Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 21, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1- 1, 0' ` Regular Meeting — December 21, 2006 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish Advisory Members: Staff: Jim Eggert, Marc Gauthier, Dana Cornelius, Robin Gessner, Jennie Eng 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Jerome Burens, Robert Letnin, Tom Rumsberg and Carla Rumsberg all stated they would like to pull consent items 4.2o and 4.2p from the consent calendar. Paul Adams stated he will speak on item 5.1 during its regular schedule. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items: 4.1a Approval of Minutes. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the non- public hearing items on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. Commissioner Spencer stated that he listened to the tape from Monday's pre-meeting. Commissioner Tkac stated he listened to Monday's pre-meeting tape. Commissioner Johnson stated that he listened to Monday's pre-meeting tape. 4.2 Public Hearing Items: 4.2a Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-0535 (Dave Dmohowski) 4.2b Approval of Zone Change 06-0535 (Dave Dmohowski) 4.2c Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-0925 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2d Approval of Zone Change 06-0925 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2e Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-0938 (Centex Homes by McIntosh & Associates) 4.2f Approval of Zone Change 06-0938 (Centex Homes by McIntosh &Associates) 4.2g Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-1014 (Lusich Company) Planning Commission — December 21, 2006 Page 2 4.2h Approval of Zone Change 06-1014 (Lusich Company) 4.2i Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-0544 (Third Day Investments Group, LLC) 4.2j Approval of Zone Change 06-0544 (Third Day Investments Group, LLC) 4.2k Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-0940 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.21 Approval of Zone Change 06-0940 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2m Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-1018 (Cal-Kern Development III, LLC) 4.2n Approval of Zone Change 06-1018 (Cal-Kern Development III, LLC) 4.2o Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-1037 (Cornerstone Engineering) 4.2p Approval of Zone Change 06-1037 (Cornerstone Engineering) 4.2q Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-1692 (Adavco, Inc.) 4.2r Approval of Zone Change 06-1692 (Adavco, Inc.) 4.2s Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-2022 (Mel Heinemann) 4.2t Approval of Zone Change 06-2022 (Mel Heinemann) The public hearing is opened, except for 4.2o and 4.2p which have been removed from the consent calendar. Roger McIntosh requested removal of items 4.2c and 4.2d from the consent calendar. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the consent calendar with the exception of those items removed. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — EIR/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS/ Land Use Circulation and Kern River Plan Elements Amendment/Zone Change/Tentative Parcel Map 5.1a West Ming Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA/ZC 03-1544 (Castle & Cooke) 5.1 b General Plan Amendment 03-1544 (Castle & Cooke) 5.1c Adoption of the West Ming Specific Plan (Castle & Cooke) 5.1 d Zone Change 03-1544 (Castle & Cooke) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Mike Houlihan went over the EIR. There are three issues that will have significant unavoidable impacts after the implementation of mitigation measures: 1) Agricultural resources; 2) noise; and 3) Traffic. With regard to agricultural resources, the project would result in the conversion of around 2100 acres of agricultural farm land. The city did propose a mitigation measure to potentially reduce this impact. With respect to the noise issue, the project would contribute to cumulative noise and significant and unavoidable noise increases that would result in exceeding the City's Planning Commission — December 21, 2006 Page 3 noise level increase standard identified in the general plan. This increase would occur along two roadways which encompass about eight roadway segments, which include Buena Vista Road and Allen Road. Mr. Houlihan stated that none of the eight segments would result in the City exceeding the City's 65db standard for residential uses adjacent to those roadways. With regard to the third environmental issue of traffic, the project itself would result in impacts along three roadway segments to include Ming Avenue from Ashe to New Stine, White Lane, Wible to the southbound 99 ramp, and Calloway Drive Westbound Parkway eastbound ramps to Stockdale Highway. Mr. Houlihan stated the project would contribute to cumulative impacts, which include those three roadway segments, and there would be two additional roadway segments, both along Coffee Road, one Brimhall to the Westside Parkway westbound ramp, and the other one is Westside Parkway westbound ramp to Westside Parkway eastbound ramp. Mr. Houlihan stated that in the Response to Comments there is some additional information, including a Housing Needs Analysis, Urban Decay Study and a Fiscal Impact Analysis. He pointed out that the total new information provided within the Response to Comments document provided explanations and clarification related to the impacts that were addressed in the draft EIR, and the new information that was added does not alter the conclusions that were identified within the draft EIR. Mr. