Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOct 6, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1- 1, 0' ` Meeting - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas Absent: Commissioner Tragish Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Janice Horcasitas Staff: Marc Gauthier, Pamela Elisheva, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of July 21, 2005, August 4 & 18, 2005. Motion made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items -None 5. WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN for Vesting Tentative Tract 6347 Staff report given. Staff confirmed that this is not a public hearing item. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if Staff is comfortable with the groundcover presently proposed for this site concerning erosion or run off from the slope onto the highway? Staff responded that the native grasses will hold the slope. It was noted that Commissioner Tkac joined the hearing. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the slopes into the properties and the hill of dirt. The applicant, Mr. Gaskill, responded that the hill of dirt will be disposed of. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the wall and the landscape concept plan file number 05-1108, with findings and conditions set forth in the Resolution attached to the Staff report, and incorporating the Planning Director's memorandum dated October 5, 2005. Motion was passed by the following roll call vote: Planning Commission - Thursday, October 6, 2005 Page 2 AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish 6. PUBLIC HEARING—Vesting Tentative Tract 6543 The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Don Johnson, a resident on Crescent Drive, stated concerns about the lot behind his house whose backyard would be parallel to his rather than a back-to-back abutment. Mr. Johnson indicated that he cannot accept the fact that this other lot will have windows looking into his backyard, and that it is not practical and will decrease the value of his home. Mr. Johnson indicated that it was his hope that the back yards of the proposed homes would abut his yard and have considerable separation. He stated that he is totally against a two-story home, and is not even sure that a one story would be acceptable. Mr. Johnson indicated that he spoke with the developer and they discussed moving it as far away as he could, and possibly putting in some trees, however, Mr. Johnson said that he could not get a commitment from the developer. Mr. Johnson further stated that there is only one entrance to the development. Mr. Johnson presented pictures from his residence. Dave Foley, a neighbor in the area, stated that he is looking forward to a quality development on the site. He requested that the developer consider a more substantial wall between the neighbors other than just in the alley and explore the possibility of removing the grape stake fencing, and installing a masonry or cinder block wall that will provide adequate screening between the current properties and the development. Mr. Foley stated that his other concern is dust control during development. Steve Vise stated that he owns property next to Mr. Foley's, and inquired about his wall which abuts up against the property line, and that on his side of the wall his property level is a lot lower and if you get onto the other side of the wall, the property line is higher. He also stated his concern for dust and dirt, and he inquired what can and will be done to minimize this problem. Bob Rico, who lives on Crescent Drive, stated that he is not opposed to the development, but suggested that the two lots listed on Crescent Drive off of Christmas Tree be combined to build one larger home so that it would be compatible with the existing homes on Crescent Drive. Ben Lingo, on behalf of the applicant, stated the lots that do abut the existing residential development were laid out this way (lots 9 and 35) to maintain or lessen the amount of opportunity where you can have that sort of thing happen. He indicated that they are trying to develop a gated subdivision with private streets which would be very upscale and very quiet and private. Mr. Lingo indicated that they are proposing to construct block walls not only where Staff has conditioned, but actually have proposed to build block walls around the entire perimeter of the project which will improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and give the subdivision a safer feel. He indicated that they would like to screen from the alleyways, and desire to build and improve the infrastructure and aesthetics, as well as the property values. Mr. Lingo indicated that the property is zoned R-1, and is general plan low density residential. He further indicated that CC&R or tract restrictions were placed on this tract back in 1974. He stated that a couple of the conditions actually state that each of the lots would have one single-family residence, greater than 1,400 sq. ft. He stated they propose their smallest to be not quite 1,800 sq. ft, and the largest almost 2,500 sq. ft. He further commented that the houses would be no greater than 2 '/2 stories in height. He stated that they do propose some two-story houses as well as some one-story homes. Mr. Lingo stated, that regarding Lot 8, because it is infill and Crescent Drive is shaped like a crescent and turns at the point where Lot 8 is, a corner lot per code needs to have 65' of frontage. He indicated that there is 65' on the rear property line, and pointed out that the PC does have the ability to permit a reduction of width frontage or depth if 3 findings can be made. 1) Finding that the lot is greater than 6,000 sq ft. (which it is). 