Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 15, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 0 ` Regular Meeting - September 15, 2005 — 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas Absent: None Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Janice Horcasitas Staff: Marc Gauthier, Pam Townsend 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 GPA/ZC 05-0417 (Marino Associates) (Ward 1) 4.2c,d&e) Approval of GPA/ZC/Williamson Act Cancellation 05-0476 (The Lusich Company) (Ward 5) 4.2f&g) Approval of GPA/ZC 05-0743 (Marino Associates) (Ward 5) 4.2h&i) Approval of GPA/ZC 05-0943 (McIntosh and Associates) (Ward 5) 4.2j) Approval of GPA 05-0976 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 3) Public hearing is opened. Gordon Nipp stated that he would like the following consent items removed: 4.2(c), 4.2(d), 4.2(e), 4.2(f), 4.2(g), 4.2(h), and 4.2(i) Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like to remove consent items 4.2(a) and 4.2(b). Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve consent item 4.20). Motion carried by group vote. Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Changes/Circulation Element Amendments/Williamson Act Land Use Cancellation, Specific Plan Line Adoption: 5.1a&b) GPA/ZC 04-1765 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Ward 6) Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Chairperson Lomas noted that Commissioner Tkac arrived at the hearing. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Anthony Jaquez with SmithTech USA stated they are in agreement with staff's recommendation. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tkac stated that he listened to the recorded Monday meeting. Commissioner Tragish inquired if it is inappropriate to have an M-1 zoning on this corner given the fact that it is so expansive over and beyond what is usually found in a Commercial Office through C-2, especially since it is surrounded by R-1 and that Ridgeview High School is not too far away. Staff responded that M-1 is appropriate in this circumstance, as on the west side is the sewer farm, and the north side would be a commercial development, and the east side on the short edge there is a single family subdivision. Staff indicated that M-1 is considered in the GP and in zoning to be compatible adjacent to single family residential units. However, they do have to buffer when they come in for site plan review adjacent to the single family with a wall and landscaping along the edge. Commissioner Tragish inquired why the applicant needs a M-1 instead of a C-1. Bob Smith with Smith Tech USA stated that because of the sewer plant, Public Works does not want any residential so there is going to be a lot of commercial in that area. Furthermore, you can only have so much commercial so you want to mix it up with something else. Applicant stated they were thinking of mini storage or something like that on the light industrial. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they can put a mini storage in through C-1 PCD, to which Staff responded that the applicant would need a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Tragish stated his concern that if a mini storage is not put in then it is open to put anything else the applicant wants to put in. Commissioner Tragish questioned a Conditional Use Permit and inquired if they can put anything on the M-1 that is comparable to a PCD. Staff indicated that there is no PCD overlay zone for a M-1 use. Commissioner Tragish stated that he thinks it is a very liberal zoning for this piece of property, and that if commercial is to go in there to be consistent he does not see the problem with making it a C-1 PCD. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the reference to this project being a PCD, to which Staff responded it is the motion. Commissioner Lomas further inquired if the usages under M-1 are inside uses. Staff indicated that all the potential uses are not confined to within a building. Commissioner Lomas stated her concern of impacts on the neighbors. Staff gave some options. The applicant stated that there is another 40 acres to the south of the sewer plant that is also requesting commercial, and another 40 acres to the north, that according to the setback map from the sewer treatment plant all need to go commercial or light industrial. Applicant stated that they are willing to go with a C-1 PCD, but pointed out that there is a bigger problem with the other 60 to 80 acres that is going to be commercial or light industrial in that area and he does not know whether that's good planning or not. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the property to the south referred to by the applicant. Applicant responded that they have made applicant for that to be residential, but it is their understanding that Public Works wants commercial or light industrial there. Staff indicated that it is a '/ mile from the round digesters and the fields are not included in the photo, so there is a possibility that you could have some residential there. Public Works' recollection is that it takes the corner for that'/ mile, and therefore it may end up coming down, but a lot could still be developed as residential. Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Tragish inquired about the referenced commercial to the north of this property. Staff indicated that they have not seen the applicant, but that this corner seems like a logical area for a possible future commercial or other than residential use between the gas line and the corner. Commercial Tragish stated that it sounds like the applicant is asking for this not to be approved as there is going to be an overload of commercial in this quarter. He further pointed out that he can only deal with what's in front of him. Commissioner Tragish indicated that it seems to support not approving all of it or some of it if you're going to have the parcel north which looks appropriate for some type of commercial, or even light industrial. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the scheduled expansion of the sewer treatment plant, and if the expansion will expand the zone of that '/ mile area that is restricted. Staff responded that she has not seen any plans and therefore cannot answer this question. Commissioner Blockley stated that he tends to agree with Staff that the M-1 is compatible with the R-1 since it doesn't cause fumes, odors, dust, smoke, gas, noise or vibration. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the particulars to the setbacks in Riverlakes. Staff responded that his recollection was that it was 8'wall, 8' landscaping, and a 40' setback for structures. Commissioner Lomas inquired of the applicant if a mini storage is built if it is a doable condition to have 40' setback on those buildings. Applicant responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Lomas stated that she would be comfortable with the 40' setbacks since that would take care of the parcel to the west. Staff confirmed that there is nothing ahead of this on the parcel to the south. Commissioner Lomas stated that with the conditions applied to the east, she could support this project. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the modification to the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R-1A (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to GC (General Commercial) on approximately 27.81 acres of LI (Light Industrial) on 15 acres as shown on Exhibit B-2, attached to the draft Resolution and subject to conditions found in Exhibit B-1, including the staff memo from James Movius to the Planning Commissioner dated September 15, 2005 with the additional condition that as to the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) area that there be a 40' setback from the eastern property line, and that there be an 8' block wall, with an 8' landscaping strip, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the modification to the requested zone change from A (Agriculture) to C-1 PCD (Limited Commercial/Planned Commercial Development) on approximately 27.81 acres, and M-1 (Light Manufacturing) on 15 acres as shown on Exhibit B-2 attached to the draft Resolution and subject to conditions found in Exhibit B-1, including the staff memo from James Movius to the Planning Commissioner dated September 15, 2005 with the additional condition that as to the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) area that there be a 40' setback from the eastern property line, and that there be an 8' block wall, with an 8' landscaping strip, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None. ABSENT: None Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 4 5.2a&b) General Plan Amendment/ZC 05-0412 (South Enterprise Zone) (Ward 1) Staff report given. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Jerry Hendricks, representing the owners of the property, pointed out that this area has been zoned industrial for 0-20 years, and there currently is no heavy industrial uses anywhere in this area, and that the chances of the use of this property for that type is very slim. He indicated that rezoning the property that remains in the fly zone to M-1 is a more appropriate zoning for that property. He indicated that the property to the north would be amenable to residential with appropriate buffers. Mr. Hendricks indicated that changing and eliminating the most northerly lot and putting a half street would be an additional buffer for the M zoning. He stated that this is being done as an R-2 development where they're developing 4500 sq. ft. lots because they feel that affordable housing is needed in this area, and by providing the smaller lots, the cost of theses houses can be kept down. He indicated that they would put in a greenbelt landscaping strip between the curb and the sidewalk, and putting in a 24" box tree for each lot to help make the area attractive. He further indicated that since Cottonwood and Pacheco are major and secondary highway that there will be a block walls along these areas. Mr. Hendricks further indicated that they have proposed putting a block wall between the residential and the industrial property. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Johnson stated that he spoke with the applicant, and after their discussion he thought it was great that the applicant was looking at east Bakersfield for development and balancing out the growth. Commissioner Johnson stated that the M-3 so close to the residential may not be appropriate, however, given the mitigation of a 140 depth setback, and 8'walls, he is inclined to support this project. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the referenced 140' depth setback. It was indicated that the 140' depth setback was the rear setback and not a side yard setback, as the side yard is 100'. Commissioner Lomas indicated that they still have lot 34 to deal with. Staff indicated that the actual subdivision is not before the Commission. Staff indicated that Mr. Hendricks indicated that he would put a half width street to provide a setback on that side. Commissioner Lomas inquired that if they put a half width street, if it would eliminate Black Hawk Drive. Mr. Hendricks indicated that they would be taking out lot 34 essentially, and where the cul-de-sac is to the north they would be bringing a half street in on the north boundary. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there would then be two access points, to which Mr. Hendricks responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Lomas inquired if it would be possible to reconfigure the sump to serve as a buffer along the whole northern boundary. Mr. Hendricks indicated that the street would be useful to help with the circulation. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is a restriction on how deep the sump would have to be. Mr. Hendricks indicated that if they wanted to leave it just for the width of that one lot it can be done as a sump and hold the cul- de-sac back to the south. Commissioner Lomas indicated if they put a sump in if it could be done without losing one lot. Mr. Hendricks indicated that they have one lot that's up against the north boundary, and the idea was to get a buffer to the industrial to the north. He indicated that no matter what they put there for a buffer that lot would have to go, and that it is not a real heavy sacrifice for the project. Commissioner Lomas further commented that if a sump was used and the property reconfigured that he could gain a lot to the west. Mr. Hendricks stated he does not think that they can, because they are small lots. Commissioner Tkac, inquired about Mr. Hendrick's proposed provisions for oversizing landscape. Mr. Hendricks stated that as a way to make this area more attractive, they are proposing to move the sidewalk back off the curb and put a landscape strip, along with a 24" box tree for each lot. Commissioner Tkac indicated that this is a good balance for this area. Commissioner Blockley stated that he has spoken with the applicant, and that his comments are directed to application to some of the conditions regarding setbacks, and the sketch showing one version of the subdivision. He stated that his concern is that any number of the lots on the sketch perhaps would or wouldn't comply with the conditions, and that if the intent is to provide some sort of dimensional setback there is the radius corner at a funny angle, and lots which are sort of north and south adjacent, and Commissioner Blockley asked for clarification from Staff as to whether the restrictions are sufficient to deal with the strange geometry. Staff responded that they feel that the conditions can be dealt with, but have no idea how it would effect the lot lay out on this subdivision. Staff indicate that there are definitions of lot depth and lot width in ordinances which would Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 5 allow the City to apply to this project, and therefore, the applicant may lose a lot or more in application to those standards. Staff further indicated that if the PC is considering taking the applicant up on his offer to zone adjacent property M-1 to the west, a condition can be fashioned that prior to recordation of any phase of tract in the area that this would have to be accomplished. In that case, Staff indicated, that the PC may want to refer back to the setbacks done on the other M-1 zone, so it would not have to be done on the residential side of that property line. Commissioner Blockley reiterated that prior to recordation of tract map the applicant would accomplish rezoning the M-3 to M-1, and in that process a setback could be applied to the future M-1 which would eliminate the need for the condition on the subdivision. Staff confirmed this option, indicating that when that applicant came before the PC they would apply the setbacks on the M-1 portion, and until that was completely finished you could not record a subdivision on this property. Commissioner Tragish reiterated that the northerly boundary of this application would have sufficient language in the motion indicating how much the setback would be, and that the sump would be located at the northern most portion of the applicant, and that there be an access street on the northeast corner of the project. Commissioner Tragish stated that with regard to the landscape strip, he would like to see it on the northern most portion of the applicant's property. He indicate that he would like to see some large trees in this particular area. Staff indicated that their recommendation would be to use conditional language that states, "Prior to recordation of any subdivision or phase thereof in the project area, the applicant shall change the remainder of the property ownership to the west to LI and M-1," and remove conditions 3-6 which put all those buffers on the residential portion. Staff stated that when the LI/M-1 application comes before the PC later the PC would consider those future buffers on that property. Commissioner Tragish reiterated that as an additional condition that when the property to the east prior to its recordation to any part or full, they would have to changing the zoning and GP to LI and M-1, and removed conditions 3-6 for the applicant's tract. Commissioner Tragish inquired why conditions 3-6 would be deleted, to which Staff responded that the PC would no longer be looking at this subdivision when it comes before the PC with having M-3 next to it, but would be looking at it with having M-1 next to it, and the buffer would be put on the M-1 zone. Staff indicated it would be deleting the wall and that it can be dealt with later, or it could be left in at this time. Commissioner Tragish further inquired about the suggested conditions about the sump being located at the north part of the boundary, and that a street be put in at Lot 34 with an 8' block wall, plus a landscape strip on the north end. Staff responded that it would be acceptable to staff. Staff requested that the PC be specific as to the location of the sump because of the soil doesn't drain there, there is no need for a sump to be placed there. Commissioner Spencer commented that if a subdivision map is not being considered at this time, then at this time "this" should be disregarded at this time, and consider the zone change, and the GPA. If conditions were to be applied for block walls and setback, etc. then it's going to have to be under a definite situation which would be like putting a PUD or PCD to where there can be block walls, landscaping, etc. put on this property. Commissioner Spencer indicated that he does not have a bad feeling about the proposed use, and thinks that it should be under a controlled zone to where some of the comments by other commissioners can be applied legally. He stated that he would support the proposal as is with a recommendation to put a PUD on the residential zone change. Commissioner Lomas indicated that the language provided regarding the property to the west is important to incorporate into any motion. She stated that her real concern is to accomplish a good buffer to the north. She indicated that a PUD would accomplish what they're looking for. Shed requested language from Staff as to language covering concern of establishing a buffer to the north, along with the language previously provided for the property to the west. Staff responded that if a PUD is applied there does not necessarily have to be any conditions at this point because it will come back in front of the PC. Staff would recommend that in this particular area of the city that there are just a couple of simple conditions, and that they can deal with the northern boundary, and the westerly boundary seems to have already been dealt with, and that to add in requirements for PUD, unless there is something super critical, it is more of an onerous requirement when we are trying to make it easy for housing to occur within this area. Commissioner Lomas inquired how wide Cottonwood Rd. would be as an arterial. Staff responded that it would 110 ft, and that Pacheco as a collector would be 90'. Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Lomas indicated that with the buffer to the north that she is not looking for another access point as there is one on the west, and can all be dealt with at tract map stage, and does not want to tie it down to an access point, and would like just to establish a buffer. Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees with the comments made by Staff regarding the buffer to the north. He stated that unless they want to submit some language, he will go with a PUD, and if it would be called an R-2 with a PUD overlay, or do they just call it a R-2/PUD. Staff confirmed that it would be R-2/PUD and would come back before the PC. Commissioner Tragish further inquired that if the PUD was applied, along with the condition regarding the recording of the subdivision to the west, if Staff would recommend deleting conditions 3-6, as he would like to leave them in. Staff recommended that condition 4-6 be deleted and leave condition 3 in requiring an 8' block wall. because when the M-1 and LI application comes before the PC buffer zones could then be considered on the industrial side of the line. Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees with Commissioner Spencer's comments, and he would like to see development out there. Commissioner Blockley stated that he agrees with Staff that a PUD would be an unnecessary sort of impediment to extended development in this particular part of town, and since this is something that they have been trying to encourage he would not support a motion that included a PUD. Commissioner Lomas stated that her concern as been to not create housing next to an M-3. She stated that she shares the same concerns of Staff of putting another round on the applicant that they've got to hire their consultants and come on in for another round because they are trying to create an affordable products in this part of town. She indicated that if they can handle it in conditions this evening to address the concerns she would prefer it. Staff responded: "Subdivision design along the north boundary shall include a buffer to separate the M-3 zone from residential uses. Buffer may include a combination of walls, landscaping, street access, sumps, lot widths and depths or other as approved. The buffer shall provide no less than 100' set back to homes." Staff indicated that when the tract comes before the PC Staff would look at what was proposed and make a recommendation, and if the PC does not like the proposal/recommendation, it can be changed at that time. Commissioner Lomas inquired if Staff is referring to the condition to the parcel to the west. Staff responded that they are referring to the M-3 to the north. Staff indicated that the condition on the parcel to the west is the one that Commissioner Tragish already has. Staff recommended that the PC ask the applicant if the two conditions are satisfactory. Mr. Hendricks responded that they are satisfactory to them, and that the only concern he had was a 100' buffer across the whole front, which would eliminate about three lots of the northern portion. However, he indicated that if this can be addressed by the PC at a later date when they return with a subdivision it is fine with the applicant. Commissioner Lomas also pointed out to the applicant that in including establishing the 100' buffer and removing the rear yard setbacks to the west so he should gain what he is losing at the north. Mr. Hendricks responded that this is not really the case, but he understands what she is talking about. He indicated that as long as they have some flexibility with it in the subdivision design when it comes back to the PC it would be fine with him. Applicant indicated that he understands that he wouldn't be losing the lots on the west under the revised new conditions, although he may be losing 1 or 2 on the north. Applicant stated that his concern is that he would like some flexibility so that when the tract comes back to the PC if they can provide a very amenable design that would not be completely 1 00'then at that time it would be acceptable as they can address it at that time. Staff indicated that the way the condition is written, it does specifically require a minimum of 100' setback to homes. Applicant stated he agrees with the way the condition is worded. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the September 12th memo to the PC, and staff confirmed that it does need to be included, however all the other memos are informational. Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 7 Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the General Plan Amendments to change the land use designation from HI to LMR on 17.1 acres and from P to LMR on 5.5 acres as shown on Exhibit A attached to the draft Resolution, and including the September 12, 2005 memo from James Movius to the Planning Commissioner, and adding the condition that prior to recordation of any subdivision or phase thereof in the project area, the applicant shall change the remainder of the property ownership to the west to LI and M-1 and delete conditions 4-6, with the further condition that the subdivision design along the north boundary of the project shall include a buffer to separate the M-3 zone to the north from residential uses. The buffer may include a combination of walls, landscaping, street access, sump, lot width, lot depth or other as approved. The buffer shall provide no less than 100' setback to the homes, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: Commissioner Spencer ABSENT: None Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the zone changes from M-3 to R-2 on 22.6 acres as shown on Exhibit A attached to the draft Resolution, and including the September 12, 2005 memo from James Movius to the Planning Commissioner, and adding the condition that prior to recordation of any subdivision or phase thereof in the project area, the applicant shall change the remainder of the property ownership to the west to LI and M-1 and delete conditions 4-6, with the further condition that the subdivision design along the north boundary of the project shall include a buffer to separate the M-3 zone to the north from residential uses. The buffer may include a combination of walls, landscaping, street access, sump, lot width, lot depth or other as approved. The buffer shall provide no less than 100' setback to the homes, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas. NOES: Commissioner Spencer ABSENT: None Commissioner Spencer stated that his no vote is because as this project was advertised and presented the subdivision being presented has not been given sufficient time to really understand it, and the PC is only considering a GPA and zone change at this time. He stated that he supports a zone change, but under the conditions that it be a PLID, and not just because it's on this side of town, but for anywhere in the city of Bakersfield. 5.3a&b) GPA/ZC 05-0414 (Alfredo Hernandez) (Ward 1) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to this project. Jim Marino, representing the adjacent property owner to the east, stated they are in favor of the project. Mr. Marino indicated that this current applicant is taking the R-2 route with small lot requests, and his applicant is going with the R-1 and will come back if the ultimate developer meets the definition of State law for moderate and low income housing and then they get two concessions from the city, one of which is a 25% density bonus (6,000 sq. ft. lots less 25% _ 4,500 sq. ft. lots). Mr. Marino indicated that both applicants are looking at the same animal in the end; single family residential, entry level, affordable housing. Jerry Hendricks, with Hendricks Engineering, stated that even though the existing zoning is M in this area, the property directly to the east, which is on the agenda as well, can be rezoned to R-1, and the property to the south is also being changed to residential as well, and therefore the only existing industrial zoning will be property to the west, and with that area they have a 110' right-of-way for Cottonwood Rd. Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Hendricks provided an overview of the project on his submitted map. Public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff how certain some of these status references that have been made by the applicant. Staff responded: 1) Reference to the Edward parcel: No applications have been received on those pieces of property as of yet. This particular reference will be across a major arterial from this current development, which is the same circumstance as being across Cottonwood — it is a 110' right-of-way. 2) Reference to Future multifamily Development: There is no pending application. 3) PG&E parcel: There is no pending application. 