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, spoke in opposition to this application. He stated that the growth represented by this project has a lot of cumulative impacts on our community. Mr. Nipp pointed out that one of the impacts is traffic. Mr. Nipp stated when the GPA is updated the traffic issues should be addressed. He also suggested building more projects at higher densities so that they are transient oriented. Mr. Nipp pointed out Castle & Cooke's efforts to help clean up the air pollution. He also talked about appropriate lighting and solar photovoltaic. Mr. Nipp stated that he is pleased to see that the City is mitigating the loss of prime farm ag, but there is more that can be done. Paul Adams, a local realtor and resident of Windermere Seven Oaks, spoke in favor of items 5.1 a, 5.1 b, 5.1 c and 5.1 d. Joe Colombo spoke in favor of the project. Ron Neese, President of Foothill Energy, current operator of the oil facility mentioned in the staff report, stated they acquired this property in June. He stated they are in favor of this project. Kevin Armani, General Manager at Kern Security, stated he is in support of the project. Bruce Freeman, President of Castle & Cooke, stated the current project will surpass anything they have ever proposed or built in Bakersfield or any other city in the United States. He pointed out that this project is an expansion of an existing community, and the infrastructure is in place. Mr. Freeman stated that the project will not only provide additional tax base revenue but other special taxes have been included to help the city with millions of dollars to help build more fire and police stations, to pay fire and police salaries and a contribution of approximately $9 million to build a regional park on Taft Highway. He also pointed out that they will have mitigated all air pollution impacts on this project for the next 20 or 30 years before they ever break ground. Mr. Freeman gave a slide presentation. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Blockley stated he listened to Mr. Freeman's presentation previously, and the project seems to accomplish a number of worthy goals. Staff stated that they would request a two week continuance to review the large letter received this evening. Planning Commission — December 21, 2006 Page 4 Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Freeman if the depictions are actual or an artist rendering. Mr. Freeman stated that they are all actual buildings in other places, except that the apartments are what it could look like. Commissioner Johnson stated that this looks like another great commitment and project by the applicant to provide a quality product to the community. He inquired if they will have answers to the traffic issues in two weeks, or now. Staff responded that if there are additional questions that have not been addressed that they be asked now. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. McIntosh as to the five intersections that were stipulated to the Staff report that are going to be below a level C. Mr. McIntosh showed the road segments on the map, indicating that they would fall below the level of service C with or without the project. Commissioner Tragish commented on the agriculture mitigation, the Westside Beltway, and the air quality. He stated that he was somewhat confused about the creation of a new water source. He inquired about condition 6, farming mitigation, in that he does not think it comes out and says that with the approval of each map that the corresponding land that is taken out will be the subject of the mitigation. He also stated that the last paragraph in condition 6 adds more confusion. Commissioner Tragish asked that there be some language that the last paragraph state that mitigation above shall be completed as maps within the project are approved to the extent of the lands affected, such that mitigation will occur at least contemporaneously with development. Commissioner stated he found the traffic issues confusing and referenced the Shafter letter. He inquired if the traffic analysis that was done for this project had somehow stated that the West Beltway would be completed by 2015 when maybe pursuant to reality of Kern Cog it won't be done by 2030, or may not even be included in the information that is used to do the traffic analysis. Mr. Walker responded that the EIR and the EIR consultant requested to have a snapshot picture of what would happen in 2015 since it's a long lead time to the 2030 horizon year, and with that there was the assumption based on the information that was available when the EIR was started that by 2015 that all, or substantially all of the West Beltway would be finished in this area. Mr. Walker stated this has come to light very, very recently that it's probably going to be beyond 2017, and therefore there was the concern of how do you justify and make sure there is adequate coverage and the traffic mitigation is still valid as was assumed in the traffic report. Mr. Walker stated this was part of the reason behind the Planning Department's condition addition that requires a couple of miles of two lanes along the alignment of the West Beltway that will satisfy the requirement because they know that will be in for sure by the 2015 time period, and that substantially also increases their time line of being able to get the West Beltway finished. Commissioner Tragish inquired if it is Mr. Walker's opinion that with the addition condition of Castle & Cooke having to put in two lanes for the West Beltway that it satisfies the viability of the traffic analysis at this point. Mr. Walker responded that it is not only his opinion, but the City Manager's, the Public Work's Director, and the Freeway Division of the Public Work's Department that it would be