Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-05-07 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting – July 5, 2007 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac. Absent: Commissioner McGinnis 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None. Commissioner Andrews disclosed that he did meet with the developer on project 06-1909. Commissioner Tkac advised that he previewed the tape. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for regular Planning Commission meeting of June 7, 2007. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve agenda item 4.1a, the non public hearing items. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: None. ABSENST: Commissioner McGinnis 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Continuance of Tentative Parcel Map 11554 (Dee Jaspar & Associates) 4.2b Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11718 (MS Walker) 4.2c Approval of Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6256 4.2d Approval of Continuance of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6941 4.2e Approval of Zone Change 06-1909 (Jimmy Crompton) 4.3f Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-0021 (Cottonwood Villas, LLC) 4.2g Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-0514 (Jim Clawson Jr.) 4.2h Approval of Zone Change 07-0514 (Jim Clawson Jr.) The public hearing is opened. No one requested removal of any item from the Consent Calendar. No Commissioner requested removal of any item from the Consent Calendar. The public hearing is closed. Planning Commission – July 5, 2007 Page 2 Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the Consent Calendar. Staff inquired if Commissioner Tragish reviewed the premeeting tape, to which Commissioner Tragish responded that he had an opportunity to view the video tapes fro Monday’s premeeting. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS – EIR/General Plan Amendments/Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Changes 5.1a Bakersfield Sports Village Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for GPA/ZC 06-1002 (City of Bakersfield) 5.1b General Plan Amendment 06-1002 (City of Bakersfield) 5.1cZone Change 06-1002 (City of Bakersfield) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff’s recommendation. Roger McIntosh stated that he supports the project but that he is concerned with condition 29 on page 11 of 12 referring to a nine point action plan approved by the City rd Council on May 23 to pursue funds needed to complete the construction of transportation facilities to serve growth and development within Metropolitan Bakersfield. He explained that the language in this condition is not exactly the way that it was proposed to the City Council and it imposes a significant impact on the economics of the project, specifically the commercial corners. Mr. McIntosh stated that the nine point action plan was presented to the City Council in a rd workshop on May 23 and the recommendation was to propose adoption of a positive action plan to address the issues raised regarding transportation funding and specifically item number three in the condition that requires EIRs, general plan amendments in a single lot development on or near major facilities, (the south beltway), to pay a supplemental fee to help pay for acquisition of right- of-way and possibly construction. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that the fee is about $2,000 per unit for single family unit and if that fee is also imposed on the commercial corners equating that fee would require a fee of about $4.4 million to be paid for those two commercial properties. Mr. McIntosh stated for that any developer to come in and have to pay that fee when they apply for the next step in the development process kills the two commercial sites, because a developer would have to put up $4.4 million to be able to apply for two commercial developments, not knowing if his commercial developments are ever going to be approved, and therefore it imposes a significant impact and cost to any future developer. Mr. McIntosh requested that condition 29 be removed as it devalues the property. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Mr. McIntosh’s view of how condition 29 would be applied is correct. Staff responded that Mr. McIntosh’s calculations cannot be verified because they have not been determined yet. Staff said this condition was on the last set of general plans that went through two weeks ago and that the applicant is not contesting it on this project. Staff speculated that this condition is on another project that Mr. McIntosh is involved with and that is probably why he is contesting it on this project. Staff pointed out that they are still working on the formula of how the fee will be calculated. Staff recommended that since the applicant is not against the condition on this project and Mr. McIntosh’s calculations cannot be verified, the condition remain as is. Commissioner Tragish inquired if it is common for them to assess the fees prior to a subdivision application or approval of a parcel map waiver or plan development review approval. Staff responded that different fees are assessed at different times. Staff commented that it is the City’s opinion at this time that if it is assessed at the building permit state it is too late in the process and Planning Commission – July 5, 2007 Page 3 that they need the fees up front to make up the unfounded balance of the freeway projects in Bakersfield. Commissioner Tragish inquired if when this money is acquired, if it is earmarked for the buildout of the east beltway, or if it is put into the general fund, or a trust fund for road improvements. Staff responded that at this time it would be earmarked for the unfounded balance of the TRIP program and roads needed, but not a specific segment of that roadway system. Commissioner Tragish stated that his concern is to make sure that it is going towards the roads or towards the TRIP program. