity before the tentative map stage to get an agreement with each of the property owners regarding the block wall. She stated that Staff seems to indicate that making the block wall a condition of a land use change would be problematic in that if one property owner changed their mind in some future date the applicant could not move forward in the process. She stated that with regard to access to property owners to the east that the property owners use a dirt road that is on the south boundary line of the Etcheverry property to the north, that there will be an east-west road in which those individuals would have access to a public road and they do not see any limitation to access to the rear of those subject properties. Ms. Matta indicated that at the end of Monday's meeting the property owners came back to the applicant with 11 lots, rather than the 14 lots mitigated by the applicant. Ms. Matta indicated that the applicant is willing to go with 14 lots with a quarter acre buffer. Ms. Matta stated that with regard to the issues raised by Crimson Oil, the applicant has been in contact with them for the past six months. She further indicated that the Oil & Gas web site indicates that on the property to the north there are only two abandoned wells on that site, and one inactive well on that site, and that there are no wells on the 18 acre property. She further pointed out that some of the comments made by the homeowners are relative to the tentative map and will be addressed in the future. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Lomas stated there is confusion about the oil wells. She inquired of Mr. Buntmann what the discrepancy is between his presentation and the applicant's. Mr. Buntmann indicated that he has been looking at this project based on one big piece, not two. He indicated that most of their wells appear to be on the 82 acre parcel and not the 18 acre. Commissioner Lomas inquired about noticing to Crimson Oil to which Staff responded that they do not know who the mineral owners are, and that Crimson Oil is not required to be noticed as they do not own the fee title to the property. Staff indicated that mineral right owners are noticed when the property is subdivided. Commissioner Ellison commented as to their role in reviewing CEQA. Staff commented about Mr. Buntmann not stating he was in a State designated oilfield, which is Staff's reference for determining significance. Commissioner Ellison inquired of Joseph Austin from the Dept. of Conservation Division of Oil & Gas, if the current 18 acre parcel is located within a State designated oil field to which Mr. Austin responded in the affirmative. Mr. Austin read his response letter. Commissioner Tragish commented on the importance of the mineral rights. Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 8 Commissioner Gay stated that with the 18 acre he would like to see no more than 10 lots to reduce traffic. Commissioner Lomas stated that she would support Map C as shown on the overhead, but on the next agenda item she believes there should be 'h acre lots which should provide the needed buffer. She stated that she does not propose moving Old Farm Rd. Commissioner Blockley stated he would support Commissioner Gay's proposal for a 10 lot subdivision. He indicated that he does not like, and does not think, the proposed street alignments are going to make it through to the subdivision state. He stated he would support Commissioner Gay's proposal. Commissioner Tragish stated that he feels the property owner should be able to use the property as they see fit, but on the other hand there are laws for orderly development. He stated that he does not think this project can work, and that incremental downsizing is better planning. Commissioner Gay stated he would recommend no more than 10 lots on the 18 acre. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff if there were to be 10 lots on the 18 acre if a different zoning would be needed, to which Staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Ellison indicated that he would be more comfortable not changing the land use. Commissioner Blockley stated he would support Commissioner Gay's proposal. Commissioner Spencer stated the EIR would have to be corrected before proceeding, or leave the project as it is and/or continue to a time certain to correct the EIR before a decision can be made. Staff responded that testimony has been heard and there is no need for a continuance as the document can be amended. Commissioner Lomas stated she is comfortable with the 10 lot maximum. Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Lomas to adopt a resolution making findings approving the mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the requested SR land use designation on approximately 18 acres as shown on Exhibit "A- 2", and incorporating a minimum lot size of 3/ acre net sq. ft, and not to exceed 10 lots on this development, incorporating the correction and information to the Negative Declaration provided by DOGGR with reference to the project site being in a State designated oilfield with no wells on site, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Ellison, Tragish ABSENT: None Commissioner Ellison stated his no vote was because he thinks it would be better off left with the current land use designation, as this project is a gateway to converting ag land and oilfield, and that this project would expedite that. He stated that he thinks it would be Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 9 a better use of the land, and more compatible, to keep the existing land use designation. Commissioner Tragish reiterated Commissioner Ellison's no comments, and added that essentially they are splitting an existing neighborhood in half and the harmony of the neighborhood to fit in a development. Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Lomas to adopt a resolution making findings approving the mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the requested SR on approximately 18 acres with a minimum lot size of 3/ acre net sq. ft, and a maximum of 10 lots on this development, incorporating the correction and information to the Negative Declaration provided by DOGGR with reference to the project site being in an State designated oilfield with no wells on site, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Ellison, Tragish ABSENT: None Commissioner Ellison stated his no vote is for the same reasons previously stated. Commissioner Tragish incorporated his previous statements for his no vote. Items 5.2 a&b were continued from the December 9, 2004 meeting and heard after Agenda Item 6.4 a&b. 5.2a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0815 (Porter-Robertson Eng.) (Ward 4) Public hearing is still open from last week. Staff report given. Ron Lancaster, lives on Shane Rd incorporated his previous comments from Item 6.4. He stated that he has witnessed an increase in oilfield related equipment by his house and reiterated the dangers involved with this. Ms. Mae reiterated her previous comments from Item 6.4. She indicated that they would like the largest buffer lots as far as it can go to take the density away from the areas where the animals are, as well as the access and privacy. Joseph Austin, DOGGR, stated that on this project the State Division of Oil & Gas is interested in conservation of the resources, and indicate that their agency did not receive notification and have not seen appropriate documents. He indicated that there are active wells and would like to set aside a zoned drilling island for conservation purposes. Robin Rossi incorporated her previous comments from Item 6.4, and that she strongly opposes this project in that it is currently zoned for 3/ acre parcels, and if it is downsized to 6,000 sq. ft. lots, the amount of traffic generated on Old Farm Road will be very dangerous to the homes that face Old Farm Road as a collector. Dominic Patino requested that the Planning Commission leave the General Plan zoning as it is. Gary Buntmann incorporated his previous comments from Item 6.4 and stated that on Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 10 his map, starting in the NW part of the crosshatch they are north of their well 32-1 and 42-1 and cut through their well 52-1 and 72-1, going to the east, and then comes down along the canal and cuts over to near their well 67-1, 57-1 and then back up, and it cuts of the 30 numbers, so 33-, 34-1, 3413-1, 35-1 and 35A-1 on the western side going north/south. He reiterated that without a doubt there are active wells in this area. Dennis McClain, a homeowner on Snow Rd., stated he is opposed to this change and that if it does go through that there be a minimum of 1/2 acre lots on the south side of the project to all of the adjoining large acreages. Ms. Matta, McMillan Homes, incorporated her pervious comments from Item 6.4, and presented a '/2 acre buffer as previously requested by Commissioner Lomas. Ms. Matta agreed that the EIR should be amended to reflect that this property is within a State recognized oilfield if that is the case. Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay inquired of Ms. Matta, if McMillan Homes has property further north towards Seventh Standard Road, and if this was the first stage of several phases, to which Ms. Matta responded that this is the first phase of their project, and that they anticipate eventually this area will develop all the way to Seventh Standard Rd., and that they do have contracts and negotiations north of this property but not all the way north to Seventh Standard. Commissioner Gay further inquired of Ms. Matta about the oil wells, who responded that their survey crew identified 3 wells on the subject property, and that the inactive/abandoned well information was collected from the DOGGR web site. Commissioner Gay stated he would support no less than 'h acre buffer along this tract, Commissioner Lomas stated she supports the notation of a secondary access, and a 'h acre parcel. Commissioner Tkac stated he has listened to the tapes from the pre-meeting. Commissioner Ellison stated that he is disappointed that DOGGR was not notified. He stated he is considering the statement that McMillan Homes has negotiations further to the north as well, and the overall planning in light of the oil and gas production on the site. He stated that he is inclined to vote the same as the Item 6.4. Commissioner Spencer stated that he cannot support this project. Commissioner Blockley stated his concern is with the western boundary of the project where it appears that there are existing wells that abut the property, and therefore he cannot support this project. Commissioner Tkac inquired of Staff what should be done legally about the discrepancy in the active wells, to which Staff responded the PC is not required to do anything at this point as there is an adopted ordinance and policy that addresses these well issues. Staff indicated that this whole discussion is out of place at the General Plan stage, and any change will not preclude the mineral rights. Commissioner Tkac inquired of Staff at what stage it would be appropriate to address the well issues, to which Staff responded that the ordinances place the final decision at the Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 11 subdivision stage. Commissioner Tragish incorporated his comments from Item 6.4, and that for purposes of consistency he will not support this agenda item. He commented that the commission may be concerned with the preservation. Commissioner Gay inquired of Staff if the '/ lots might be logical if the higher density lots are coming in off of Seventh Standard. Commissioner Gay suggested perhaps continuing this item so the applicant can look at a modification. Ms. Matta stated they would like a vote this evening as a continuance would be moving to the March date. Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from SR to LR on 82.5 acres as shown on Exhibit "A 2" attached to the draft resolution, incorporating the acknowledgement from DOGGR that this is in a State oilfield, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish. NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the requested zone change from A to R-1 zone on 82.5 acres as shown on "Exhibit A-2" attached to the draft resolution, incorporating the acknowledgement from DOGGR that this is in a State oilfield, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish. NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.5a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1336 (Porter-Robertson Eng.) (Ward 4) See consent agenda. 6.6a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1337 (SmithTech USA) (Ward 1 upon annexation) Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish stated he would agree with Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Gay confirmed that they are not able to consider the whole project Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 12 because the M-1 was not noticed, and that it was noticed as an R-1. Commissioner Gay inquired as to who established the B-2 zone and the guideline as to having non- residential uses in the subject area, to which Staff responded that airports are required to have a land use plan which sets buffers, and this was done by KernCog. Commissioner Gay indicated that they have before them a resolution on the south half, and commented that if the applicant wasn't worried about the housing and would give the City an unconditional waiver or release of liability indemnifying the City, he would consider putting R-1 zone in the subject area. Staff indicated that the following memos would need to be included in any motion: 1) memo dated December 14th from Marian Shaw revising conditions 3 and 5.2) memo dated December 9th from Stan Grady with recommendation, and should be incorporated into the memo dated December 16th, and use the motion in the December 16th memo as the motion made tonight. Commissioner Ellison moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration, and disapproving a change in the land use designation from R-1A (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) for that portion of the subject land located in the Airport Land Use B-2 zone, see Exhibit 1, and approving the change in zoning from R-1A (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) for that portion of the subject site located in the Airport Land Use C Zone, see Exhibit 1, incorporating Marian Shaw's December 14, 2004 memo, and Stanley Grady's December 9, 2004 memo and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Ellison moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration, and disapproving a change in zoning from A (Exclusive Agriculture) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) for that portion of the subject land located in the Airport Land Use B-2 zone, see Exhibit 1, and approving the change in zoning from A to R-1 for that portion of the subject site located in the Airport Land Use C Zone, incorporating Marian Shaw's December 14, 2004 memo, and Stanley Grady's December 9, 2004 memo and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.7a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1340 (San Joaquin Engineering Inc.) (Ward 4) Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 13 Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Commissioner Tkac stated that after reviewing some of the information he acknowledged some customers of his and therefore declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in this item. Tom Romesburg, lives on Pergola Ave., stated that the subject area has estate residential. He commented on the insufficient traffic study, and the fact that Rosedale Hwy is 2 lanes in this area, and not 4 lanes. He further indicated that the data provided for Jenkins Road is not the most current information, as well as the fact that the area has an "F" rating which is disturbing. Mr. Romesburg pointed out the ingress/egress problems, and especially if Phairfield Road is used, because Phairfield is the only street that the current neighborhood has for ingress/egress, and that this issue is not addressed in the traffic study. Michael Perez, lives on Mausbach Ave., north of the project, stated he opposes this project. He stated that he thinks going from the current ag and estate residential to apartments is too drastic of a change. Mr. Perez further commented on the traffic problems, including the only access to the site from Jenkins, as well as the air quality problems. He stated that the emissions model used a 40° F, and Bakersfield gets anywhere from 100 to 110 which significantly increases the pollution. He also indicated that the air sample was taken from Rosedale and Renfro which is not an accurate location. The indication in the report that all impacts will be less than insignificant is incorrect. Louie Perez, lives in the neighborhood a couple blocks north of the proposed site, commented on his bad experiences with apartments. Elaine Cosawrith stated she lived on property near