adequate. Commission Tragish inquired if Mr. Walker agrees with Mr. McIntosh's contentions that some of those LOS intersections, which will be below the level of C, would be that way anyway with or without the project. Mr. Walker responded he is in agreement with their conclusions on that aspect. Commissioner Tragish stated that with respect to the Shafter letter he is surprised and disappointed that they get something like this on the night that they are suppose to be confirming and certifying all these different aspects of the application. He further stated that he is perplexed as to why Shafter submitted a letter on this current project as it is not adjacent to Shafter, as was the Rosedale plan, which was a large project and did not have a specific plan. Planning Commission — December 21, 2006 Page 5 Commissioner Blockley inquired if there any encroachment issues with CalTrans to which Staff responded it has been resolved and CalTrans is satisfied. Commissioner Lomas stated she had questions about the Development Agreement, the traffic issues, and the timing of the Westside Beltway. Break Taken Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to continue this entire item to January 4, 2007. Commissioner Spencer inquired as to the purpose of the continuance. Staff responded that the PC is referring all written and oral comments received tonight to Staff for response at the next meeting. So moved. Motion carried by group vote. 5.2a General Plan Amendment 06-0535 (Dave Dmohowski) 5.21b Zone Change 06-0535 (Dave Dmohowski) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.3a General Plan Amendment 06-0925 (McIntosh & Associates) 5.31b Zone Change 06-0925 (McIntosh & Associates) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Roger McIntosh representing John Glenn Carmichael, Paul Dale Carmichael, Juliann Carmichael, Kurtis Estate of Charlotte F. Grear, Estate of Martha Fatodd, Irwin Franklin Walt, Jr., Estate of Hilton Frazier Wall, Jr., John Richard Wall, and James Pierson-Wall, Jr., stated that he is not opposed to Staff's recommendation other than the fact that Condition number 8 requires his clients to construct a significant amount of improvements on adjacent property. He stated this would require full improvements for the north side of Panama Lane along the front of the 40 acre parcel to the east of the GPA zone change area, and the justification is for orderly development. He pointed to the Exhibit Map which shows that this project fronts Panama Lane for about 600-700 feet, and condition number 8 would require an additional 1320 feet of half width improvements to be constructed that really benefits someone else's property, and amounts to about $350,000 of benefit to the adjacent property, not to mention the fact that they'd have to go through a condemnation proceedings to acquire right-of-way. Mr. McIntosh requested that Condition Number 8 be removed because his client would have to spend an additional $350,000 to get it accomplished. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired what the rational is to ask this applicant to pave pursuant to condition 8. Staff responded that this project has a gap between improvements on Panama Lane, which is going to be its primary access, and there will be full improvements on the north side of Panama and will go down to one westbound lane and then full improvements for the frontage. Staff stated that the PC has been very consistent over the last year in requiring off-site full width improvements for projects that leave gaps in the system. Commissioner Tragish commented that it seems excessive. Staff responded that the PC can modify it to say two westbound lanes on Panama. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there could be some timing language that if the other property is developed first that they would be required to put in the improvements rather than this applicant. Staff responded that current policy would allow for the condition to be moot if it is already in place by the Planning Commission — December 21, 2006 Page 6 time they got ready to finish out this project, as this condition doesn't key on the first map and doesn't have a time attached to it, but would be required at the last phase of the project. Commissioner Tragish again commented that he thinks it's a little much for this project. He inquired about the owner to the east and if it is zoned agriculture. Staff responded that the current zoning is agriculture, and R-1A. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. McIntosh how long this project is projected to be commenced and finished. Mr. McIntosh responded that this project would probably be built out in three to five years. Commissioner Tragish inquired if his client could live with the language that condition number 8 doesn't go into effect until the project is completed, or commencement of their last phase. Mr. McIntosh stated that he would have to ask his client, and pointed out that it seems that it is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner to put the frontage improvements in. Mr. McIntosh stated that if there was a fee or credit that could be applied to the impact fee it wouldn't be as much of a problem. Staff responded that the impact fee list is modified annually and when the list is modified at that time they could consider adding this segment of Panama Lane, but that is an action that has to be taken up at a hearing at the City Council. Mr. McIntosh suggested that it be removed from the GPA zone change, but still look at it at the tract stage, and there would be an opportunity to address the issue again at the tract stage. Staff responded that this is "the first bite of the apple," and when you put the conditions on that you feel are necessary for continuity. Staff would not recommend removal of the condition, but would be happy to add language to the condition that says they will attempt to place this segment of Panama Lane on the Transportation Impact Fee Facilities List so that credit is available. Staff further commented that the PC has the ability to modify the condition to make it less then full improvements, which would be curb, gutter and sidewalk, and require two to three travel lanes along the frontage of the 40-acre parcel. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. McIntosh if his client would agree to the removal of the curb and gutters from the condition. Mr. McIntosh responded that there are drainage and right-of-way issues. He further stated that his clients do not want to be responsible for the improvements that benefit somebody else. Mr. McIntosh stated the suggestion that Staff request that it be placed on the Impact Fee Program and if that's done before the tract comes in then they can deal with it at that stage. Staff responded that they will provide the appropriate language for a motion. Commissioner Spencer stated he does not see a gap, but rather frontage onto Panama Lane and frontage onto Allen Road. Staff stated that if they take it off, staff may look at it as some precedent. Staff further pointed out that the project to the east has to come for a GPA zone change at some time and the PC has a lot of discretion as to what can be put on that applicant at that time. Commissioner Blockley stated he would like to make sure there aren't gaps. Commissioner McGinnis stated they have set a precedent on these type of issues, and does feel that Mr. McIntosh's clients should be reimbursed or compensated for the build out. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to see a way to get credit back to the applicants for the cost of the improvements on the adjacent property. Commissioner Lomas stated if this is approved without condition 8 they will have created a county island, which they want to avoid. She stated that she is not in favor of anything but full improvements. Planning Commission — December 21, 2006 Page 7 Commissioner Tragish commented that the responsibility of the PC is to protect and preserve the orderly development of the city of Bakersfield for its citizens, but still thinks it is a little excessive for this application. He inquired if he could add something to Staff's motion language to the effect that if the property to the east develops before the time in which the improvements are due that the applicant's responsibility is vacated. Staff responded that under the current ordinances it is not necessary, but could be added. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R-1A to LR on 60 acres as set forth in Exhibit 2, and add the memorandum from Ms. Shaw dated December 21, 2006, and adding the following language to condition number 8 commencing at the end of that particular paragraph, stating: "Staff will attempt to place two lanes of this segment on the RTIF list so that credit will be available for this developer, and also to the effect that if the property to the east comes in for a GP and development of the property that responsibility of this applicant to improve the property frontage to the east will be vacated." Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from A-20A to R1 on 60 acres as shown on Exhibit 2, and recommend the same to City Council, and add the memorandum from Ms. Shaw dated December 21, 2006, and adding the following language to condition number 8 commencing at the end of that particular paragraph, stating: "Staff will attempt to place two lanes of this segment on the RTIF list so that credit will be available for this developer, and also to the effect that if the property to the east comes in for a GP and development of the property that responsibility of this applicant to improve the property frontage to the east will be vacated." Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None. 5.4a General Plan Amendment 06-0938 (Centex Homes by McIntosh & Associates) 5.4b Zone Change 06-0938 (Centex Homes by McIntosh & Associates) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.5a General Plan Amendment 06-1014 (Lusich Company) 5.5b Zone Change 06-1014 (Lusich Company) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.6a Riverview Development Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA/ZC 06- 0961 (Sky 21, LLC; North East 21 Ventures, LLC) 5.6b General Plan Amendment 06-0961 (Sky 21, LLC; North East 21 Ventures, LLC) Planning Commission — December 21, 2006 Page 8 5.6c Zone Change 06-0961 (Sky 21, LLC; North East 21 Ventures, LLC) 5.6d Tentative Parcel Map 11618 (Sikand Engineering) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Bruce Grove with RBF Consulting gave a presentation. No one spoke in opposition or in favor of Staff's recommendation. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a Resolution Exhibit A making CEQA findings sections 15091 and 15093 of State CEQA Guidelines approving mitigation measures, statement of overriding consideration, and mitigation monitoring program and recommending certification of the Final EIR for the Riverview Development Project Number 06-0961 to the City Council, incorporating the December 21, 2006 memo from Public Works. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a Resolution Exhibit A making CEQA findings sections 15091 and 15093 of State CEQA Guidelines approving mitigation measures, statement of overriding consideration, and mitigation monitoring program and certifying the Final EIR for the Riverview Development Project Number 06-0961 for the purposes of land division, incorporating the December 21, 2006 memo from Public Works. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a Resolution Exhibit B making findings approving the requested General Plan Land Use Element Amendment from OS (Open Space) to ER (Estate Residential) R-MP (Resource Mineral Petroleum) and SR (Suburban Residential)to HR (High Density Residential) on 45 acres, HMR (High Medium Residential) on 190 acres, LRM (Low-Medium Density Residential) on 275 acres, and LR (Low Density Residential) on 124 acres, and a General Plan Circulation Element Amendment to realign an arterial street, Masterson Street/Edison Road, and realign a separate collector, Chase Avenue, within Section 21, Township 29S, Range 29E, Exhibit B.1.2, and recommend the same to City Council, after incorporating the December 21, 2006 memo from Public Works. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a Resolution Exhibit C making findings and approving a zone change 06-0961 from RH (Residential Holding Zone) to R1-PUD (One Family Dwelling Planned Unit Development) zone on 217 acres, R-2 PUD (Limited Multi-Family Dwelling-PUD) zone on 326 acres, and R-3 PUD (Multi-Family Dwelling Planned Unit Development) zone on 91 acres, and Planning Commission — December 21, 2006 Page 9 recommend the same to City Council after incorporating the December 21, 2006 memo from Public Works. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a Resolution Exhibit D adopting findings approving vesting tentative parcel map 11618 with the conditions of approval/mitigation measures, statement of overriding consideration, and mitigation monitoring program as set forth in the attached resolution, and incorporating the December 21, 2006 memo from Public Works. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None. 5.7a General Plan Amendment 06-0544 (Third Day Investments Group, LLC) 5.71b Zone Change 06-0544 (Third Day Investments Group, LLC) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.8a General Plan Amendment 06-0668 (Joseph Gergen) 5.81b Zone Change 06-0668 (Joseph Gergen The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Joe Gergen stated he is available for any questions. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from HR to HMR on approximately 5 acres, and MC to HMR on approximately 1 acre as shown on Exhibit 2, and include the December 19, 2006 memorandum from Ms. Shaw, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from PUD to R2 on approximately 5 acres, and R1 CH to R2 on approximately 1 acre as shown on Exhibit 2, and include the December 19, 2006 memorandum from Ms. Shaw, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas Planning Commission — December 21, 2006 Page 10 NOES: None. 5.9a General Plan Amendment 06-0940 (McIntosh & Associates) 5.91b Zone Change 06-0940 (McIntosh & Associates) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.10a General Plan Amendment 06-1018 (Cal-Kern Development III, LLC) 5.10b Zone Change 06-1018 (Cal-Kern Development III, LLC) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.11a General Plan Amendment 06-1037 (Cornerstone Engineering) 5.11 b Zone Change 06-1037 (Cornerstone Engineering) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Jerome Burens stated he owns the property that is adjacent to this project. He stated that his garage is on Rosedale Highway, and that he bought the property 36 years ago. He stated his concern is with the traffic, and something needs to be done on Rosedale Highway to accommodate all of the traffic. Carla Romesberg stated she lives to the north of the proposed development, stated she is willing to see a reasonable plan of development. She stated they would like cement walls to be placed to the north and to the south of the PG&E easement, which includes blocking off Phairfield. She further stated her biggest concern is traffic and Rosedale Highway is only one lane in each direction at this proposed site, and does not believe that the proposed mitigation is sufficient. Tom Romesberg stated he lives at 13201 Pergola, and he agrees with his wife, Carla. He stated his main concern is traffic, and they do not want Phairfield to come through. Robert Lehtinen, lives at 2600 Van Buren Place, which is right on the highway. He stated his concern is the traffic congestion, and he is in opposition to the traffic congestion. Anita Ayers stated she lives on Van Buren, and pointed out that the subject area has been overlooked. She stated she would like the safety issues to be considered. Matthew Lanzer from Cornerstone Engineering stated that it is a phased development, with the first phase being the residential phase to the north with a planned development in the next 12 months, and the second phase being the church site to the south which is planned to be developed in the next two years. He stated it is his understanding that Rosedale is to be improved in the next two years, and stated that he does not see the 26 lots to the north posing a significant impact to the traffic in the area. He further stated that the tentative map proposes a connecting street to Allen Road which includes the abandonment of a county sump and incorporating the drainage into a sump that is located within the PG&E easement. He further stated that there will be a turnaround at Phairfield. Mr. Manzer indicated that the estimated improvements for this will be about $200,000 off site. He indicated that their lots are planned for 10,000 sq. ft. Gerald Algren, a developer in this project, stated that they have agreed to put a cul-de-sac at the end of Phairfield. He also indicated that they have agreed to do major improvements on Allen where the new street would come out, which will be more than their share, as well as major improvements on Rosedale which would widen Rosedale the width of the subject property. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac inquired how long it will be before Rosedale actually gets widened. Staff responded that they cannot give a timeline as to the Planning Commission — December 21, 2006 Page 11 Rosedale improvements outside of this current project requirements. Staff responded that this applicant will be required to improve their frontage to the full right-of-way width, and if it's still under State jurisdiction when they do the improvements they will be required to get a State encroachment permit and improve Rosedale Highway to the state standards. Staff responded that they are not aware of any condition in the GPA with regard to the timing of the improvement, and would be addressed at the time of the tract map, unless the PC wished to add a condition to the GPA that would address the timing. Commissioner Tkac inquired about the concrete walls requested by Ms. Romesberg on the north and south side of the PG&E easement. Staff responded that typically they have required a chain link fence, and in this type of case they typically would just do it on the south side. Staff further commented that they are not sure what they would be mitigating with block walls, although it is in the PC's pervue to require it. Commissioner Tkac reiterated that as a condition Rosedale is going to have to be widened to the standard once construction is started, and that the added traffic is not going to be that much more. He further stated that his main concern is the traffic safety issues in this area. Commissioner Tkac inquired when this subject area became part of the City, to which Staff responded by indicating the city/county boundary and the area that is in the process of being annexed. Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the road connecting to Allen. Staff showed the road on the overhead, and indicated that the road would have to be completed with this portion of the development. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if they could provide some type of reimbursement for the developer's improvements to the east. Staff responded it would wipe out two houses and currently the State right-of-way is wider than the City right- of-way requirements. Staff responded that no property has been acquired for widening through this section to Staff's knowledge. Commissioner Blockley clarified that CalTrans administers Rosedale Highway and is requiring dedication of 27 feet along the front of this property, and therefore this is the appropriate condition for the GPA. He further clarified that improvements would come with development plans that follow. Commissioner Blockley inquired if the narrowing of Rosedale back down from the widened section would occur on or off the subject property. Staff responded that there will be transitioning required on the west end of the widening and probably very minimal on the east side. Commissioner Blockley stated that he thinks they are doing all that they can, and that he is in favor of the project. Commissioner Johnson inquired what the distance is between Van Buren and the proposed roadway to the west, and if it would be in compliance with all city ordinances and codes. Staff responded that it is approximately 600-650 feet which is an adequate separation. Commissioner Johnson also inquired about a right turn lane into this proposed development. Staff responded that this would be determined at the time of tract development however it is possible that one will be required. Commissioner Johnson inquired of the applicant's representative, Matthew Lanzer, if the only noise issue involved the church. Mr. Lanzer responded that he is unable to answer that question. Staff responded that the noise would only affect the church property. Commissioner Johnson stated that one of the reasons they require block walls are for noise issues, and he doesn't see where the houses will pose any noise issues justifying a block wall. He further stated that a buffer of 257 feet with fencing is more than an adequate buffer. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would like to see a condition regarding a right turn lane on the western side of this development. Commissioner Tragish stated that he thinks traffic is the big problem in this area. He further stated that he thinks it's a premature development due to the squeeze in transition on Rosedale and there is no way to fix it at this point. He also pointed out the problem with Planning Commission — December 21, 2006 Page 12 the traffic coming out onto Allen with no signal light. He pointed out that it does not seem like a safe situation, and until the traffic problems are solved this project is premature as it does not address orderly development. Commissioner Tragish stated that perhaps they should ask the applicant to pave the rest of Rosedale Highway. He stated that he thinks the church is going to draw a lot of traffic. He stated he does not see how the transportation fees are going to help the situation, and he cannot support this project until there is some relief from Rosedale Highway. Mr. Lehtinen submitted his pictures. Commissioner Lomas gave an explanation to the audience as to the process involved. She explained how the developer is mitigating more than the developer is causing with a church and 26 houses. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the situation with Hageman and Allen Road. Staff responded that they know the County has discussed the situation, but they are unaware of any plan to move forward with improvements. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the transitioning of Rosedale occurring along the existing property, and the new transition being further west. Staff showed the transitioning. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would like to see a condition requiring a deceleration lane turning right into a proposed roadway that would go on the west side of this proposed development. He inquired of Mr. Walker what type of spacing is needed to accomplish a widening and then a transition back to one lane. Mr. Walker responded if this was a city road and not a state Highway, to transition back from the western property line rather than within the frontage of the property itself is probably going to take about 1000 feet. He stated because it's only 600 feet, it's relatively short, and that it would not be striped as three lanes, but would rather continue as one lane for that distance until such time as the County or CalTrans would remove any properties in question and widen out the roadway to the east of the subject parcel, and then there would still be some transitioning because there is nothing done to the west of the subject parcel. Commissioner Johnson inquired if a right deceleration lane would make it difficult to provide for the transition, to which Staff responded it doesn't really pose any problems as it would be needed for the future if it is widened out. Staff recommended that a right turn be required for the north-south road with the caveat that the developer may submit engineering justification satisfactory to the City engineer to eliminate such lane if it can be proved unnecessary to both city and state standards. Staff stated that they are inclined to say that it will be needed. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would like to see Staff prepare some language to assist with the motion. Commissioner Lomas inquired if Staff could show in color what improvements are being required on Allen. Staff stated that condition 7a requires a dedication and not improvements. Commissioner Lomas pointed out that there are some real concerns with transitioning. She stated that she is concerned with the transitioning and the timing. Commissioner Lomas suggested continuing this item to the next meeting so these issues can be looked at more closely. Staff responded that all of the issues of concern can be dealt with at the tract map stage, and if the land use decision hinges on the transition issues than it could be continued. Commissioner Lomas commented that she thought Allen was going to get curb and gutter. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the applicant can be conditioned to improve the frontage on Rosedale Highway to the west of this project. Staff responded that if it is a matter of health and safety or orderly development a condition for off-site improvements can be included. Commissioner Tragish commented that it appears to be a premature development. He stated that there are a lot of homes and property that are impacted by this project which aggravates an existing overused traffic system along Rosedale Planning Commission — December 21, 2006 Page 13 Highway. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would be in favor of the applicant improving more of the frontage west on Rosedale. Commissioner Spencer stated that conditions 11 and 12 are adequate at this time, and the additional right-of-ways will be taken care of at recordation of the final tract map. He stated that the GPA seems appropriate to him and he has no problem with the zone change. Commissioner Lomas pointed out that Allen Road will be improved according to the conditions. She pointed out that phasing has not been addressed. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he thinks it is orderly development, and that the applicant has gone over and above what his requirements are. Commissioner Johnson's Amendment to Condition 12: "Extension of existing curb median would be required to restrict left turn movements." A new sentence would read: "A right turn lane into the western north-south street shall be required unless a traffic study confirming that a warrant for a right turn lane does not meet the city and CalTrans requirement is performed and approved by the city engineer." Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from urban state residential to suburban residential on approximately 11.5 acres, and low density residential, approximately 8.5 acres, as shown on Exhibit A-2 and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: Commissioner Tragish Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from agricultural zone to a estate one-family dwelling zone on approximately 11.5 acres, and one-family residential zone church combining zone on approximately 8.5 acres, as shown on Exhibit A-2, with the amendment to Condition 12 as previously read into the record, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: Commissioner Tragish Commissioner Tragish stated that his no vote was based on the comments he made, and essentially that he thinks the project is premature and does not lend itself to orderly development, and that there is a danger to health and safety along Rosedale Highway, and he does not believe the mitigation addresses that issue adequately. 5.12a General Plan Amendment 06-1692 (Adavco, Inc.) 5.121b Zone Change 06-1692 (Adavco, Inc.) Heard on Consent. 5.13a General Plan Amendment 06-2022 (Mel Heinemann) Planning Commission — December 21, 2006 Page 14 5.131b Zone Change 06-2022 (Mel Heinemann) Heard on Consent. 6. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 7. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Lomas commented on a job well done. 8. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director January 9, 2007