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if this is a condition that is being placed in other projects. Staff responded that this condition was placed on the general amendment plan projects that were heard two weeks ago and this is the first general plan cycle that this condition has been seen because this issue has come up since the last general plan cycle. Staff pointed out that projects within two miles of a major transportation project will be subject to this condition. Commissioner Tragish commented that it seems pretty fair and evenhanded; pointing out that it is a plan to ensure that the various major roadways get built. Commissioner Johnson inquired why this condition is being put on before the fee has been approved and if this has been done before with other fees that have been developed in the past. Staff responded that the fee is being put on at this stage because under the General Plan Amendment process the Planning Commission has the most discretion of any decision that is made and if it is not assessed at this stage and a developer comes in and applies a tentative tract you could not place it on the project at that stage and would be questionable whether you could put the condition on at a zone change stage. Commissioner Johnson inquired what the nexus is for this fee. Staff commented that all projects will contribute to the transportation issue in Bakersfield. Commissioner Johnson inquired what happens if Council or policymaking body does not approve such fee. Staff responded that the condition would become moot and is unenforceable. Commissioner Johnson inquired what happens if the corner commercial sites are undevelopable and the enterprise fund is not paid back. Mr. Tandy responded that the property would remain in the ownership of the waste water treatment facility and it would still have an asset and cover the County requirement. Mr. Tandy further stated that this will impact the new fee schedule for virtually any and all commercial development and the fee will be calculated in such a manner so as not to be unreasonably burdensome. Mr. Tandy confirmed that there is no statutory time frame to pay back the waste management enterprise fee. Commissioner Johnson stated there is a lot to be done to still develop the fee and establish what it is going to be, however there is some benefit to the regional transportation networks to ensure that they are developed in a timely manner. Commissioner Tkac inquired if this body has the authority to enforce the condition if it is not a defined number. Staff responded that west Ming was a different situation, but it has been applied to all the other general plan amendments in this cycle within two miles along the transportation networks. Staff further commented in response to whether it can be enforced, Staff is of the opinion that they do need a placeholder because they do have a very important transportation issue before them and an unfounded issue with the freeways. Commissioner Blockley inquired if a similar approach has been taken in other jurisdictions in California. Staff responded that similar approaches in California have taken place. Commissioner Blockley stated that he is in favor of the project and thinks the condition is being uniformly imposed. Commissioner Tragish commented that something has to be done with the traffic issues and the County does not seem to have a plan. He stated that while the exact fee has not yet been worked out, it is giving notice to the developers of what the City intends to do. He stated that his only concern is to make sure that the money goes towards traffic and not smeared around town for something else. Planning Commission – July 5, 2007 Page 4 Commissioner Tragish stated he’s not sure what “dovetail” means for the commercial and inquired what type of commercial is anticipated. Staff responded that when they sell the property it is not their intent to bid it to highest bidder, but to do a request for proposal to measure conditions of the developer’s proposals as it relates to the Sports Village and the surrounding neighbor as factors in consideration of the bid award, as well as the monetary compensation. Staff pointed out that they don’t think the Sports Village in and of itself would support this much commercial, but is also intended to serve the surrounding residential development and therefore there would be a mixture of things. Staff further pointed out that the commercial sites do have PUD overlays. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if the traffic in the commercial areas will interact with the Sports Complex area. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the road running through the center of the site will create a traffic problem with the envisioned attendance for the Sports Complex along with the commercial. Staff responded that it will serve both uses and to have it run through the site only enhances the circulation capabilities and there can be some traffic calming devices placed if needed. Commissioner Andrews stated his concern is if there is a specific time frame in terms of when the fee will be structured. Staff responded that they should have something before these projects reach City Council. Commissioner Johnson commented that this is a good approach to providing more recreational space. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution Exhibit “A” and making CEQA findings approving mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring recommending certification of the Final EIR for GPA Zone Change 06-1002 to the City Council. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making findings and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use map designation from P to OSP on 163 acres, and P to GC on 37 acres, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution approving the requested zone change from A (agriculture) to RE (recreation) on 163 acres, agriculture to C-2/PCD on 37 acres, and A (agriculture) to M1 (light manufacturing) on 22 acres and recommend the same to City Council. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis. 30 minute recess taken Planning Commission – July 5, 2007 Page 5 5.2a General Plan Amendment 06-2254 (Steven Boneso, c/o McIntosh & Associates) 5.2b Zone Change 06-2254 (Steven Boneso, c/o McIntosh & Associates) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Lyn Espericueta inquired where the bike path is in all this and pointed out that it appears that the zone change will butt up against her property. She stated that there are only about nine houses in this area and she inquired what they are planning on doing with those nine homes as they build around. She stated that since the City in the Hills started building they have had graffiti and mail violations, identify theft, home break-ins, and drunkards trying to get into their cars. She stated she does not want to see high density and wants to see that the City give them some consideration for water and sewer. Roger McIntosh, with McIntosh & Associates, representing Steve Boneso, stated they are in favor of Staff’s report except for condition number 14 referring to the City Council approved nine point action plan on May 23rd, referencing .3 of the action plan requiring “…additional mitigation from all general plan amendments projects with environmental impact reports in single lot developments. A portion of the funds necessary to complete these improvements has been identified and collected. However, in order to fund the completion of these planned improvements supplementary funds are necessary.” Mr. McIntosh stated that the biggest problem is that the fee has not been calculated and they can’t agree to something that Staff is still working on. He further stated that his other concern is with, “the major transportation facility fee shall be paid prior to subdivision application approval of a parcel map waiver, preliminary site plan approval, or preliminary plan unit development approval.” He pointed out that instead of applying for a zone change or a site plan review and submitting a fee of $2,500 to $,3000, now all of a sudden the developer has to pay $700,000 for that same number of units based on the possible projected figure by Staff. Mr. McIntosh stated that he does not know of any bank that would lend $700,000 just to get an application into the City on the chance that maybe the project gets approved or maybe not. He also stated that he is not aware of any other fee that is imposed in such a manner. Mr. McIntosh explained how the fee was established by pointing out that on rd May 23 the City Council held a workshop, which was not a public hearing, and there were no CEQA document or nexus document. He referenced workshop 3A –Highway Funding Plan, th which was the memo of April 5 from Mr. Tandy, City Manager, which recommends that the City staff propose adoption of a positive action plan to address issues raised, including items 1-9, of which item 3 talks about mitigation requirements. He stated that mitigation is usually tied a CEQA document and specifically mitigation for the project. He pointed out that Mr. Tandy’s memo recommends requirements for GPAs and EIRs, which there is no EIR at this point, but rather a Negative Declaration, and even single lot development. Mr. McIntosh also pointed out that there really is no right-of-way to give away and stated that the same dedication requirement by the County would facilitate more roadway construction and in addition the developers would provide to the City or County right-of-way, or fund the purchase of it and should fund construction of the beltways if they are within two miles on each side of the road alignment. Mr. McIntosh stated that if these are regional highway facilities that serve the entire community, then this proposed fee should be spread over the entire community and not just projects within two miles of a major facility. He stated this fee should be calculated from the regional transportation impact fee program and spread out over all the projects and would be paid for at the time of building permit because that’s when the actual impact is and not when you apply for a project three or four years before the project ever gets built. Mr. McIntosh went on