2) Finding that the applicant can demonstrate that the development will not require any other modification for other setbacks for this lot (as indicated, no other modifications would be necessary). 3) Finding that the reduction is required due to physical constraints (which applicant believes it is), and that there are no other design alternatives (which applicant does not find). Mr. Lingo stated that the applicant is not looking for an extra benefit, but only looking to be brought up to par with somebody who would have a similar lot in an R-1 zone that didn't have a front street that curved. Planning Commission - Thursday, October 6, 2005 Page 3 Therefore, the modification doesn't really grant a benefit or better the applicant's position, but hope that it allows the applicant to construct what somebody else could on a similar piece in that R-1 zone. Mr. Lingo summarized that the property is zoned R-1 and they are looking for this zoning modification, as it does comply with the R-1 standards, the General Plan Designation, and the CC&R's. They are hoping to create a safer environment and more aesthetically pleasing environment, as well as improve property values. Public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac inquired if this has been zoned R-1 since 1974, to which Staff responded that they have not done anything in this neighborhood for many years. Staff indicated that there has not been a sign posted on the property indicating that it was zoned R-1. Commissioner Tkac further inquired if the developer and the people have worked out anything regarding the issues raised. Staff responded that they have not received any information on resolution of the issues as of this date. Commissioner Tkac inquired if there are any rules or laws allowing or disallowing 2 story residences. Staff responded that there are no rules or laws regarding 2 story residences for single family residences. Staff indicated that for new apartment buildings Staff does regulate looking into people's backyards. Staff further elaborated that if the PC thought that there could be aesthetic impacts to Mr. Johnson's property it could limit those to one-story, however, there needs to be some discussion with the applicant regarding grading issues. Staff indicated that in their discussions with the applicant, that the grading may end up higher than it is currently, and should be addressed with the applicant. Commissioner Tkac said he appreciates Mr. Johnson's comments. He stated that he agrees that it is an infill project. Commissioner Tkac indicated that there is a more comprehensive dust control plan in place currently. Commissioner Tkac indicated that he would like to facilitate the developer and the neighbors to work the issues out as quick as possible, and would not like to delay this project. Commissioner Blockley stated that with regard to not putting windows facing the existing houses in lots 9 and 35, Title 24 of the Energy Regulations discourages west facing glass, which is what would occur if this occurred. He further stated that the lot depths of 9 and 35 are among the smallest in the subdivision. Commissioner Blockley further indicated that he would hope the developer would consider the grading issues and two-story homes looking down into a neighbor's yard. Commissioner Blockley indicated that he is probably going to be in favor of this project, with the condition that lots 7 and 8 be combined into a single lot. Commissioner McGinnis asked Staff to respond to Mr. Johnson's question about the size of lots 9 and 35. Staff responded that lot 35 is 7,371 feet in size, and lot 9 is 7,599. Commissioner McGinnis further inquired about the flow of traffic onto Crescent Drive. Staff responded that the project is calculated to generate 350 trips per day, and that during the peak hour they would expect there to be about 30 vehicle trips into the site and five trips coming out, which is basically 10 trips per house. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if that 350 is within the realm of Crescent Street. Staff responded that it is standard for that type of residential lot, and that the houses on Crescent generate the same figures of 10 trips per day. Staff indicated that it will be an increase because they all will be coming onto Crescent, but within the range of expected traffic that such a street can carry. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if there would be any change in signage as a result of this increase in traffic, to which Staff responded that there is no traffic control changes expected, and therefore there is no substantial impact. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if there are any noted health and safety hazards with respect to the alley. Staff stated that there are none noted if it is designed to current City standards. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of the applicant about the security gate, to which Mr. Lingo stated that it is the applicant's intention that the gate would be closed during daytime hours, and will have both a call box and car feature for easy access to the people that live there and any guests. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the vehicles leaving the gated area would have to stop to exit the subdivision, to which Mr. Lingo responded in the affirmative. Planning Commission - Thursday, October 6, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner McGinnis further inquired if the plans, as currently laid out, could be explained with respect to what will go in lots 9 and 35. Mr. Lingo stated that they do not at this point have a specific floor plan for these two lots. He indicated that he has assured Mr. Johnson that it is their intention is, regardless of what is built there, is to build a block wall that is of sufficient height. Mr. Lingo stated the applicant is willing to increase the block wall from 6' to 8' if need be, as well as plant side yards with oversized trees. Mr. Lingo pointed out that most of the view from 35 would be obscured by the block wall, and that the applicant would want to mitigate the view from Mr. Johnson's side. Mr. Lingo further stated that the property is zoned R-1 and does allow for 2-story, and the CC&R's do not prohibit 2-story, but actually acknowledge the fact that houses 2 '/2 stories could be built. Mr. Lingo stated that he is concerned with restricting the lots as if it starts, he does not know where it stops. Commissioner McGinnis confirmed that the masonry wall will completely surround the project, including the lots in question (lots 9 and 35), to which Mr. Lingo responded in the affirmative. Mr. Lingo reiterated that if a 2-story house were to abut Mr. Johnson's property, the applicant would take steps necessary to mitigate any overlook through either a block wall, trees, etc., which would also be to the applicant's benefit. Mr. Lingo indicated that they have been working with the grading plan and the grade in some areas will have to come up for proper drainage, and they are currently working with the Civil Engineer to keep the pad level for those two lots down as far as possible. Mr. Lingo reiterated that it is their intent to respect the existing owners as much as possible. Commissioner McGinnis encouraged the applicant to do their best to not create any more adversity with a two-story house. Commissioner Spencer commented that the applicant may have to reduce the number of lots in this subdivision in order to come up with a very comprehensive plan of development. Commissioner Spencer stated that at the end of the cul-de-sac, lots 9 & 15, and perhaps 10 and 34, if reconfigured it would allay the concerns of Mr. Johnson, and may be to the applicant's benefit. Mr. Lingo indicated that with respect to lots 9 & 35, both will exceed the R-1 residential standard of 6,000 sq. ft (lot 9 = 7,599 sq. ft; lot 35 = 7,371 sq. ft.). He indicated that they do not know if a 2-story house will be built there, but regardless of what goes there, they hope to mitigate any chance of overlook by erecting a block wall as well as trees to screen. Mr. Lingo reiterated that the lots do meet the standards of the R-1 designation, and do meet the CC&R's which recorded when this property was originally subdivided in 1974. Mr. Lingo stated that it is hard to justify redesigning the map as it would present a tremendous economic strain and great difficulties to do what is being requested. He indicated that the lots are very close to and similar to what is in the area. Mr. Lingo stated in addressing lots 7 & 8, that specifically lot 8 and all the setbacks presented are within the R-1 standards. He indicated that the modification they are seeking has to do with the front yard and the fact that it is not 65 ft. where in the R-1 zone it is required to be 65 ft. He noted that there is a physical constraint because the street does curve there which makes it impossible to have a 65 ft. front. Mr. Lingo stated that because they will fall within the R-1 zone, and would come down to whether somebody would want to live in a house on a lot that is a little over 6,000 sq. ft. He indicated that their research has shown that this subdivision will have a tremendous amount of demand, and the fact that the lot is 6,571 ft they do not see any issues as far as marketing or selling the houses, and the homes themselves will be of very high quality which will compliment the neighborhood. Commissioner Spencer pointed out that there are various ways to accomplish what the opponents problems will be in the future, indicating that if the subdivision can be rearranged to accomplish the lack of opposition he would be for this, as he has no problem with the subdivision itself, except that he has empathy for the existing neighbors in the area, however the existing owners have to understand that the subject property has been dedicated to a use of this nature. Commissioner Lomas stated that she is twisted about this whole area with regard to access. She indicated that it was explained to the PC at the pre-meeting that access is a problem, and that is why they are asking to combine and not grant the request. She stated that there are driveways around corners and side lines need to be looked at. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the applicant putting a block wall around the entire subdivision, and how it would affect the entry. Mr. Lingo outlined the block wall, indicating that it is their intention to beautify the area and provide not only the aesthetics, but also the safety. Planning Commission - Thursday, October 6, 2005 Page 5 Commissioner Lomas inquired about the cost of a grape stake fence and a block wall, to which Mr. Lingo indicated it is about $100/linear ft. Commissioner Lomas indicated that there is no wording in the conditions for the applicant to install a block wall around the entire subdivision, and would look to Staff to provide the wording. Commissioner Lomas further inquired about the entry and the landscaped area which is not included in a condition to reflect this. Commissioner Lomas commented that Staff's memo resolved a lot of the PC's Monday concerns. Commissioner Johnson inquired about visibility raised in the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Lunn regarding there being no lights or stop signs, and each exit is on a curved portion of the road with limited visibility in either direction. Staff commented that the Lunn property does not abut this project and is on the south side of Christmas Tree Lane about three lots west of the intersection of Crescent Drive and Christmas Tree Lane. Staff also stated that with regard to traffic visibility concerning lots 7 & 8 and driveways, that there is no difference between any other subdivision lot. Staff indicated that you could expect cars to be parked on the curb and in the driveways, which will be a change to what is out there currently, but is not something that is unusual or unexpected for this type of a subdivision. Staff indicated that they do not have anything to require a change. Commissioner Johnson requested clarification on the dust control measures. Staff responded that they do not have the entire list, however it is referred to as Regulation 8 instituted and enforced by the Air Pollution Control District. Staff indicated that the developers are doing a really good job and keeping the soil wet. Staff indicated that it is a fact that on infill development no matter how good dust control is done, there is going to be increased dust for a while on a construction site. Commissioner Johnson inquired of the applicant about putting a wall along lot 6 and the reasoning for putting a block wall between 6 and existing lot 1. Mr. Lingo responded it would be for consistency reasons, as well as for the potential difference in grade from lot 6 to lot 1 and therefore there will have to be some retaining element or aspects of the wall. Commissioner Johnson commented that the height restrictions would not be appropriate given that if you do have restrictions on 9 & 35 you might also lose the visibility if 10 and 34 were 2-story. He indicated that he does see merits of privacy of putting up a wall. He indicated that he agrees with the justification of co-joining lots 7 & 8, and at this point will support the project. Commissioner Blockley inquired about lots 9 & 10 sharing a common property line and lots 34 & 35 sharing a common property line, and if those are close enough to the center of the cul-de-sac to be what the city would require as a radial property line, or if they are shifted far enough off the center of the cul-de-sac to be non- radial and non-perpendicular which is a typical requirement for a subdivision. Staff responded that they would consider those as non-radial lot lines. Commissioner Blockley inquired if the applicant requested deviation from the standard in their application, to which Staff responded that they do allow those types of lot lines when they run the cul-de-sac to the end of a street, and therefore it is acceptable in this instance. Commissioner Lomas inquired about grading and if the grades on lots 9 and 35 are elevated it might trigger a need to have a single story, and how they can cover that base in the event that the grading comes in higher. Staff responded that a height could be restricted if there is a difference in grade that introduces something new that has the potential to impact an adjacent property owner. Staff indicated that the language could include that if the grade increases more than 1 ft. from the adjacent grade that only a single story house could be built on that lot. Applicant, Mr. Lingo asked for clarification, and stated that currently the pad level for lot 35 is roughly a 1 '/2 higher than what is the existing grade (the natural grade on the lot behind it). He offered as a compromise that if the grade were to raise over a certain amount that they could increase the height of the wall. Mr. Lingo stated his concern of becoming limited in what they can build, and would prefer to come up with a mechanism that if the grade were to raise they could raise the wall, add trees, etc so that they have options available. He stated that it is difficult to develop an infill project such as this one, and want to respect the surrounding neighbors, and would like to maintain flexibility. Planning Commission - Thursday, October 6, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Lomas requested a response to the applicant's comments. Staff stated that their concern with the scenario requested by the applicant is that if they raise the grade 2-3 feet, and then there is a 6' wall, you could end up to a 10' wall at the back of Mr. Johnson's property, and then the pad is 3' higher, so if you put a 2-story house also on that lot Mr. Johnson's view will be drastically cut off. Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the 1 ft. grade increase, and a 3' increase in the pad, with a 8' fence, you are up to 11 ft. with the retaining wall portion of it. Staff indicated that if it increases more than 1 '/2 ft., which they are proposing to do, they should be limited to single story construction. Staff stated that if the PC provides a specific elevation or footage, Staff could follow up and check it at grading plan stage, and when the applicant comes in for a building permit they would know how much that difference is. Staff indicated that they would not want to defer that decision to a later time, but rather would like it pinned down this evening while Mr. Johnson is here. Commissioner McGinnis indicated that they want to make everybody happy in this situation, and he would recommend limiting lots 9 and 35 to single story structure. Mr. Lingo stated that it is difficult to limit to single story, as it is well known that in the R-2 zone that you can build 2-story. Mr. Lingo stated that the applicant would like to use the wall and tree mechanism to shield, and offered that lot 8 does justify a modification in the zoning standard, and could work and be utilized as a lot. Commissioner McGinnis stated that the Commission is willing to grant the applicant lot 8 the way it is worded. Commissioner Lomas stated that they are going to need to take a five minute recess. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the vesting of tentative tract map 6543 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution, incorporating Marian Shaw's memo dated October 6, 2005, referring further conditions to the Planning Director to complete the motion. Staff indicated the following condition would replace condition number 26 in the Staff report, where condition 26 only requires a partial block wall. The condition would read a masonry block wall shall be installed around the entire perimeter of the subdivision and adjacent to the alley. Will add a condition that says that all landscaping on common lots shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association, and adding an additional condition that says, if the finished pad elevation of lots 9 or 35 is more than 1.5 ft. above the pad elevations of lots 4007 through 4105 Crescent Drive, the homes on lots 9 and 35 shall be limited to single story. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT / GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT / Land Use Element Amendment/Zone Change: 7.1a,b,&c) Certification Of Final Environmental Impact Report (Feir), GPA/ZC 04-1012 (McCutchen 110) (Haroon Rivani) (Adjacent to Wards 5 &6) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Bruce Grove, with RBF Consulting, summarized the environmental process through CEQA. John Buada, planning consultant from Fresno, California, stated he is representing Golden Empire Concrete. He stated that the existing concrete company is located at the southwest corner of Gosford and McCutchen and the 88 acre parcel is immediately to their west. He stated that they are not in opposition to the project, but have proposed a number of additional conditions. He stated that Golden Empire Concrete would like to stay in business once this project is built out and developed. He stated that they have presented a letter, and that they have used as a model the project that was adopted across the street for the Gosford Panama project, with the Planning Commission - Thursday, October 6, 2005 Page 7 exception of modifying for this side of the street. Mr. Buada indicated that they have had conversations with the applicant and believe that they have reached an agreement on the proposed conditions, and indicated that they will continue to work with the applicant between now and the time it goes to Council. Frank Dezember, owner of Structure Cast, which is immediately to the east of the subject property on McCutchen and Gosford, stated that he is not present to speak in opposition to the application or the EIR, but he needs to make sure that the applicant does not effect the entitlement existing on his industrial property right next door to the residential development. He stated that he suspects they will be able to work out an arrangement that protects both his property as well as the applicant's. Mike Philips, on behalf of the applicant, state that they have received Golden Empire's comment letters, and the applicant's team met to review and go over the suggested conditions. Mr. Philips indicated that the applicant is agreeable to all of the conditions in concept and spirit, and recognize their valid concerns with traffic safety, noise and compatible land uses, and the applicant is willing to work with Golden Empire Concrete. The applicant has agreed to accept the conditions, and that they'd also be meeting in the next few weeks to go over the wording on a couple of technical details. Mr. Philips indicated that they demonstrated on the previous Gosford-Panama project that they can work with the industrial owners. Mr. Philips stated that they are providing logical progression of urban growth. He asked for approval of the project, indicating that they are working with the industrial users. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Staff about the letter from Golden Empire Concrete and their "almost" agreements with the applicant. Staff responded that it is their recommendation that the conditions attached to the Golden Empire Concrete letter be referenced and attached as conditions to the project, along with the memo from Planning, and if there are any changes in wording Staff would inform the City Council of the proposed change by the applicant, and the City Council would determine if it is appropriate or not. Commissioner Lomas inquired about page 7 of the Staff report which talks about dedicating local streets, and indicating that the city be responsible for all improvements. Staff responded that the Planning Dept. is not aware of where that language came from, and that a memo was to have been written. Staff indicated that it can just be read into the record that the City will not be responsible for the maintenance of the roadway or the construction. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the adequacy of meeting one of the project objectives identified in the EIR, and under 3.4 one of the objectives reads, "to promote pedestrian activity through visually enhanced sidewalks/bike paths, with adequate shade structure." Commissioner Blockley stated that since he did not find a response to this in the mitigation measures, he looked to the conditions of approval and found that one of the conditions on page 16, condition 44a & b states, "throughout the project incorporates sidewalks with adequate safety signage and appropriate lighting. Connect sidewalks to any open space or recreational areas and to nearby transit loading areas and/or shelters." He indicated that "b" reads, "project applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans; bicycle racks shall be provided within the proposed commercial areas. Number and location shall be as shown on the final development plans." Commissioner Blockley inquired if these two parts of condition 44 adequate to meet the project objectives identified in the EIR on page 3.8, Article 3.4 which states, "Promote pedestrian activity through visually enhanced sidewalks/bike paths with adequate shade cover." Staff indicated that they do not feel that these two necessarily address the aesthetics and the shading that were mentioned. A condition could be added that the applicant use the detached sidewalk cross section from the Public Works Manual which would encourage more tree planting and the sidewalks separate from the curb. Commissioner Lomas stated that GET has proposed some language to deal with transportation issues. She indicated that GET would like to include at this point language that says specific bus turnouts and shelters shall be located as necessary at appropriate locations to serve residential, commercial and school sites within the project area in consultation with GET District. The bus turnouts and shelters shall be planned by developers in the project area, and local transportation coordinating entities to encourage the efficient and practical use of public transit entities serving the project area. Commission Lomas proposed that whoever makes the motion include this language, along with attachment A from Golden Empire Concrete dated October 13tH (3rd???) Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making CEQA findings, sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, approving mitigation measure, and mitigation monitoring program, Exhibit A, and recommending certification of the Final EIR for GPA/Zone Change 041012 to the City Council. Incorporating the recommendations for specific bus turn outs and shelters located as necessary Planning Commission - Thursday, October 6, 2005 Page 8 at appropriate locations to serve residential, commercial and school sites within the project area in consultation with Golden Empire Transit District, and the bus turnouts and shelters shall be planned by developers in the project area, and local transportation coordinating entities to encourage efficient and practical use of public transit entities servicing the project area, and the Planning Department memo dated October 6, 2005, and adding a condition requiring detached sidewalks per the City standard for alternative sidewalks, and incorporating conditions contained as Attachment A to the October 5, 2005 letter from Golden Empire Concrete, with the agreement that if the applicant proposes a minor change before it goes to City Council, the City Council will be made aware of said change to accept or reject at their discretion. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use map designations from RIA (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 110 acres and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the circulation element designation of Progress Road between the northern boundary of Site 1 and McKee Road from a collector roadway to a local street, and incorporating the additional amendments and memos from the first motion. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution approving the requested zone change from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 110 acres, and incorporating the additional amendments and memos from the first motion. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT / GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT / Land Use Element Amendment/Zone Change/Williamson Act Contract Cancellation: 8.1a,bc,&d) Certification Of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), GPA/ZC 03-1528 (Old River Ranch) (PB Ventures LLC) (Adjacent to Wards 5 & 6) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Chad Bexstrum, with Jones & Stokes, stated they were hired by the City to prepare the EIR for this project. Staff indicated that they had a change to page 21 of the Conditions of Approval, under Recreation and Parks conditions. In Condition 61, it says, "A multi-purpose trail shall be provided along the north and south park loop roads within a 30' wide parkway as measured from flow line to back of wall, a 10' wide concrete trail shall meander, etc..." Staff is recommending that this be deleted. Staff further indicated that in Condition 60 it says, "Prior to approval of the first tentative subdivision map within the GPA zone change area, a masters park and trail plan for the entire GPA zone change area shall be approved by the Planning Commission." Staff indicated that they would like to add to this condition, "at a public hearing." Staff indicated that the reason for this is that there are several out parcels within the area and the trail required under number 61 would basically have the potential to affect these properties; either the properties would find a gap in the trail system, or they could incorporate the trail system into their project is what they are hoping. Staff stated that it would be better to look at the whole thing when the trails and park plans are presented so that there is a complete Planning Commission - Thursday, October 6, 2005 Page 9 picture in front of the Commission at one time. Staff further indicated that "at a public hearing" was added so that people will be notified and they can come down and comment on the trails plan. Tom Fallgatter, representing Darci Marshall and Barbara Grimm Marshall, stated the Marshalls own property impacted by this project. He indicated that the changes in condition presented by Staff appear to address their concerns. Mr. Fallgatter submitted a copy of a letter previously provided to Staff. Mr. Fallgatter stated that his clients are requesting that the Commission not approve any master trails plan this time that could impact his clients' property. Mr. Fallgatter stated that assuming the Commission adopts Staffs recommendation regarding amending the trails condition, he would just add that the language added, "at a public hearing," also read, "with notice to the impacted owners." Arthur Unger with the Sierra Club stated their comments are in Dr. Nipp's letter of August 18th. He summarized some Bakersfield Californian clippings. Mr. Unger further commented on agricultural conversion, and air quality. Dave Dmohowski with Project Design Consultants stated they have reviewed the Staff report and the Final EIR and they are in agreement with the recommended mitigation measures and conditions of approval, including the additional condition presented by Mr. Movius, and added to by Mr. Fallgatter. Mike Petrini, Don Putnam, Greg Petrini, David Gay and Robert Lusich spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Petrini stated that with respect to air quality, they are in the final stages of reaching an agreement with the San Joaquin Air Pollution and Control District, and are mitigating down to zero, which includes construction emissions. He indicated that the SJAPCD determines how many tons of air has to be mitigated. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Blockley stated that he met with the Petrinis and Mr. Dave Dmohowski and essentially had the same presentation given tonight. Commissioner Blockley stated that the Design Guidelines is beneficial, along with the number of PUD designations within the project because it will ensure that all the concepts discussed will remain as the project develops. Commissioner Spencer stated that he is support of this proposal with recommended changes to some of the zoning designations so that they are under control of specific guidelines with overlay classifications. Commissioner Johnson applauded the applicant. He commented that in condition 43, on page 14, there is a reference to "biological resources condition 8", and he indicated that he believes it should be condition 9, found on page 4. Condition 43 reads, "refer to biological resources condition number 8 regarding payment of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitant Conservation Plan", and 9 actually addresses the habitant conservation plan. Staff confirmed this and will make the change. Commissioner McGinnis complimented the developers. He commented on the traffic issues and the southern and west beltway, indicating that the south beltway has not obtained any funding and is probably 20 years away. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of the applicant about this situation, to which Mr. Dave Dmohowski responded that the west beltway was factored into the traffic analysis and indicated that the south beltway was not an adopted alignment at the time they began the EIR process, and the vast majority of the trips are directed to the north and to the east, and the south beltway doesn't really factor into the traffic impacts. Commissioner Tkac commended the Petrini brothers. He further indicated that he did meet with the Petrini brothers. He stated that he feels this is a responsible project. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the development agreement and the numbers stated, and what happens with the transportation impact fee, and the new air quality fee to which Staff responded that it will be beyond this agreement. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the photovoitiac options, as well as the night friendly sky light fixtures, and if they could have some wording on those issues, as well as incorporating the GET verbiage from the previous EIR looked at. A short break was taken. Commissioner Spencer inquired if a PUD or PCD can be incorporated in accordance with the memo of October 3rd to the areas designated R-2? Staff responded that they would not have a problem with this. Planning Commission - Thursday, October 6, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Blockley inquired if the applicant would like the Commissioner to comment on Commissioner Spencer's recommended amendment. Dave Dmohowski stated that they are agreeable to Commissioner Spencer's recommended condition, as most of the project has been designated with a combining district of PUD or PCD already. Commissioner Lomas disclosed that she met with the applicant prior to this hearing. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making CEQA findings, sections 15091 and 15093 to State CEQA Guidelines approving mitigation measures and mitigations monitoring and reporting program and recommend certification of the Final EIR for GPA Zone Change 031528 to the City Council, adding the conditions: 1) prior to the issuance of the first single family residential building permit, the developer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, that photovoitiac systems will be offered to all single family home buyers as an option future feature; 2) prior to recordation of the final maps, the Public Works Dept. shall verify that all associated improvement plans specify that all street lights are to be zero cut off fixtures, with the addition that PUD's be applied to all R-2 parcels, as well as referencing memos from Marian Shaw dated October 5, 2005 and from Planning Director Jim Movius dated October 5, 2005, and adding the condition that specific bus turnouts and shelters shall be located as necessary to appropriate locations to serve residential, commercial and school sites within the project area in consultation with the Golden Empire Transit District, the bus turnouts and shelters shall be planned by developers in the project area, and local transportation coordinating entities to encourage the efficient and practical use of public transit entities servicing the project area, and adding to delete item 61 and to amend condition 60 adding that ..."at a public hearing, with notice provided to impacted property owners." after Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use map designations from R-IA to LR on 1310.8 acres to HMR on 86.31 acres and to GC on 86.3 acres, and from R-MP to LR on 320.22 acres to HMR on 23.22 aces and to GC on 6.77 acres, approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the circulation element alignment of the collector roads within the west half of the project boundaries to deviate from the current grid pattern, and incorporating all of the prior terms and conditions of the prior motion, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution approving the requested zone change to pre-zone the project site from County A to R-1 PUD (a dwelling planned unit development) on 1630.34 acres to R-2 on 109.53 acres to C-1 on 9.66 acres, to C-2 on 22.09 acres, and to C-2/PCD on 61.33 acres, and approving the Development Agreement, encompassing all of the amendments previously referenced and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making findings and approving the cancellation of Williamson Act Land Use Contract on 316.5 acres, encompassing all of the amendments previously referenced and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Planning Commission - Thursday, October 6, 2005 Page 11 AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish 9. General Plan Amendment 05-1135 (City of Bakersfield) located city-wide. Commissioner Lomas indicated that Commissioners Blockley, McGinnis and Johnson have consented to be on the committee with Commissioner Blockley chairman. 10. COMMUNICATIONS: None 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioners Lomas and Tkac welcomed Tom McGinnis after a short stay away has returned. 12. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director November 23, 2005