Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-08 MINUTES AK... . PLANNING MINUTES Regular Meeting - October 2, 2008 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac Absent: None 2., PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Dean Jolla would like to speak on items 4.2a and 4.2b. Mr. Jolla stated that he will speak on these items during their regularly scheduled time in the agenda. Commissioner Johnson used Chairman's prerogative and pulled item 7 out of the agenda. 7. REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP Revised Vestinq Tentative Tract_MaI2 6736(McIntosh & Associates) The public hearing is closed. Staff indicated that the applicant has requested a continuance until the November 8, 2008 meeting and Staff concurs. Commissioner Tkac moved to continue this item until the November 8, 2008 meeting. Commissioner Tragish inquired if this is the second or third continuance that has been requested on this agenda item. Staff responded that this will be the third request for continuance. Commissioner McGinnis pointed out that back in July or August the applicant was supposed to talk to the neighbors to attempt to resolve some of the difficulties with the width of the proposed streets and road. He inquired if there has been any movement on this, or are they continuing this because nothing is happening. Staff responded that the applicant has met with Staff on a couple of occasions, but they still are not in agreement. Staff indicated that they believe the applicant is trying to go back and possibly do some redesign to figure out if he can accommodate Staff's request at this point. Commissioner Tragish stated that if this comes up for a continuance again, he does not believe he will Vote for it and it should be voted on up or down. Commissioner Tragish further stated that he reviewed the disc for the pre-hearing. Commissioner Tkac also stated that he did review the video and therefore he will be participating in tonight's meeting. He also commented that with regard to the motion currently on the floor, they changed over to McIntosh which is a positive change in getting things done. The motion still stands. Commissioner Andrews seconded the motion on the floor. Motion carried by group/voice vote. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing items No items. Minutes of Planning Commission - October 2, 2008 Page 2 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a A132roval of General Plan Amendment 08-0728(McIntosh & Associates) 4.2b ARRroval of Zone Chan a 08-0726(McIntosh &Associates) 4.2c ARProval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Ma 11859(Delmarter& Deifel) 4.2d Approval of 2"d Revised Tentative Tract Map 6296(M.S. Walker& Associates) 4.2e Approval of Zone Change 08-0472(KSA Group Architects) 4.2f A02roval of Planned Development Review 08-0977(KSA Group Architects) 4.2g Appro yal of Zone Change 08-0491 Pre-Zonin (Moreland Consulting, Inca Items 4.2a and 4.2b are removed from the Consent Calendar as those were requested to be removed by a member of the public. The public hearing is opened. There were no other requE'sts from the public to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Tkac declared a conflict of interest on agenda item 4.2g, which is agenda Item 8.2, because it is a customer of his. Commissioner Tragish requested removal of consent agenda item 4.2e and 4.2f, which are regular agenda items 8.1 a and 8.1 b, as well as consent agenda item 4.2g, which is regular agenda item 8.2 The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve consent agenda items 4.2c and 4.2d. Motion carried by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac RECUSE: Commissioner Tkac (4.2g only) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - EIR 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTMENT 1 LAND USE DESIGNATION 1 CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT 1 ZONE CHANGE 5.1 a Bakersfield Gateway Project Environmental Impact Report for GPAIZC No. 07-0655 (Dave Dmohowski, Premier Planning Group) 5.1 b General Plan Amendment 07-0655(Dave Dmohowski, Premier Planning Group) 5.1 c Zone Change 07-0655(Dave Dmohowski, Premier Planning Group) The public hearing is opened, Commissioner Tragish stated that he has a client that owns property relatively close to the agenda property and therefore he., recused himself from these items. Staff report given, Tom Hendry, with ICF Jones & Stokes, was the EIR project manager and the City's consultant on this project. Therefore, Mr. Hendry provided further details on the project and the EIR. Mr. Hendry provided an aerial of the project, pointing out the vacant lands directly to the north of the project site, indicating that the yellow dot is a possible Kaiser Permanente project. He Minutes of Planning Commission - October 2, 2405 Page 3 commented that the area is being filled with either residential development or commercial projects as they generally move from the north to the south. He painted out South H Street, directly to the east of the project, is an important piece because when speaking of the noise impacts the residents who are along that street would probably be the most affected by the findings regarding noise impacts. Mr. Hendry explained that it is bounded on the south by Hosking Avenue and will be adjacent to the proposed future interchange project going in along Highway 99 and Hosking. He stated that to the north is