4) Parcels above GPA and zone change 05-0417 stating Novell parcel and Bridges parcel: There are no applications are pending for multifamily. This area is currently zoned M-3 and M-1. The area south of the applicant's property is zoned M-3. Commissioner Tragish referred to the letter from Mel Highland stating that he has 60 acres in escrow, and plan to have 100 acres by the time of the hearing. Staff pointed out the location of the 60 acres — Novell parcel and Bridges parcel, and that there are also proposed apartments on R-3 zoning, however there is no application for it. Raul Rodriguez, the broker for Mary Cruz Realty, stated that Mr. Hindman is his client, and he wanted to clarify that they are definitely in support of this project, however he was not aware of the letter until this evening, and two of his escrows have fallen out of escrow. Mr. Rodriguez indicated that Bridges is in escrow and that it will close in 60 days, and Mr. Hindman's intention is to have residential there. Mr. Rodriguez indicated that the property right off of Cottonwood on the south side is not in escrow nor is the 19.9 acre property. Commissioner Spencer inquired if they can limit the development to the proposed number of single family dwelling units on this parcel. Staff responded that if they want to limit it to single family uses a condition could be added that uses shall be limited to single family residential, and not put a unit cap on it. Staff confirmed that the PC could hold the applicant to 242 single family dwelling units. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the Edward parcel which abuts industrially zoned property requiring conditional walls and minimum lot depths and widths of 140', and 100' for residential lots with rear yards and side yards respectively that abut industrially zoned property, and those conditions providing an adequate buffer to the property directly to the south of this current property. Staff indicated that once White Lane is extended through on the map it will be shown as a major arterial, which when that major arterial is in place, those lots will no longer abut M-3 zoning. Staff pointed out that a major arterial is considered an adequate buffer for the property, and therefore there would be the 110' right-of-way, a sidewalk, 10' of landscaping and possibly a 6' block wall adjacent to the lots. Commissioner Tragish confirmed that once the project is done, White Lane has to be improved to the frontage of this property, and once that is done then the applicant does not have to do the 8' masonry block wall, etc. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the improvement to east White Lane will be put in before construction is started. Staff responded that the separation would occur. Commissioner Tragish expressed his concern for having the road improved before construction begins, and that he wants to make sure that the conditions say that they put in their portion of east White Lane before they provide any construction on the tract, and is unsure of the depth before construction can begin. Staff responded that this can be dealt with at the subdivision stage. Commissioner Tragish inquired what portion of the condition of the 8' block wall does apply since the property to the north is residential and not industrial, and the property to the east may end up becoming residential. Staff responded that it is possible that the conditions may never need to be met because it may not abut any M-3 zoning by the time the adjacent properties are done getting their entitlements and a recognition of the arterial on the south boundary. Commission Blockley inquired about the applicability of subdivision language seen in the conditions which mentions street improvements balanced with respect to phasing, and whether this comes into play in terms of each phase would have to do a proportionate share of street improvements relative to the overall development. Staff responded that this is actually a standard condition that Public Works puts on at the subdivision stage to make sure that all of the major improvements are put in in a reasonable, logical manner. Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Blockley inquired if at the subdivision stage if it can be expected that the rear of the lots will back up to the arterial (White Lane) with the block wall as sort of the end to the rear yard. Staff responded in the affirmative indicating that White Lane will be an arterial so it will actually be a requirement to have the double frontage situation. Commissioner Lomas indicated that all of her concerns have been addressed. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the General Plan Amendments to change the land use designation from LI to LMR on 9 acres and from HI to LMR on 31 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached to the draft Resolution, and including the September 12, 2005 memo from James Movius to the Planning Commissioner, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: Commissioner Spencer ABSENT: None Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving zone changes from M-1 to R-2 on 9 acres, and from M-3 to R-2 on 31 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 attached to the draft Resolution, and including the September 12, 2005 memo from James Movius to the Planning Commissioner, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: Commissioner Spencer ABSENT: None Commissioner Spencer indicated that his no vote is because he would like to have in place the restriction of the 242 lots requested single family dwellings, because should it be sold under R-2 designation it could become more than 242 units. However, he stated that he does approve of the zone change, 5.4a&b) GPA/ZC 05-0417 (Marino Associates) (Ward 1) Public hearing is opened. Staff report is given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Jerry Hendricks, with Hendricks Engineering, stated that they feel that this is a good complimentary project after approval of the previous project. Johnny Buenas, stated his parents own this property, and that he is present on their behalf. Mr. Buenas stated that they are willing to accept the conditions. Jim Marino, representing the Buenas family, stated they are in agreement with Staff's report and the conditions of approval, including the memo from Monday. He stated that they are not going to object to any of the setbacks, as this area is going to convert rather quickly. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Lomas indicated that she is unsure if the north has been dealt with. Commissioner Tragish indicated that the street directly to the north is a local street, and inquired if that is enough of a buffer for this property, or do the setbacks and 8' block wall conditions apply. Staff responded that local streets are not shown on the circulation element, and don't have to be constructed on the original alignment, so it may or may not be a local street. Staff indicated that there could be houses backing up to a property line along the north line of this Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 10 property. Commissioner Tragish confirmed that if the local street does not go through there then this property would have an 8' block wall at it's northern boundary, to which Staff confirmed. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the Bridge's parcel is still in escrow, to which Staff responded that it is their understanding that it is. Staff confirmed that there is a sufficient buffer on the east side. Commissioner Lomas stated that she sees this as similar to the first application down at the corner where the fly area is. She stated that she would like to be consistent and add the same condition for a 100' setback from the boundary to any structure. Staff confirmed this and stated that it could be added and actually have it read "to any home." To receive a consistent adequate set back, staff recommended having an 8' high block wall with 100' setback to the homes, and then condition it that if adjacent property next to the M-3 so that if the M-3 goes away they can do regular subdivision lots. Commissioner Blockley inquired what they do with conditions 5-7 for the same tract, (masonry walls, lot depths and widths). Staff responded that conditions 6 and 7 would be deleted, and added in would be the requirement for a 100' setback to homes. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LI to LR on 2 acres and from HI to LR on 33 acres, and from P to LR on 5 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 attached to the draft Resolution, and including the memorandum dated September 12, 2005 from Jim Movius to the planning commission. With conditions that there will be a 100' setback from the northern boundary homes, there will be an 8' block wall at the northern boundary, and that conditions 6 and 7 will be deleted. Further, if the industrial property north of the applicant's property loses its industrial zoning, that the stated conditions would not be required. Said motion is recommended to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving zone changes from M-1 to R-1 on 2 acres and from M-3 to R-1 on 38 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 attached to the draft Resolution, and including the memorandum dated September 12, 2005 from Jim Movius to the planning commission, with conditions that there will be a 100' setback from the northern boundary homes, there will be an 8' block wall at the northern boundary, and that conditions 6 and 7 will be deleted. Further, if the industrial property north of the applicant's property loses its industrial zoning, that the stated conditions would not be required. Said motion is recommended to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: None Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 11 5.5a&b) GPA/ZC 05-0420 (SmithTech, USA Inc.) (Ward 4) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Bob Smith, with SmithTech, USA, stated that they are in agreement with Staff's recommendation. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Lomas inquired if the house on this property had to be moved in order to align the roads. Staff responded that it was going to be moved over and there was going to be fencing around the perimeter, and access points were laid out as part of the conditions. Commissioner Lomas inquired if this needs to be referenced. Staff responded that it does not need to be referenced as the conditions on that tract actually talk about incorporating this parcel into that subdivision with the final map, and covers this phase. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving a General Plan Amendments to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to SR (Suburban Residential) on 1 acre as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached to the draft resolution subject to conditions of Exhibit A-1, and including the memorandum dated September 12, and 14, 2005 from Marian Shaw to the planning commission and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas. NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving zone changes from A (Agriculture) to Estate 1 Family Dwelling on 1 acre as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached to the draft Resolution, subject to the conditions on Exhibit A-1, and including the memorandum dated September 12, 2005 from Jim Movius to the planning commission, and recommending the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: None 5.6a,b&c) GPA/ZC/Williamson Act Contract 05-0476 (The Lusich Company) (Ward 5) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, stated the next three projects are similar, and none of the projects are mitigating the air pollution associated with their project. He further stated that none of these projects are mitigating the loss of prime ag land associated with their project. He disagrees that there is no significant impact on traffic or schools, and that there are no cumulative impacts. He stated that the next three projects together form 320 acres of prime ag land that is going to be converted, and that there are going to 1166 houses built on this project and the next three projects. Therefore, he believes that there is cumulative impact. Mr. Nipp pointed out that some of the studies are less than objective, and there is no biological study on any of the projects. Arthur Unger, representing the Sierra Club, asked that his comments be included in the record of all four projects (GPA zone change 05-0943, 0942, this one and 0743). Mr. Unger stated that California loses 32,000 acres of ag land a year. He stated that these four projects lose 1% of what California will lose in a year. Mr. Unger stated that air pollution shall make people's lungs worse. Dr. Unger requested that all of his comments be included in all four projects. Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 12 Robert Lusich, representing the McClure, Lenar and Antongiovani Family Trust, and others, stated they would like to respond to the comments. Mr. Lusich indicated that they have provided a response to the Dept. of Conservation letter, and in addition the memorandum from Ted Frame the attorney that reviewed the Dept. of Conservation letter and response thereto. Mr. Lusich stated that in response to Mr. Nipp's letter they haven't had an opportunity to review, but would like to comment with regard to air pollution and condition 2B. Mr. Lusich stated that condition 2B provides for"the developer may provide emission offsets through partition, participating in a voluntary emission reduction program through the APCD, and it would be required by a binding agreement." Mr. Lusich stated that this condition allows the developer to work with the air pollution control district to come up with other methods of solving their problems that we all agree that we have, and that they are very interested in doing. Mr. Lusich stated that with regard to Condition 2F, it says, "please pay to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District through the approved indirect source emission fee program may be utilized provided applicable offsets for this proposed project." Mr. Lusich indicated that they are looking at not only being able to pay the various fees, but also come back with a specific program, or some kind of offset that isn't included that they would be able to improve the air quality. Mr. Lusich indicated that those conditions are conditions of approval of the project and they agree with those. Mr. Lusich stated that since they haven't received Mr. Nipp's documentation, they do not have any comments on the Elk Grove project (the other 37 impacts). Mr. Lusich stated that with regard to a biological study, this project is included in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Area, and they have rechecked and reviewed the known kit fox and maps and there are no known kit foxes in the area. He indicated that the project will be subject to paying those mitigation fees. Mr. Lusich mentioned an article from Scientific American that talked about air quality and how it has degraded, but it was interesting based upon the work that is being done in the Antarctic looking at the atmosphere, and how it is because of farming that we are not in an ice age. Mr. Lusich stated they prepared a response to the June 27, 2005 letter which was submitted. Mr. Lusich pointed out that originally this project, and the project to the north designated as R-1, was in a Williamson Act Contract. The property became severed in ownership, and then had been just marginal property as far as ag uses. To the north is vesting tract 6538, and to the east is tract 6359, and another tract to the west. He stated as urbanization comes in it becomes difficult for farmers to do anything with the ag land. Mr. Lusich referred to the Dept. of Conservation letter wherein it was indicated that there was a significant amount of land available within the city limits. Mr. Lusich stated that after researching the map, he found that their map was prepared in 2002, which is about the time this property was last attempted to be farmed. Therefore, the Dept. of Conservations map is not accurate to what is currently happening in this vicinity in the City of Bakersfield. Mr. Lusich referred to the Dept. of Conservation letter which talks about prime farm lands being irrigated, and pointed out that we live in a desert and there is no way that we're going to be able to rely on precipitation for ag uses. He stated that the property is entitled to water rights from the canal in the area, however, it is a minimal intermittent supply of water, and therefore the property does not have any permanent irrigation supply. He further pointed out the well has been abandoned. Mr. Lusich stated that the canal in the area does not have an actual link to the 80 acre piece of property. Therefore, the property does not have a full time water supply, and does not even have an intermittent water supply. Therefore, by definition, because it is not irrigated, it is not prime ag land. Mr. Lusich pointed out that the property has never been used for ag grazing since 1918. Mr. Lusich stated that the city's actions and the cancellation of the Williamson Act are entirely consistent with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Mr. Lusich pointed out that this project is within the four-section area included in the sphere of influence, and it is where the growth of Bakersfield is going. He stated that this project will be part of an infill project to the Old River Ranch Project. He stated that should this project not develop, they would be eliminating the necessary infrastructure, necessary roads, water and utility services that would be a normal part of what they need as part of the overall proper and proper development of the community. Mr. Lusich stated that there is a 5.75 mile loop bike trail going to the City Sport Center at the Sewage Treatment Plant grounds. Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 13 Mr. Lusich stated that should the Williamson Contract not cancel, but wait the 10 years, and then at that point continue with an annexation, the property would remain fallow as it has been for years, and will collect weeds, trash and generate dust, and be a blight to the community instead of part of what we are doing. Mr. Lusich stated that they believe approval of this project is appropriate, and cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract is entirely appropriate considering what is happening, not only on the north, east and west sides, but also to the south, Old River Ranch. Mr. Lusich stated that Ted Frame made the point that the Wiliamson Act Contract Cancellation is in conjunction with a GPA and zone change that is consistent with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Mr. Lusich pointed out that this is an infill project, and does serve for the public good. Mr. Lusich stated that Kern County alone has 400,000 acres of ag land. However, he pointed out that when you look at what they will be doing as people for people, the question is how many jobs are out at this project site. Currently there is no one living there, and there is nothing being done with the property, and is entirely a fallow piece of ground. Brian Houghton, with Grubb & Ellis Company, read his response letter. He pointed out that this is not a leapfrog development, but rather orderly development. Ernest Antongiovanni stated this is not prime ag land, and that there is no real water source, and it would not be economical to drill a well on this amount of land. He stated that in 2003 and 2003 they farmed wheat, a winter crop, but it was only supplied with rain water. He indicated that this property has not been farmed since 2001. He stated that the economic returns from farming was negligible. He indicated that in 2002 and 2001 it was planted with alfalfa which was not economical due to the water issues. Prior to that it had been in winter wheat for two or three years. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish expressed his frustration with the late submission of documentation. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff if the PC needs adequate time to respond to the letters from the Sierra Club, or does Staff feel confident with what's been put on the record to this point. Staff responded that they feel confident with what's been put on the record so far with a couple of possible additions from Staff in response to a couple of items. Staff indicated that they will prepare written responses as it is on its way to City Council. Staff indicated that the PC has enough information to make a decision today. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff about Mr. Nipp's complaints that the analysis of the air quality does not include the nearby Old River Ranch Project development of 18.53 acres, and if Staff has any information on this. Staff responded in the negative. Staff commented that the applicant states the EIR completed for this four sq. miles assumes build out of this area, and does include the Old River Ranch information. Commissioner Tragish quested Mr. Nipp's letter referencing the "ND for the nearby GPA 05-0942 lists an additional 6,432 housing units, most of all which were not considered." Staff indicated that this is probably also a reference to Old River Ranch with that number of units within this four square mile section, and therefore has been considered. Commissioner Tragish further inquired about "post regulation ZII VIII construction related emissions have not been added into the total project emissions." Staff directed attention to condition number two which requires that the applicant run the latest URBEMIS model with submission of the first map, and all the models that are run are done consist with the thresholds and standards established by the Air Pollution Control District. Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 14 Commissioner Tragish inquired about Dr. Nipp's reference to "the number of dairies that are proposed for the area near this project, or are already in operation within several miles of this project—what effect will these dairies have on future residences air quality?" Staff responded that the air quality study completed for this project has to consider what is on the ground right now, and what exposure there is to these people. Therefore, if there is no dairies in existence yet, they are not required to be included into this particular project. Commissioner Tragish inquired about Dr Nipp's comments that "several references in the GP update EIR to potential mitigation measures, that as of this date have not been implemented." Staff responded that they are not sure what Dr. Nipp is referring to. Commissioner Tragish stated he agrees with preserving our ag resources, however he has two problems. 1) Because the ag is in the path of development, by the time it reaches this application it is history, because there is already a path of development. 2) He questions where you really address this issue, and that you probably address is several miles down the road. Commissioner Tragish stated that applicant's comments have been covered by Staff, and that this project is not an infill project, although he agrees that it does qualify for ag conversion. He stated that he is in support of the project. Commissioner Blockley referenced the comment that there is more cultivated acreage in Kern County then there was some number of years ago, and stated that he could believe it. He commented on the national study that population growth is more efficiently served by an urban setting, and therefore, if we're providing an urban setting by converting land which is immediately adjacent to other urban land, we are more efficiently serving the growing population then if they were to convert some other piece of land in the county to residential use. He stated that he is in favor of the project. Commissioner Lomas stated that she believes this is contiguous growth. She pointed out that it is misleading for Mr. Nipp to state that the application states there are no impacts. She asked Staff to explain the mitigation measures. Commissioner Lomas inquired as to the bio study, which Staff responded that it is not shown as a habitat area, and is not a known dens area on the "Known Dens Tracking Map," and therefore no conditions are required. Commissioner Lomas stated that there is no comparison between our county and Elk Grove. Commissioner Lomas stated that she is unaware of the bike trail referred to by Mr. Lusich. Staff stated that the Old River Ranch project has a proposed trail system as part of their project, and they would not consider it as valid testimony for a decision on this project. Staff indicated that the conceptual trail system does not need to be covered in a separate condition. Commissioner Lomas stated that she feels that this is orderly development. Commissioner Tragish inquired about incorporating the PC's comments to Mr. Nipp and Mr. Unger's incorporated comments. Staff responded that the PC can incorporate their comments to the subsequent projects. Commissioner Staff asked that the Planning Commission's comments to this project be incorporated by references to the comments made by Dr. Nipp and Dr. Unger in the subsequent three other projects. Staff stated that with respect to the lost ag land from a project like this, the source of this data is Kern County Planning Department that tracts Williamson Act Contracts and Farm Land Security Zone Contracts in Kern County. According to them, as of December 31, 2004 there were approximately 1.67 million acres under Williamson Act Contract and Farm Land Security Zone Contracts in Kern County. This project is not 100 acres, it is 76 acres, but 100 acres of loss of ag land represented 6/1000 of 1% of that total. Staff also provided that the Dept. of Agriculture and Measurement Standards, in correspondence written to the California Dept. of Food and Agriculture, Kern County Board of Supervisors, in 2004 indicates that in 2004 there was a 26.5% increase over the amount of harvested acres in Kern County for ag land, and the letter goes into detail about what the crops were, and what their value was regarding that. Staff has looked back through the crop reports, and determined that that has been the highest level of the number of harvested acres in Kern County since 1990. Staff indicated that when you look at a 100 acre parcel, compared to the amount of harvested acres, which was 891,576 acres in 2004, a 100 acre parcel represents 1/100 of a % of the harvested 100 acres parcel. Therefore, we are talking Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 15 about extremely small percentages in one case of the total land under certain ag contracts in Kern County, as well as when you relate it specifically to harvested acres in Kern County. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving a General Plan Amendments to change the land use designation from R-1A to LR on 76 acre as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached to the draft resolution, including the memorandum from Jim Movius to the Planning Commission dated September 9th and 12th, along with the September 12th memorandum from Marian Shaw, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas. NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the zone change from County A to R-1 on 76 acre as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached to the draft resolution, including the memorandum from Jim Movius to the Planning Commission dated September 12, 2005 along with the September 12, 2005 memorandum from Marian Shaw, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the cancellation of the Williamson Act Land Use Contract for 76 acre, including the memorandum from Jim Movius to the Planning Commission dated September 12, 2005 along with the September 12, 2005 memorandum from Marian Shaw, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: None 5.7a&b) GPA/ZC 05-0743 (Marino Associates) (Ward 5) The public hearing is opened. Staff report is given. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, incorporated his previous comments on ag land in GPA/zone change 05-0476 into the record for this project. He reiterated his written comments. Arthur Unger with the Sierra Club, stated that 30 years ago the farmers farmed the land that they did because that is the land that got the most crops with the least amount of water, and that was the best land in his definition. Jim Marino for Del Rey Development, responded that the analysis to comply with the standards and procedures of the S.J. Air Pollution Control District was relied upon. Mr. Marino stated that this project is associated with the Old River Ranch project, and is within the city's sphere of influence. He stated that he supports Staff's recommendation. The public hearing is closed. Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 16 Commissioner Tragish stated that his comments to the previous GP and zone change of 05-0476 as to Dr. Nipp and Dr. Unger's comments during that agenda item, are incorporated into the record for this agenda item 5.7, which is GPA and zone change 05-0743. Commissioner Tragish pointed out that Dr. Nipp, in his letter, uses the words "should be, suggested, ought to be, may be, I wish this would happen." Commissioner Tragish indicated that he feels these are non-responsive to what's been presented in this application and Staff's report wherein the PC has to deal with quantitative and substantive objective facts. He asked Staff if they have a response to Mr. Nipp's statement that "The urban water management plan is being updated, and the existing plant may not cover the project area." Staff responded that he has been advised that the City of Bakersfield has a balanced water supply, which means they have ample water to supply urbanization throughout the whole general plan area, which includes down to Bear Mountain Blvd. Commissioner Tragish commented that WZI has a farm land ag conversion study which is part of the Staff report received two weeks ago, contrary to Mr. Nipp's statement there such study wasn't done. Commissioner Tragish stated that the idea of ag conservation needs to be weighed very carefully with a thorough analysis of what type of ag land is available versus how much water is available, and really see how much we are cutting into our ag land. Commissioner Tragish stated that he approves of this project. Commissioner Tkac stated that this is in the path of development. He pointed out the economics of some of the things requested by the Sierra Club. He stated that he will support the project. Commissioner Lomas pointed out that the air quality issues brought to the PC by the Sierra Club are governed by the S.J.V. Air Pollution Control District. She indicated that it is the PC's job to make sure their rules are followed. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Staff if the applicant has complied with the rules set forth by the S.J.V. Air Pollution Control District, to which Staff responded that the applicant has. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving a General Plan Amendments to change the land use designation from RIA (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) on approximately 86.37 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, including the memorandum from Jim Movius to the Planning Commission dated September 12, 2005, as well as the September 15th memo, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the zone change from Agriculture to R-1 zone (One Family Dwelling) on approximately 86.37 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached to the draft resolution, including the memorandum from Jim Movius to the Planning Commission dated September 15, 2005, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: None Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 17 5.8a&b) GPA/ZC 05-0942 (McIntosh and Associates) (Ward 5) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, incorporated his comments on GPA/zone changes 05-0476 from 05-0743 into the record for this project. Mr. Nipp discussed photovoitiac and their feasibility. Arthur Unger stated that the best study that he knows about how much of our pollution comes from the north is 7%. Roger McIntosh, with McIntosh & Associates, representing Centex Homes, stated he would keep his comments specifically to this agenda item, and the next one. Mr. McIntosh indicated that his does not have the letter from the Sierra Club, but would like to respond to the Sierra Club's comments. He pointed out that this is not an infill project, but is a logical project, and is in the sphere of influence. Mr. McIntosh stated that his office prepared the air quality study, and the study is consistent with standards and attainment plan. Mr. McIntosh stated that in response to an air mitigation fee on tract 6149, it was not an air mitigation fee, but a settlement fee. He stated that he does not know if any money has been paid to the Sierra Club, or if any money has been spent on improving the air quality. Mr. McIntosh stated that in response to the farm land conversion, it is 80 acres and is less than the threshold that is established by the Dept. of Conservation, and they are in compliance with the standards. Mr. McIntosh stated that they think this is a good project, and commented that there has been a 5% increase in ag production. Furthermore, the conversion of this project is actually .00625% of the total acreage that is under production in Kern County. He stated that this project is different than the first project as there is no Williamson Act Contract on this project. Mr. McIntosh concluded with their support of Staff's recommendation and memorandum dated September 15tH The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that on this item 5.8 (GPA/zone change 05-0492) he would like to incorporate into this agenda item the comments he made to Dr. Nipp and Dr. Unger's comments in agenda items 5.6 (GPA/zone change 05-0476) and 5.7 (GPA/zone change 05-0743). Commissioner Tragish stated that the air quality has stabilized even though the city has added 380,000 people in the last 20 years. He stated that he supports this project. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Staff about the September 15th memo addressing point 1 which addresses the map GPA zone change 05-0942 (McCutchen alignment), and if the blue line represents ownership and if it is SW of the property and if it's an easement that is going to be used, and further inquired who maintains ownership of that little segment. Staff responded they do not know who owns that segment of property. Staff further commented that attached to the memo are exhibits, and the third one shows the proposed circulation element for the Old River Ranch, which will smooth out McCutchen Rd. Commissioner Johnson restated and inquired if that small SW piece will be the responsibility of the City if the following proposed circulation plan is adopted. Staff responded that because it is a rather small segment that there will probably be a finding of orderly development and put it on the maps that will come in under this GPA. Commissioner Blockley responded to photovoitiac and that in order to make them a commercially viable item the price would have to decline by a magnitude of 1 (a factor of 10). Commissioner Lomas thanked Dr. Nipp for bringing the photovoitiac meeting to the public's attention. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving a General Plan Amendments to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) on approximately 80 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, subject to conditions found in Exhibit A-1, including the memorandum from Marian Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 18 Shaw dated September 12, 2005, as well as the September 15th memo from the Planning Director, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the zone change from Agriculture to R-1 zone (One Family Dwelling) on approximately 80 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached to the draft resolution, subject to the conditions found in Exhibit A-1, including the memoranda from September 12, from the Civil Engineer, and September 15, 2005 from the Planning Director, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: None 5.9a&b) GPA/ZC Amendment 05-0943 (McIntosh and Associates) (Ward 5) Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Gordon Nipp, from the Sierra Club, stated that the issues here are the same as they were on the earlier three projects, and he stated that he would like to incorporate his comments on GPA/zone change 05-0476, 05-0743 and 05-0943 into this record. Mr. Nipp responded to Mr. McIntosh's previous comments by stating that it is not a Dept. of Conservation standard, and is not a standard that needs to be held to if CEQA is to mean anything. Mr. Nipp stated that he is concerned with cumulative impacts. Roger McIntosh, representing Centex Homes, pointed out that this is different than the previous application in that there is 300 acres of commercial across the street to the west, there is 10 acres of commercial at Harris and Buena Vista Rd about 1,000 feet to the east, which are both easily walkable from this project. Mr. McIntosh stated that they agree with Staff's report and September 12th memo. Mr. McIntosh further incorporated his comments from the previous item into this item. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like to incorporate his comments to Dr. Nipp and Unger in this agenda item 5.9 (GPA/zone change 05-0943) and further incorporate his comments from 05-0492 zone change and GP including 05-0476 (agenda item 5.6) and 05-0743 (agenda item 5.7), and incorporating agenda item 5.8 (05-0492) into this agenda item. Commissioner Tragish stated that when a map comes in Dr. Nipp's comments can be addressed at that time, and therefore his comments are premature. Commissioner Johnson applauded Dr. Nipp and Dr. Unger on his participation. Commissioner Johnson addressed the issue of buffers. Commissioner Blockley addressed outdoor lighting. Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 19 Commissioner Lomas addressed pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. She inquired if they encourage the Council to ask Staff to study, determine and implement fees that are already coming. She commented that that seems like a waste of man power. Staff responded that with respect to cumulative impacts, the City of Bakersfield GP adopted a State Of Overriding Consideration for loss of ag land, and that was the cumulative look at ag land (the benefits of growth outweigh the loss of ag land). Staff also pointed out that they are looking at Smart Codes. Staff further pointed out that there is a committee that is dealing with air quality and would be a waste of resources of the PC to do something separate from the committee that already exists. Staff also stated that an ag committee has also been formed. He further pointed out that Staff, etc. will be attending the photovoitiac meeting. Commissioner Lomas stated that she would like to incorporate her remarks from 05-0476, 05-0743 and 05-0942 into this agenda item. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving a General Plan Amendments to change the land use designation from RIA (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 80 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, incorporating the two page memorandum from Public Works — Marian Shaw, dated September 12, 2005, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the zone changes from A-20A to R-1 on 80 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached to the draft resolution, incorporating the two page memorandum dated September 12, 2005 from Marian Shaw, Public Works, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: None 5.10) General Plan Amendment 05-0976 (City of Bakersfield) Heard on consent calendar. 5.11) General Plan Amendment 05-1135 (City of Bakersfield) located city-wide. (Exempt from CEQA) Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Renee Nelson stated that she would like a little more guidance in the GP as a guidance document with more criteria. She stated it would be nice if there were departments such as economic and community development, public works, including capital improvement projects, plus road maintenance, police and fire department, the finance dept, HUD, and the County which would coordinate the information. She further commented as to the language referring to "No project should have been approved to the point of site plan review obviously without an urban decay study." "It may be necessary to quantify the contents of the report in a general fashion, and allow the applicant to fill in the blanks so the data remains relevant to other projects cumulatively." Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 20 Jarrett Foster stated that he appreciates the work that has gone into this GPA. He stated he would have liked to see not just at one point is a project considered a big box store, but also consideration of big box stores in relationship to other big box stores. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that in his opinion, there is nothing in the Staff report which supports why there's an exclusion for these wholesale clubs, other than the letter from ABK&A which is so full of holes and qualifications that the qualifications swallow the opinion. He stated that he does not see the logic of it if they're trying to address urban decay problems from an establish of a super box store. He feels that they should be included. He indicated that it appears that they're excluding businesses like Wal-Mart, which was the subject of the lawsuit in the first place. He stated that he doesn't believe that it's an issue of urban decay for the occasional buyer; it's an issue of volume of customers and the volume of sales, and he does not see any difference between the retail and wholesale membership clubs. Commissioner Tragish concluded with saying that the GP policy needs to be massaged a little bit more, and needs to substantiate the exception. He stated that he would like this particular agenda item either sent back to Planning to come up with some more substantiation, or to send it down to a Planning Commission Subcommittee to review and come up with some more specific language, and to weigh the various scenarios that need to be covered on something like this. Commissioner Johnson stated that consistency is important in planning, and that he sees with this two similar commercial uses are be treated very dissimilar. He stated that he agrees that it should be referred back to committee. Commissioner Tkac also stated that it should be referred back to committee. He stated that he is not comfortable with what has been presented currently. Commissioner Blockley commented that there seems to be some sort of inconsistency between Exhibit A on the requirements. 1) To add a policy requiring large commercial development to evaluate urban decay impacts; and 2) These super stores (which would be something over 90,000 sq. ft.) is a large commercial development. He stated that he also is not comfortable with segregating what appears to be Costco and perhaps Sam's Club as a separate kind of category that is excluded from the policy. He stated that he would agree to a postponement. Commissioner Lomas pointed out that in the ADK&A letter justifying the omission of Costco and Sam's Club where is says, "This is a result of any formal controlled resource or analysis," and just pretty much sums up this is one person's opinion, and is full of disclaimers. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Staff about Ms. Nelson's September 15th letter, and their response to same. Staff responded that as it seems this item will be continued, Staff will respond to said letter during that period. Staff further commented that with respect to lease agreement issues, that Staff knows for a fact that many markets like Albertson's, Vons and the one they're trying to protect with this code are the ones that have actually left many buildings vacant in Bakersfield because they have non-competition clauses when they move out. Staff further commented that with regard to the exclusion for wholesale clubs, there isn't a lot of study in this area, however the "uproar" is not over Costco and Sam's Clubs; it's over Super Wal-Marts because of the competition. Staff stated that both Government Land Institute, as well as the team of professionals on the steering committee, both indicate that wholesale clubs are not considered "predatory"type stores as they are in a different category in the Urban Land Institute Shopping Center manual, as well as discussed in committee. Staff stated that as far as to when a study is required, the policies do address this issue, and bullet number 3 specifically provides: "When a project meets or exceeds the thresholds listed above, or additional information would make preparation of a newer revised urban decay study prudent, the Urban Decay study must be prepared." This also deals with bullet number 4 of when one was prepared with a program level EIR for the Judkins project south of Panama Lane. Planning Commission — Sept. 15, 2005 Page 21 Staff indicated that their recommendation would be that the PC appoint an ad hoc committee of three commissioners to look at this, and that they use the same team of folks that Staff used listed in the Staff report. Mr. Sherfy commented that the Brown Act would allow recommendation to a committee since the committee hasn't yet been formed, it is recommended that it be done at the next meeting so the committee can be formed and members can be appointed at this time. Commissioner Lomas inquired if this would just be put over until the next agenda, to which Mr. Sherfy responded in the affirmation, and commented that one of the items would be the formation of the ad hoc committee. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to continue this to the next hearing date of October 6, 2005, and that it will be on the calendar for the purposes of formation of an ad hoc committee to review this matter further. Motion carried by group vote: 6. COMMUNICATIONS: Staff will be scheduling a pre-meeting on October 3rd for the October 6th meeting. 7. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Tragish commented on last minute submission of documents at the hearing. Staff responded that they will discuss this possibility and get back to the PC at the next meeting. Commissioner Tragish further inquired about noticing people within 300 feet of a property, and how notices can be provided through a notice on the property itself. Staff responded that the City Council reviews this about every four years, and recommended that the PC not take this on as the City Council continually looks at this and finds that it is consistent with State law. Commissioner Tragish further pointed out that just because they are meeting the minimum requirement does not mean that they can't go a little bit beyond that. Staff responded that typically in the past when a roomful of people show up and say they didn't get notice, the item is continued. Staff further commented that when signs use to be posted they were very small and the only people that would see them were people that lived right there, and most people get notices within 300 feet. Commissioner Lomas echoed Commissioner Tragish's comments. She inquired if this could be dovetailed into the committee that will be formed as a small discussion. She stated that she would like to know the avenue to discuss this issue of noticing. Staff recommended that it not be combined with the ad hoc committee regarding the thresholds. Staff will respond with a vehicle to get the noticing issue up to Council or to a committee. Commissioner Johnson thanked everyone for the warm welcome. 8. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m. JAMES D, MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director November 8, 2005