this project site in 1966. She commented on the neighborhood while she lived there then and now. She indicated that it is a mystery to her why the City would put that many housing units in the proposed site. Dave Brown, lives on Pergola Ave., commented on the negative impact on the schools. He further commented on the negative traffic impacts, especially with any use of Phairfield for access to the subject site. He stated that there is probably not just one apartment complex/project, but probably two. He stated that when there is a General Plan the City should stick with it instead of giving in to developers who want to constantly change the plan. Mr. Brown further stated that it is a quantum leap to jump to R-2 zoning from the current large estate residential lots currently in the area. Linda Perez, a homeowner, commented on the rural environment of the area. She stated that there is a large variance in the density from the current zoning to what is being proposed. Ms. Perez questioned about the need for high density right off of Rosedale Hwy which is already overcrowded. She stated that she researched information on the amount of high medium density residential complexes in the northwest, and discovered at least 19 existing apartment complexes with over 3,000 units, and does not include the two proposed with the additional 490 units. She indicated that the occupancy rate varies with these units, but she stated she could find an apartment anywhere in the northwest tomorrow as there are that many vacancies available. Ms. Perez indicated that the apartment managers that she spoke to indicated that there has been an overbuilding of apartments in the area, and that management companies have responded to this overbuilding by offering monetary incentives to get tenants and with cheaper rents comes a change in the clientele/tenants. Ms. Perez closed by stated that this project is not compatible with the area, and there is a lack of Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 14 need for this project. Darlene Denison, lives on Phairfield, inquired as to what expense are we willing to sacrifice the quality of life. She commented on overbuilding, and the dangerous traffic conditions. She stated that single-family dwellings would be more amenable than multifamily apartment complexes. She further indicated that the neighborhood wants to be a part of what goes in this site, and some assurances that greater traffic flow considerations will be made, that Phairfield is turned into a cul-de-sac, that there's a sufficient wall, setbacks, lighting and landscaping provisions, storage provisions, provisions for the power lines, recreational areas, garaging facilities, and trash facilities. Ms. Jenison asked that the Commission deny this proposal, but at the very least let the neighborhood be a part of what is developed on the proposed site. Mark Horton, who lives in the area, stated this apartment complex being proposed is right across the street from a 2-acre horse property, and does not see any transition for this project which the Commission seems to want to have done. He indicated that a single family residential makes much more sense. Ann Gallon, lives at the corner of Jenkins and Meacham, stated that she is concerned about the sewer system, and the traffic on Jenkins which is only 2 lanes and not four lanes. She stated that she is concerned about Jenkins being considered a collector when it is only two lanes and not four lanes. She indicated that there is a bottleneck at Rosedale Hwy and Jenkins. She further stated she is concerned about the change in zoning and the lot sizes. She stated that she is concerned that the EIR was based on 200 units, but the zone change is requesting 17.4 units per acre which would actually be about 348 apartments. Brett Dawson, representing San Joaquin Engineering, stated that he represents the owner/applicant. He stated that they believe that this project provides for balanced land uses in the area, and will provide for well-needed multiple family housing, as well as pave the way for light industrial development, which in turn will provide for localized jobs and service to the surrounding area. Mr. Dawson commented that the traffic study was performed by a respected local company, and that the assessment made in the traffic study did not assess proposed traffic on existing roadways, but rather proposed traffic volumes on improved roadways that would be improved by the development. Mr. Dawson indicated that there will be additional improvements made not only by the development but by the City through its regional transportation impact fee program. He further indicated that with respect to the potential for higher density than the 200 units proposed, that should a higher density occur, additional studies would have to be performed to address the additional units and consequently there would be mitigation of any impacts. Mr. Dawson stated that this project provides a natural buffer to the existing residential areas with the overhead electrical towers inside of a 120' easement and would be utilized for landscaping which would therefore provide more than an adequate buffer to the existing residences. Mr. Dawson reminded the Commission of a similar project approved by the City east of Coffee Road and north of Meany. Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that the big concerns seem to be with traffic and the evasiveness of what the proposed project will bring into the area. Commissioner Tragish acknowledged the potential for traffic issues with apartments. Commissioner Gay inquired of Staff if any project under 1 acre in size requires sewer and water hookups, to which Staff responded they always require sewer/water hookups Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 15 for development. It was indicated that there would be no exemption for this project if it is more than the 1,000 limit. Commissioner Gay inquired of Staff about having a driveway under power lines, to which Staff responded that there was a roadway that ran against the power lines, but there was no parking. Staff indicated that if the power line easement is a lease then the property owner would maintain the easement, and that if PG&E owns the easement there would not be anything built on the easement. Commissioner Gay stated what bothers him the most is the fact that there is M-1 on the corner, which did not make sense to him. He indicated that when he read the Traffic Study it referenced a 217,000' shopping center which helped the applicant plan for traffic, but indicates to him that there is a backdoor commercial project which they typically like to keep at mile sections if possible. He stated that he is partially opposed to this project because of the M-1 zoning. He further stated that he is not comfortable with the project, and indicated that he would rather see 1/ acre lots where apartments are proposed. He also indicated that this subject area is more urban than the project on Meany and Patton/Coffee. Commissioner Blockley stated that he agrees with Commissioner Gay's statements, especially regarding the commercial, and that it really is disingenuous to call it industrial when there's no plan for it. He commented that the traffic study clearly says commercial, and that the air quality study says much the same thing. He stated that he is concerned about the differences in the land use proposed and the traffic circulation relative to the apartments. He indicated that the property to the east did not include a connection to the existing single-family neighborhood, and this project apparently does. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Staff about her pre-meeting request for an explanation of what multi-family sites were currently available/developed in the area, how many units there were, as well as how many proposed were coming, and how many units that would be. Staff responded they do not have the requested information. Commissioner Lomas pointed out that the biggest difference between this project and the one at Meany's project is that there was opposition and the developer met with the opposition and worked out the concerns. She indicated that there is greater opposition for the project and there has been no reference made to the developer work with, or talked to the affected neighbors to make any concessions. Commissioner Lomas pointed at that there is some multi-family in this subject area, and is looking for some justification as to why there needs to be more as she does not really see a need to have this much more when there currently exists two parcels right on the edge of town. She further commented that there is no mass transit near this project site. Commissioner Lomas further indicated that there are many traffic issues. She commented that a community's needs change and they are supposed to make some resemblance of order to address the change. She indicated that it was planned for housing, and that it still looks like it should be housing. She commented she does not see any justification for another multi- family project at this site when there are commercial sites in the area, and a big industrial site, and two multi-family sites with another one coming. She stated that she would vote to deny the entire project. Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees with Commissioner Lomas. He commented on some policy issues/concerns. He further stated that there are so many issues regarding traffic and that they are building so many things so quickly the arterials are flooded. Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to adopt a resolution Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 16 making findings approving the Negative Declaration and denying the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from UER to ER to HMR on 20 acres, and LI on 18.2 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached to the draft resolution, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and denying the zone change from A (Agriculture) to an R-2 PUD (Limited Multi-Family Dwelling Planned Unit Development) zone on 20 acres, and to an M-1 zone on 18.2 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached to the draft resolution, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.8a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1343 (Maurice Etchechury) (Ward 4) The public hearing is opened. Staff report was given. Joseph Austin, Calif. Dpt. of Conservation, DOGGR, stated that usually the division is notified for projects such as this, and they were not notified. Therefore, they have not reviewed the CEQA document or Staff's report. Mr. Austin stated that the General Plan does state that the resource mineral plan land use designation may be used in combination with other land uses, and this is a productive oil field and has been around for 50 years or more. He does not know that there is a good reason to remove the land use designation. Mr. Austin indicated that with regard to zoning, DI zoning may be appropriate around the wells, and that there may be existing wells on the project site (possibly 3 oil producers). He indicated that industrial uses tend to be more compatible with oilfields, and a PD combination may be appropriate. Maurice Etchechury, representing the applicant, stated that they agree with Staff's recommendation. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Ellison stated that he agrees with Staff's report and that M-2 zoning is compatible with oil and gas production. Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 17 Commissioner Blockley stated that he listened to the pre-meeting tape twice and stated that he is still confused as to how Snow Road is going to be widened and if it would be funded through the traffic mitigation measures. He further commented that the traffic study does not mention commercial use. Commissioner Tragish and Staff confirmed that frontage roads are always required to be developed. Commissioner Gay inquired if Staff wants the Commission to restrict the zoning to M-2 until the time the applicant completes a more detailed traffic study. Staff responded that there is no need to modify the motion. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Ellison to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration and approving a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R-MP to SI on 22.5 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 to the draft resolution, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Ellison to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration and approving a zone change from County NR-5 to the City M-2 zone on 22.5 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 to the draft resolution, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer,Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.9a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1345 See Consent Calendar. This item was continued until March 17, 2005 on 12/9/04. 6.10a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1346 (McIntosh & Associates) (Ward 6 upon annexation) The public hearing is opened. Staff report is given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Someone on behalf of Roger McIntosh indicated that Mr. McIntosh was called away and that he had requested that the Commission approve this project, and that he had no problems with Staff's recommendations. Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 18 The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Blockley stated that he has listened to the pre-meeting tapes. He stated that he has no problems with this project. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Ellison to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration and approving a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from RR (Rural Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) on approximately 30 acres as shown on Exhibit A, incorporating the memo date December 10, 2004 from Mr. Grady, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Ellison to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the zone change from A (Exclusive Agriculture) to R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) on approximately 30 acres as shown on Exhibit A to the draft resolution, and incorporating the memo date December 10, 2004 from Mr. Grady, recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.11a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1347 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 7) The public hearing is opened. Staff report is given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Tony Jaquez, with SmithTech, stated they are in agreement with Staff's recommendation. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay inquired of Staff as to the cut back of C-2 zoning to R-1, if there will be an adequate size commercial parcel, and if there is a minimum C-2 size. Staff responded that the language reads a minimum new designation of five acres, and that Staff's understanding that it will be a five-acre site based on this change. Commissioner Gay stated that he has no problems with the R-1 zoning, and that his only concern are the improvements across the C-2 over to Union Avenue with concern to the schools in the area. He would like to add the requirement of curb and gutter and street improvements over to Union Ave. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Commissioner Gay if he was referring to east Hoskings Ave. to go to their frontage to South Union. Commissioner Gay stated that the Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 19 map presented, the solid red portion would be the portion they would put curb and gutter on; so they would be developing the striped area as R-1, and as that is developed they will put curb and gutter over the street, and also have the width of the street completed. Commissioner Spencer commented that the memo from Marian Shaw needs to be incorporated, and inquired if this memo would take care of Commissioner Gay's improvement request. It was decided that the memo does need to be incorporated into the motion. Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration and approving a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LMR to LR on 35.5 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached to the draft resolution, incorporating the memo date December 8, 2004 from Marian Shaw, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration and approving a zone change from C-2 to R-1 on 2 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, attached to the draft resolution, incorporating the memo date December 8, 2004 from Marian Shaw, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 7. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 8. (COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. 9. ADJOURNMEMT: Minutes, PC, December 16, 2004 Page 20 There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. Debbie Lewis, Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director February 7, 2005