Berkshire Street, which is currently undeveloped, and is planned to be the northern boundary to this project. Mr. Hendry pointed out that the land at the bottom is currently vacant, although it had been agriculture use for several years. Mr. Hendry commented that it is about 103 gross acres, 93 of which would be developed and another 10 acres for various entitlements. It is one million square feet in size and the signature tenant is a Bass Pro Shop, which is a unique feature of this project. He stated there will be another large anchor tenant, as well as a book store, movie theatre and a four-story, 300 room hotel (up to 4 floors) and associated parking, which will be a three-story parking structure with surface parking lots and internal streets and parkways with landscaping. He further stated that it will be a two phased development with the construction hoping to begin in June 2009 and completed by Spring 2012. Mr. Hendry stated that there was a tentative site plan that was presented in the Draft EIR. He also pointed out that it is purposely designed to be very pedestrian friendly and a site for people to gather at, not simply a place to shop. He explained that it emphasizes pedestrian movement and congregating areas, including generous sidewalks and landscaping proposed, as well as pedestrian arcades to make for a more pleasurable experience with water features, trellis, outdoor lights and fireplaces where appropriate. Mr. Hendry stated with regard to the environmental review process, the scoping for this project started in October 2007 and extended through the middle of November 2007 and there was a Planning Department scoping meeting in November 2007. He stated that the EIR evaluated 11 resource impact areas, with a 45-day review period of the Draft EIR, which was published on September 5, 2008. He also stated that the Planning Commission held an adequacy hearing on August 21, 2008. Mr. Hendry stated that the Final EIR responded to a wide variety of comments and within the Final EIR are the responses to comments, which responses were circulated to those whom commented on the Draft EIR for 10 days prior to this hearing. Mr. Hendry stated the 9 topic areas of the resource impact areas on the left were found to be less than significant with mitigation. He stated that the 2 resource areas on the right, noise and traffic and transportation were found to be significant and unavoidable. He emphasized that the foundation for that finding is based on cumulative projected growth in the greater Bakersfield area and not driven by the project itself. Mr. Hendry showed an overview of the agency and Commissioner comments which were fairly extensive. He stated that most of the comments were related to reaffirmations of their scoping comments. For example, the Superintendent of Schools reaffirming the need for school impact fees and the interest of CalTrans in making sure the right of ways are appropriately acquired. He pointed out an errata on this, stating that Mr. Arnul Marjalae, of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, did not comment on cultural resources but rather reaffirmed their interest in making sure that the voluntary emissions reduction agreement was, in fact, still in draft form, and did have to be finalized prior to this project moving forward. He also showed a list of the public's comments, specifically pointing out the comments made by Mr. Gordon Nipp of the Sierra Club whose concerns were with agricultural resource conversation, light pollution, the sufficiency of the air quality analysis, the voluntary emissions reduction agreement and global warming, including a solar panel option, as well as a transient oriented alternative to this proposed project. Mr. Hendry further stated that they received an extensive comment letter from Mr. Paul Alade, a landowner nearby, expressing concern about the Hoskings interchange, it's proximity to this project, as well as the timing of the that project as it relates to the opening of the this project. Mr. Minutes of Planning Commission - October 2, 2008 Page 4 Alade also pointed out some concerns regarding the cumulative project list and the adequacy of the analysis. They also received comment from Ms. Carol Furell from the Center on Race, Poverty, and Environment, whose concerns involved the potential for growth inducement from this project, the quality and sufficiency of the noise and hazard analyses. Ms. Furell further wanted greater clarification on the disclosure of the alternatives and the environmentally superior alternative. Mr. Hendry went on to state that Mr. Jeffrey Reed submitted a letter that expressed concerns regarding traffic improvement costs, water supply, visual impacts, as well as the sufficiency of the urban decay analysis. Mr. Reed also expressed concern with the CEQA compliance with certain portions of the EIR. Mr. Hendry concluded by reiterating that the errata and the clarifications in the Draft EIR do not change any of the findings that were revealed in the Draft EIR in terms of significance or the effectiveness of mitigation measures. He stated that the two significant unavoidable impacts were noise and traffic as well as transportation. South H Street is the particular segment that single family residences directly to the east of the project site, as well as single family homes located along South H Street to the north, will gradually experience greater and greater noise