Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNov 17, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1- 1, 0' ` Meeting - Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac Absent: Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Janice Horcasitas Staff: Jennie Eng, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of September 12 and 15, 2005. Motion made by Commissioner Spencer, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Map 6006 (Porter Robertson) 4.2b Continue Amendment to the text of Title 17 amending the C-B (Central Business) and C-C Commercial Center)zone districts to the January 5, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. 4.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6565 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6350 (Phased) (San Joaquin Engineering Inc.) 4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6546 (San Joaquin Engineering) 4.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6547 (San Joaquin Engineering) 4.2g Approval of Zone Change No. 05-0341 (Marino &Associates) (Commissioner Tkac arrived) 4.2h Approval of Continuance to January 5, 2006 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6433 (Porter- Robertson Engineering) 4.2i Approval of Continuance to January 19, 2006 Vesting Tentative Tract 6503 (John A. Wilson Planning Commission - Thursday, November 17, 2005 Page 2 4.2j Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6611 (Smithtech USA Inc) The public hearing is opened. Staff pointed out that Item 4.2e should be continued to the January 5, 2006 date. No one spoke in opposition to the Consent Calendar. Motion made by Commissioner Spencer, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARING—Tentative Tract Maps 5.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6433 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) located on the north and south sides of Casa Club Drive within the Rio Bravo Country Club area. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from October 20, 2005) (Consent Agenda Item 4.2h) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6565 (McIntosh &Associates) located at 609 Taylor Street. (Exempt from CEQA) (Continued from November 3, 2005) (Consent Agenda Item 4.2c) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.3 Vesting Tentative Tract 6350 (Phased) (San Joaquin Engineering Inc.) located east of State Highway 184 (Kern Canyon Road) and south of Chase Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) (Consent Agenda Item 4.2d) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.4 Vesting Tentative Tract 6423 (McIntosh & Associates) located on the north side of Highland Knolls, approximately'/2 miles east of Fairfax Road. (Negative Declaration on file) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Roger McIntosh, representing Lennox Homes, stated they have reviewed Staff's recommendations and conditions and have discussed at length the issue of the Southern California Edison easement, as well as the drilling island requirement. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that Southern California Edison has a very restrictive use in their easement language, and there are certain things can and can't do within that easement. He stated that they somewhat disagree with what they are requiring/requesting, but indicated that they will be working with them along that easement and try to comply with the legal requirements of the easement document itself, which is why the memo came out to clarify. Mr. McIntosh indicated that they will have to get approval as specified in the easement document. Mr. McIntosh indicated that there are easements on the east and west side of the tract. He indicated that they will comply with the November 16, 2005 memo and work the Southern California Edison to make the tract workable. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac inquired if Southern California Edison easements are better than PG&E easements. Staff responded that typically PG&E does allow more uses under their lines for parking lots and landscaping and some other uses. Staff indicated that Southern California Edison is very protective of their lines because they are very high voltage and they go down to the Los Angeles area and serve a huge metropolitan area. Staff indicated that Southern California Edison is more strict than PG&E. Commissioner Tkac inquired how this piece of property is going to be configured and what could go under the lines. Staff indicated that there is probably no possibility that there will be a parking lot under the lines, and that it will most likely be left vacant. Staff indicated that to the north it is actually vacant and fenced off. Commissioner Tkac indicated that he likes the project, but would like to do something about the blithe appearance with these types of easements. Commissioner Spencer inquired about a block wall along the north boundary of the tract adjacent to the freeway of 178. He indicated that condition 27 is lacking in planning recommendations, and thinks that a Planning Commission - Thursday, November 17, 2005 Page 3 concrete block wall of sufficient height should be included adjacent to the north line of this property. Staff indicated that this issue is addressed under Condition 32 under noise mitigation, requiring an 8' barrier along the northern end for noise attenuation with wraparounds on the side yards for those lots adjacent to the highway. Staff indicated that this was based on a mitigation measure out of a previous noise study that was done for this area. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the sound wall and how it connects with the easement and rear yards of the individual lots so that there is not a "no man's land" where the weeds are free to grow. Staff responded that the condition would apply to the north and the south side, but the applicant may not have finalized the details on how it will be placed. Mr. McIntosh stated the wall will be 8' high and will go along the north side (the freeway right-of-way), and wrap around the side of the west side of the easterly easement, and the east side of the westerly easement. Mr. McIntosh indicated that they are not allowed to put any block wall across the easement because of Southern California Edison's restrictions. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the remnant property on the west and east and what happens to that property. Staff responded that it is more easement. She inquired about the removed language in the November 16th memo referring to the Southern California Edison letter dated November 9th talking about the conditions and asking that all of the conditions be included with this map. Staff responded that the language was removed because the language they looked at on the title report did not match up to what their letter stated they were, and they also got wording from the easements that did not match up with the title report wording. Staff indicated that So. Cal's letter may possibly have wording that is beyond what their easement powers are. Staff indicated that if there is some disagreement they may need to have some legal interpretation required from the applicant. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve vesting tentative tract 6423 with the findings and conditions as set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit "A", and with Planning Director's memos dated November 14th, and amended by Planning Director's memo dated November 16th, and incorporating Public Works memo from Marian Shaw dated November 16tH Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish 5.5 Vesting Tentative Tract 6503 (John A. Wilson) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.6 Vesting Tentative Tract 6546 (San Joaquin Engineering) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.7 Vesting Tentative Tract 6547 (San Joaquin Engineering) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.8 Vesting Tentative Tract 6551 (John R.Wilson) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. John Wilson, the engineer on the project, stated the applicant wishes to address the Planning Commission regarding one item of the conditions. Steve DePappa, representing the landowner, (his aunt Ms. Binns), stated that the salvage and street improvements and their associated costs that would be attributable to their property since South H street is an arterial street. He indicated that the improvements benefit a much broader surrounding area then just their net 10 acres (13.81 gross), or 40 lot development. He stated that these improvements are not solely the result of the traffic that their tract Planning Commission - Thursday, November 17, 2005 Page 4 will generate. He indicated that they have had many conversations with City Public Works personnel with the intent of reaching a reasonable compromise to the S. H Street issue. He indicated that he discussed with Mr. La Rochelle an in lieu fee instead of the improvement of $85,350 which included the chain link fence along the canal side on the westerly side of the property. He stated that Mr. La Rochelle indicated yesterday that the fee was acceptable. Mr. DePappa stated that they would like this to be included with the motion, as the dollar amount was not specified in the November 17th memo from Ms. Shaw. Mr. De Pappa indicated that the chain link is what is along the canal to the north, and that there has not been slates in the chain link going north from their property. He stated slates are not needed and would only be an additional expense. Mr. DePappa also indicated that the median requirement (Item 4) was suggested to be included in the in lieu fee, but the median has not been discussed in their previous conversations, and requested that it not be attributable to their project. He summarized that his request is that an in lieu fee of $85,350 that would cover the work items on the S. H improvements, which is the chain link, sidewalk curb, gutter, additional lane and then item 4 of medians. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Lomas requested that Ms. Shaw address the in lieu fee, the slates, and the median issues. Ms. Shaw stated that in her November 17th memo she revised Condition 5.1.1 requiring slated fence, and allowed them to pay an in lieu fee for the improvements on S. H, which are 12' wide lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk. She indicated that normally on an arterial, the improvements are 3 lanes, not one. She indicated that they are just allowing them to do 1 lane along S. H. She indicated that they are not requiring the slates in the fence. She indicated that with regard to paying an in lieu fee for the median that is what it is for. She indicated that she cannot agree to the $85,000 because she has not seen anything from her boss with regard to the dollar amount. She indicated that she does not believe that the $85,000 would include the median fee, and would be a separate item. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Staff which memo is to be referred to for motion language. Staff responded that the November 17th motion references back and includes the November 14th. Staff indicated to work off the Planning memo dated November 17th and incorporate the memo from Marian Shaw dated November 17tH Commissioner Tkac, moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, and to approve vesting tentative tract map 6551 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit "A", and incorporate the Planning Department memo dated November 14, 2005, and November 17, 2005, and further incorporating the memo from Marian Shaw, erroneously dated October 17, 2005 that should be November 17, 2005. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish 5.9 Vesting Tentative Tract 6611 (Smithtech USA Inc) located east of Union Avenue and north of future Berkshire Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6. PUBLIC HEARING—Zone Change No. 05-0341 (Marino&Associates) Heard on Consent Calendar. Planning Commission - Thursday, November 17, 2005 Page 5 7. COMMUNICATIONS: Staff indicated that there will be a pre-meeting on Monday, November 28, 2005, and they will discuss the General Plan cycle that is approaching. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the number of GPA's. Staff indicated that they will be doing it over 2 nights, which will have about 8 or 10 on the first night. Staff indicated they will be heard 2 weeks apart. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Tkac stated that he might be absent from the December 3rd meeting. Staff indicated the December 1St meeting will be full, and the second set of GP's will be heard on December 15tH Commissioner Lomas inquired about noticing zone changes with a 300 foot rule and she and Commissioner Tragish asked for a larger rule with a sign on the property. Staff indicated that he has gathered some information, and looked at this issue that has been raised in the past. Staff indicated that after the GP cycle he would be able to provide further information. Commissioner Lomas inquired how often the General Plan maps are updated. Staff indicated that they were just updated and they will provide a copy. Commissioner Lomas indicated that with regard to pedestrian openings, for walking communities she has noticed that they are none, and inquired why they don't do that anymore. Staff indicated that the pedestrian openings have been problematic, and they have processed closures on about 30% of the pedestrian openings in the last 10 years. Staff indicated that the people on the tract side of the pedestrian side don't like having it opened to the public to walk down their cul-de-sac. Staff further indicated that a lot of the problem is a design issue. Staff indicated that they will consult with legal and see how it should be approached. Commissioner Blockley inquired about landscaping standards relative to collector streets, as opposed to what's gone on arterials. 9. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:21 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director January 9, 2006