to say that the proposed fee puts undue hardship on the developer. He pointed out that they did a traffic study for this project for both local and regional impacts, stating that there is approximately $2.24 million in the regional transportation impact fee program for right-of-way acquisition of Highway 178 and to impose another fee on this for acquisition of right-of-way that’s already funded and for which this project will already be paying into, is double dipping. Mr. McIntosh also asked what would happen when a freeway is on a section line and if the lots on the south side pay the fee and the lots on the north not pay the fee because they’re on the other side of an arterial. He pointed out that all of the lots will use the arterial which feed into the freeways, and ultimately use the entire regional system. Mr. McIntosh reiterated that this developer shouldn’t have to pay $700,000 just to get an application in to get a project approved. Planning Commission – July 5, 2007 Page 6 Mr. McIntosh referenced condition 14 which states that “the exact fee per dwelling unit or commercial industrial sq. ft. is currently under review by City Staff. This major transportation facility fee shall be paid prior to subdivision application, approval of a parcel map waiver, preliminary site plan approval or preliminary planned unit development. (He pointed out that the preliminary site plan approval was left off the prior application.) He said the language for when the fee would actually be paid has been added above and beyond what was recommended to rd the City Council on May 23. Mr. McIntosh also pointed out that there’s a vesting tentative map that was submitted before the rd May 23 action. He stated that they are not opposed to funding transportation, but are opposed to arbitrarily imposing a fee that hasn’t been study, has no nexus, not open to public review and all of a sudden this policy is becoming conditions of approval. He suggested that if the City Council is going to adopt and impose a fee, then it needs to be structured and the applicant needs to know what it is, and it needs to be imposed on everyone, and not just the last two guys that came in two weeks ago. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that he came up with the $4.4 million figure because $700,000 equates to about 2,500 trips per day and if you take the 37 acres of commercial with 35,000 trips overall, the commercial site generates about 16,000 trips per day. Steve Boneso stated he did not find out about this condition until a few days ago. He stated that he does not think it is reasonable to implement something that hasn’t been studied and hasn’t been put to the test and fair to everyone. He said that this condition could make or break his project. He recommended making the fee fair to everybody and that it be done at the time of the building. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that Mr. McIntosh’s comments are well taken. He inquired if the Planning Commission has the power to impose this condition in that it may be arbitrary in that there has been no public review, and no discussion by City Council, and doesn’t concord with the nature of the May 23, 2007 action plan by Mr. Tandy. He commented that some of these issues raised sound legal in nature. Staff responded that as the general plan amendment the Planning Commission does have the ability to attach such a condition, pointing out that this applicant is asking to go from R-1 zoning with a vesting map that provides for 80 units to be developed on the land and asking for approval that would allow them to build up to 348 dwelling units zoned R2 and if the applicant does not want to agree to the condition, there are two courses of action: 1) denial; or 2) continue to the next cycle when the numbers will be worked out. Staff further clarified that there have been nine general plan amendments in this cycle that have applied this condition. Commissioner Tragish stated that if they continued it to the next cycle he is concerned with the inconsistency of the decisions, i.e., the prior application just approved. Staff responded that the fee for these going to Council will be worked out before it gets to Council and that the other nine applicants have agreed to the condition, but this applicant does not so there is no consistency in the Planning Commission’s prior decisions. Commissioner Tragish stated that he is not real crazy about putting all of these units in this area, which is basically surrounded by R-1, nor about the fact that there are people cross the street in still a relatively rural area and improving it to a higher use. He also stated that he is concerned with the two-stories and the ambiance of this area. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there was a continuation how it would impact the projects already approved with the condition. Staff responded that the plan is to have the same fee to all the projects and the same timing. Commissioner Tragish asked for clarification of the regional fee, the local fee and this third fee in the subject condition. Staff responded that up to now they’ve had general plan amendments that do traffic studies and determine what their local mitigation fee, so there would be a regional transportation impact fee, which all projects pay, there would be a local mitigation fee, which is tailored to each project depending on what the traffic study shows, and now this third fee. Planning Commission – July 5, 2007 Page 7 Commissioner Tragish inquired if this project were to go forward if it would bring water and sewer to the property to the east where Ms. Espericueta resides. Staff responded that it brings it closer, but can’t say that they would be able to serve off of any of the line that would be put into this particular GPA and depends entirely on the layout. Commissioner Tragish stated he does not want to move it to a higher use on this property because it is not compatible with this neighborhood. With respect to the condition, he inquired of Mr. McIntosh if his client would be amenable to continuing this application. Mr. McIntosh responded that he has had numerous conversations with Mr. Rojas and Mr. Tandy over this issue and there doesn’t seem to be any compromise at this point. He stated that he thinks this is an issue that needs to be taken up with City Council and whatever the Planning Commission’s action is they would prefer to take it on to City Council because it will have an impact on the other eight applications and they would rather not wait another cycle. Commissioner Johnson inquired about condition 10b which states, “Provide dedication as necessary for the bike path along Morning Drive and Rivani Drive in conformance with the northeast Bakersfield Parks and Trails Plan.” He asked if the bike path and multi-use trails are going to go where Rivani Drive and Morning Drive change. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson also inquired about the setback referencing that the dwelling must observe a 50’ setback on page 4 of 7 of the Staff report, as well as condition 17 which reads, “Planned unit development plan shall include a heavily landscaped buffer along the east property line adjacent to the R-S 2.5 acre zoning, and a minimum 100’ setback for any two-story structures.” Staff responded that there is no block wall requirement and that the condition on the setback means that when a PUD comes before the Planning Commission for review, the first story would have a 50’ setback, the second story would have a 100’ setback and there would be a heavily landscaped area west of the property line to provide a visual and aesthetic buffer to the th property. Staff pointed out that the memo of June 28 addresses that. Commissioner Johnson referenced condition 14 and inquired at what point they collect the local and regional transportation impact fees currently. Staff responded that they are collected at the building permit stage. Commissioner Johnson inquired if condition 14 becomes moot if the policymaking board or the Council decides that the fee is not applicable. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Blockley stated that he is concerned that this policy only pertains to selected projects that are within a certain distance of transportation projects. He stated that right now it seems like a big jump to go from once rural wide open spaces to high density residential. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt a Resolution making findings disapproving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the General Plan Amendment. Motion passed by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: Commissioner Johnson, Andrews ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt a Resolution making findings disapproving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the zone change. Motion passed by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: Commissioner Johnson, Andrews ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis Planning Commission – July 5, 2007 Page 8 Commissioner Andrews stated that he believes it should just be forwarded up the line to the policymakers. Commissioner Johnson stated Commissioner Andrews makes a good point about the need for the policymakers to make a decision regarding the transportation condition. He also stated that he did not think that the application, as it stood, was worthy of a denial as he did not think the R2 was grossly incompatible with the uses in the area and with the general commercial directly to the south, along with the need for R2 in the community. 5.3a General Plan Amendment 07-0021 (Cottonwood Villas, LLC) located on the north side of East White Lane and the west side of Washington Street, south of East Planz Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Heard on consent calendar. 5.4a General Plan Amendment 07-0514 (Jim Clawson Jr.) located south of Taft Highway (State Route 119), west of Mountain Ridge Road (future alignment). (Negative Declaration on file) 5.4b Zone Change 07-0514 (Jim Clawson Jr.) located south of Taft Highway (State Route 119), west of Mountain Ridge Road (future alignment). (Negative Declaration on file) Heard on consent calendar. 5.5a Zone Change 06-1909 (Jimmy Crompton) located on the west side of Cottonwood Road, south of Casa Loma Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) Heard on consent calendar. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS – Tentative Parcel Maps/Tentative Tract Maps 6.1 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11718 (MS Walker) located on the southeast corner of Panama Lane and South H Street. (Notice of Exemption on file) Heard on consent calendar. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. 9. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director July 24, 2007