impacts due to the cumulative growth that the City of Bakersfield is undergoing. He stated that those significant and unavoidable impacts will require the preparation and findings of fact and adoption of a statement of overriding considerations by the City Council. Staff clarified that when this project was started they thought they were going to be able to get it to City Council on November 5t"., however the date now is November 19tH Julio Hernandez a resident in Bakersfield stated he is concerned about the noise and traffic from this project. Alfredo Caldera stated he has lived in Bakersfield for 45 years and he is concerned with the traffic. Dave Dmohowski, representing the applicant, indicated they are in favor of Staff's recommendation. Steven Koslick, CEO of the woodman Company, presented the project, explaining that the site is located on Hwy 99 as a western boundary, Hosking on the south, South H Street on the east and Berkshire on the north boundary, all of which encompasses approximately-100 acres. Mr. Koslick commented that this development incorporates what they call a mixed use type of concept. He further explained the location of the Bass Pro Shop, the theatre, and the retail boxes. He stated that they believe the inclusion of what they refer to as a streetscape walking environment will make this development special and unique. He explained that approximately 250,000 square foot of restaurants, retail and theatre will be incorporated into the development. There is also a proposed hotel project. Mr. Koslick stated that their goal of coming to Bakersfield is to provide something that is not present in the Bakersfield market. He further pointed out that with regard to why the Bass Pro Shop would come to Bakersfield, it is because the Kern County area has more registered fisherman and hunters than any other county in the state of California. He explained that the Bass Pro Shop views Bakersfield as a gateway to the Sierras. Mr. Koslick further explained that there will be 12 bowling alleys. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Stanley acknowledged that he met with the applicant to discuss this project and expressed his appreciate for the completeness of the document. He inquired if with the PCD on this proposal would the project come before the Planning Commission again. Staff responded that it will come back with a Site Plan Review for a PCD where the Planning Commission will have to give a discretionary approval. Commissioner Stanley commented that he feels this is a positive project that will be a value to our community. Commissioner Tkac echoed what Commissioner Stanley voiced. He inquired if this was any part of the southeast Enterprise Zone that the City of Bakersfield tried to keep going. Staff responded that this was never part of the Enterprise Zone. Staff clarified that this project is west and south of the Enterprise Zone by quite a distance. Minutes of Planning commission - October 2, 2005 Wage 5 Commissioner Tkac inquired if the Enterprise Zone in the southeast part of Bakersfield is still alive, to which Staff responded they do not know. Commissioner Tkac stated that his big concern is with the interchange, but thinks the project has been well thought out. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he met with the applicant prior to the hearing and appreciates the work that has gone into the EIR, as well as the staff report. He inquired as to the unfilled big box on the project currently, due to the 15% vacancy rate currently. Steven Koslick responded that today's environment is a challenging retail environment and pointed out that they are in negotiations with a large national retailer, and at this point he would say that 60-70% of the large boxes on this project have been identified and are in discussions and/or negotiations with those at this present time. Commissioner McGinnis commented that the only major unknown is the interchange on Hosking Road. He stated that he feels the report is adequate. Commissioner Blockley stated that he did not meet with the applicant and thinks this would be an excellent addition to the city. He stated he is in support of this proje+,t. Commissioner Andrews expressed his concern with the Hosking interchange and stated that the words of Commissioner Stanley reflect his concerns and thoughts about the project. Commissioner Johnson stated that he met with the applicant and thinks it is a unique product to Kern County and believes the studies done are adequate. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Stanley, -ro adopt a Resolution, Exhibit "A", making CEQA findings Section 15091 and 15093 the State CEQA Guidelines approving mitigation measure and mitigation monitoring program and authorize staff to modify the attached documents to reflect the Final EIR, and recommend the certification of the Final EIR for GPA/Zone Change 07-0655 to the Bakersfield City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tkac RECUSE: Commissioner Tragish Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt a Resolution, Exhibit "B", making findings and approving the requested G PA to change Vie land use map designations from LR (low density residential) to LMR (low-medium density residential) and HMR (high-medium density residential) to GC (general commercial) on 77+- acres, rind to change the circulation element to eliminate a designated collector segment, which is future Colony Street alignment, that transverses in a generally north-south direction through the project site, and to authorize staff to modify the attached documents to reflect the Final EIR, and recommend the same to the Bakersfield City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tkac RECUSE: Commissioner Tragish Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Stanley, to adopt a Resolution, Exhibit "C", approving the requested zone change from R1 (one family dwelling) zone on 77+- acres, and C2 (regional commercial) zone on 26+- acres to C2-PCD (re gional commercial / planned commercial development) combined zoning on approximately 103-4.- acres, and to authorize staff to modify the attached the attached documents to reflect the Final EIR, and recommend the same to the Bakersfield City Council. Minutes of Planning Commission -- October 2, 2008 Page 6 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tkac RECUSE: Commissioner Tragish 5.2a General Plan Amendment 08-0726(McIntosh & Associates) 5.2b Zone Change 08-0726(McIntosh &Associates) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Dean Jawalla, the principal at Golden Valley High School, stated they are directly south of this location. He stated he did meet with McIntosh & Associates and stated that his concerns as a principal of the high school is the density of the project. He pointed out that putting 210 units is pushing the maximum limit of the R-3. Mr. Jawalla explained that their school was built for 2150 students and as of the previous week there was 2,740 students. He stated that he does fear for the future of the school and he requested that if it is the Commissioner's desire to approve it, then perhaps it could tie approved under R-2 rather than R-3. Bill Sidu, the CEO & President of Golden Valley Luxury Apartment:-0, stated his concern with this project is the traffic on Hosking that currently exists and will be further exacerbated by the previous agenda item project. He also pointed out that it is a dangerous situation for the school children crossing the road, especially since there are no lights at Hosking and Monitor. Mr. Sidu further expressed that the proposed high density project does not specify what kind of project it will be, or what it will look like. He commented that it would not appear that this project could be built as a luxury product and will probably end up being a low-income apartment housing, which contradicts all of the efforts that have been made in this area. He submitted a written summary of his concerns. Roger McIntosh, with McIntosh Associates, stated that he represents Trent Capital. He requested a condition change with regard to condition number 14, which currEntly requires a stub out street access, to the project site from Monitor Street which will allow futurE, access to residentially zoned property east of the project site. He showed Policy 30b which requires perimeter streets around new commercial office retail, mixed use and industrial business park land uses, where they will enhance pedestrian and vehicular access from adjacent residential neighborhoods or promote convenient access to public transient services and where anticipat+3d traffic will not detrimentally impact local streets, exceptions may be allowed, etc. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that this does not apply to residential and they do not agree with the need for it, because the best location for the stub out street would be opposite the existing street called Variaso Court. Mr. McIntosh requested that condition number 14 be removed. Mr. McIntosh responded to Mr. Sidu's comments stating that his project was subject to a PUD and this applicant is requesting is a PUD as well. With regard to the sc pool's concerns, Mr. McIntosh responded that they are mitigating in accordance with the State requirements and State Mitigation fees. He pointed out that the number of units drives the amount of the fees. Mr. McIntosh stated that he can't guarantee it will be 210 dwelling units, but in order to make the right-of-way dedication, and make the street improvements work and pencil out, you have to have your units at least to a level that you can make it work. A 200 unit complex is about the size that you want as a minimum to be able to manage it successfully. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish commented that he has an aversion to putting high density and locking in the low density in the middle. He stated that it seems incompatible and does not seem to be orderly development given the size of the various parcels. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Condition 14, which relies on or&E rly development based on the General Plan Use Development Element Policy 30b, pertains to this project, as he thinks it pertains to Commercial projects. Staff responded that they are in agreement with Mr. McIntosh and the citation is an error and should not have been used. Staff indicated they are relying on orderly development and community health, safety and welfare for emergency response for property to the east in the future. Minutes of Planning commission - October 2, 2008 Page 7 Commissioner Tragish inquired where the street would go. Staff used the overhead to explain the road placement. Commissioner Tragish inquired where the location of the stub would go. Staff pointed out that it would be the north end of the property. Staff pointed out that if it is a PUD the design would come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tragish referred to the letter from Mr. Rice, the comments made by the principal, and stated that the area is already congested and pointed out that the schools do bring in an enormous amount of traffic. He stated that it seems odd to put in 210 units in an area that's only about 80 acres and that he tends to agree with the observations of the individuals from the schools. Commissioner Tragish inquired if traffic Staff has any opinion as to the impact of putting in this many units. Steve Walker responded that 210 units at this location will generate approximately 1700 trips per day, about 170 trips during peak hours. He indicated that Hosking and Monitor are major streets and there should not be a major problem. He pointed out that there is always congestion around schools during those peak hours. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Monitor was a collector or an arterial, to which Mr. Walker responded that Monitor is a collector. Commissioner Tragish inquired, given that there are three schools in the area, what the level of service would be on Monitor when there is an additional 210 units in the area. Mr. Walker stated that he did not do a previous calculation on what the level of service might be, however based on the normal projections of grorArth it would be within the level of service C for the foreseeable future. Commissioner Tragish stated with regard to the land dedication, he does understand you have to have a level of units that is profitable. He commented that the Governor signed a Bill in the last week regarding density and rewards given to various communities that promote density. He explained that sometimes when an accelerated amount of traffic alrelady exists, putting in a higher density project only exacerbates the situation and doesn't make it any better. He stated that he has a problem with "fencing" in the middle parcel, as well as with the high density. Commissioner Blockley stated he is uneasily in support of the project because of the nature of the high density in this location with the vicinity of the schools. (audio disruptions) Commissioner Blockley stated that he does not dispute that thane may be a need for high density, but he is very uneasy supporting it in the current location. He concluded by stating that he will be an uneasy supporter. Commissioner Tkac stated that he does not support this project because he does not like it in its current condition. He referenced Commissioner's Blockley's comments about West High, pointing out that Vilest High was a wonderful school at one time and now is a terrible place to be. Commissioner Tkac commented that he is surprised that Gordon Nipp, with the Sierra club, is not present suggesting solar panels on the project, especially in light of the fact that he is in support of high density projects. Commissioner Tkac further commented that he does not think that it is the right mix for this place. He added that he likes the fact that it is a PUD, however when people are so close together"fights break out." Commissioner Tkac inquired if this wasn't done as a low density, if the next step up would be low-medium density, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Staff pointed out that low- medium density would be about four to 10 units per acre, which equals 32 to 80 units or 240 people and high medium would potentially allow for over 400 people and in the requested very high density residential, which allows anywhere from 130 units, up to 500 if a high rise was built. Staff further pointed out that if anything above single family was built, it would consist of 4-10 units/acre on 8 acres, or at 7-17 units/acre on 8 acres. The applicant is asking for 1776 units/acre. Minutes of Planning commission - October 2, 2008 Page 8 Commissioner Tkac stated that the question is whether this is good planning, and he does not think this is good planning for this spot. He said he is a density or two down from the proposed project in order to be in support of it and furthermore that he would want it to be a PUD. He stated that he is not comfortable with how this mix is in this area. Commissioner McGinnis asked the Principal, from Golden Valley High School, to give him an estimate of the number of the student body coming from Golden Valley Luxury Apartments. Mr. Jawalla responded that he does not have a number for this and indicated that the district would have research and models on the anticipated increase in the study body from an additional 219 units. Mr. Jawalla pointed out that the map is not up to date, as there is an area just west of Golden Valley High School that appears to be open field, however it is all residential. Commissioner McGinnis commented that his understanding is that this Commission's primary responsibility is health, safety, and welfare. He stated he is going to rely on the letter dated October 2, 2008 from Gary Rice, Superintendent of Greenfield Union School District, stating that, "within 100 yards there are three schools and 4,000 children daily." commissioner McGinnis commented that 4,000 children daily is not maintaining health, safety, and welfare, and for that reason he cannot support it. Commissioner Andrews stated, in light of Smart Growth, he sees that a fairly high density adjacent to school sites would provide for a mechanism or an opportunity for students to walk to school, as opposed to moving developments further out and having to drive to school. He stated that he is in favor of the applicant's proposal and they can review it further under the PUD. Commissioner Stanley stated, with regard to the comparison to West High, he sees a difference in that area, there are quite a few more multi-family units than thin.' proposed application. He inquired if Staff can point out which areas have multi-family in this area. Staff showed a slide that shows 3/4 of a mile in each direction, pointing out the one existing apartment complex. Commissioner Stanley asked how many units were on the area to the east, to which Staff responded it is 300+ and it was unknown if the area to the north w(as developed. commissioner Stanley commented that he does not think that high density is the cure all for all the ills in society, however he does believe they need to provide for a Variety of living options and make sure they are quality developments. He further stated that with regard to the street access, he agrees with Staff that they need to plan for the future. commissioner Stanley stated that as this project is presented tonight, he thinks it is something that could work with this community and likes the PUD. Commissioner Johnson stated he looks at this project differently. He stated that putting R-3 on the corner of Monitor and Hosking leaves a small R-1 in between two five-acre pieces and it appears that it would be cramming low-density residential R-1 in between two R-3 high density developments. He further commented, that given the fact thcat there are questions about compatibility, appropriate timing and applicant's questions about wiere the streets would go and condition 14, it seems that this would make more sense if the applicant would be able to go to the adjacent neighbors and bring them all in and come knack with a united project. Commissioner Johnson stated that at this time he cannot support this project, because he does not think it is a good fit to sandwich low-density residential R-1 in between two R-3 pieces. Commissioner Blockley inquired if the commissioner could app•ove a motion for a different density, to which Staff responded that if it is a more restrictive zone it is possible to make the recommendation. Staff further stated that the Commissioner would also want to lower the General Plan designation to HMR, which would be the 7-17 units/acre and the one below that for an R-2 is 4-10 units/acre (LMR). Commissioner Blockley stated that is the direction he is going. Commissioner Andrews inquired if the developer could comment on the feasibility of moving forward with the property at reduced densities. Mr. McIntosh responded that he thinks he could convince his client that HMR makes more sense then HR and to go: forward with HMR R-2. Minutes of Planning Commission - October 2, 2008 Page 9 Commissioner Tkac stated he likes the idea of the proposal and is not against apartments, however, he stated his past experiences haunt him and he would like to see exactly what they would have for review if the proposed change is made. He inquired if they would get to look at elevations, balconies, or frontages. Staff responded that under a lesser designation, under a PUD combining zone, the Planning Commission will get to look at the landscaping, elevations of all sides and the general site plan of the project. Commissioner Tkac commented that the City has open space requirements for certain densities and he inquired if the Planning Commission will have discretion over this area, to which Staff responded that the Planning Commission could request a certain amount of open space. Commissioner Tkac further commented that the road issue is not going to go away and still needs to be decided. Commissioner McGinnis inquired how many units could be put on an R-2, to which Staff responded that an R-2 with HMR there could be about 136 units maximum. Commissioner Tragish responded to Commissioner Blockley's comments, stating that he is not convinced that taking it down to R-2 HMR addresses the problem with this project. He clarified that reality is that you already have a neighborhood where there are kids in and out of cars, kids walking along the streets, cars coming and going for about an hour and it creates a dangerous situation. He further explained that high density right on the cusp of these three school locations is throwing too many kids together which creates situations where there is going to be friction, especially in a high density situation. He also pointed out that it is interesting that the high school, which is geared for 2,150 students, has 2,740 students. In addition, he pointed out that parking situation is not designed for the kind of drop off or vehicles that attend that school. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not think the reduction in the density is going to make any impact or improve the project. He further stated that there are plenty of apartments in this area and one also has to remember that given the current economic situation, many of these homes are rentals as well. Commissioner Tragish further stated that with regard to the comments made about crime, there is always going to be a situation where you have schools and in this situation where you have so many of them together, that crime is of concern. Commissioner Tragish also stated that his primary emphasis is that he does not think that putting this project right across the street from a school, whether it's 210 apartments or 136 units, is good planning. He further commented that he agrees that the applicant needs to get together with the neighbors and work something out to make this project go. In conclusion, he stated that he is not persuaded by the lower density proposal and will not support it. Commissioner Johnson stated that with regard to the R-2, he is still concerned about sandwiching R-1 in between two higher density projects, because it raises questions for timing. He agreed with Commissioner Tkac that it would make sense to look at the PUD prior to do any up-zoning and sandwiching R-1 between two higher densities. Commissioner Blockley inquired if any of the mitigation measures will change if they change this project to a HMR and R-2 PUD, to which Staff responded that there may be some proportional shares on some improvements which can be fixed on the way to Council. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration, and approving the requested General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from LR (low density residential) to HMR on 8.14 acres as shown on attached Exhibit A-2, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion fails by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Stanley, Blockley, Andrews NOES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac Minutes of Planning Commission - October 2, 2008 Page 10 Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac that the application for this project to go from R-1 to R-3 PUD, as well as from low residential to high residential be denied in its entirety. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Tragish, Tkac NOES:Commissioners Stanley, Andrews Break taken 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS— VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1 REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6.1 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11859 (Delmarter& Deifel) Heard on consent calendar. 6.2 2nd Revised Tentative Tract Map 5298(M.S. Walker&Associates) Heard on consent calendar. 7. REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP Revised Vesti-n-q Tentative Tract Map 6736(McIntosh &Associates) Reviewed earlier. S. PUBLIC HEARINGS— ZONE CHANGE 1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8.1a Zone Change 08-0472,(KSA Group Architects) 8.1 b Planned,Development Review 08-0977(KSA Group Architects) The public hearing is opened. Commissioner Blockley declared a conflict of interest because his employer is the applicant. Staff report given, no one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Derrick Holsworth with KSA Architects, stated they agree with Staff's recommendation in the staff report. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated he removed this item from the consent calendar because he believes in reviewing the PUD projects. With regard to this project, he inquired where the 24 box shade trees will be located and what kind of trees they will be. Mr. Holsworth responded that there is a schedule of the plantings, with the types of trees. He further explained that the City requires a combination of deciduous and evergreen. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is an ordinance that provides that the landscaping has to cover a certain percentage of the parking lot. Staff responded there is and that it eventually has to provide 40% shading for the parking area. Commissioner Tragish inquired if a landscaping plan was submitted, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish explained that from the schedule he can't tell what everything is and that he wants to make sure that there are shade trees within the parking area and not just on the perimeter. Mr. Holsworth stated that when they submit the final landscape and irrigation plans they have to submit to Planning and Building a diagram showing the ultimate shading pattern. He did point out that the Crepe Myrtle are ornamental and will typically be border trees defining the entrance. He further clarified that to achieve the shading in the parking lot they have to use fairly large 24" box or larger deciduous trees. Minutes of Planning Commission -- October 2, 2008 Page 11 Gerald Sherman, the developer and owner of the property, stated that in addition to the shading they are looking into putting carports with solar and going green which would add to shading. Commissioner Tragish stated that he is concerned with getting from the parking lots to the theatre because there is really no walkway or designated areas through the parking lots in which you can walk through the parking lot and get to the theatre or the mall safely. Mr. Holsworth clarified that they are not the architectural firm for the theatre. However, he indicated that they are required to have pedestrian access from Mall View Road to get to the project. Access from the main field of parking, which is east of the theatre, the pedestrian access would be through the parking lot. Mr. Holsworth pointed out that there is a pedestrian walkway that runs from Mall View Road in front of the restaurant, across the parking lot into the landscape buffer area and then there is a shaded walk that goes from the restaurant to the theatre. Furthermore, as part of the conditions, they will be providing marked pedestrian walkways across the main road in front of the theatre and then through the parking lot of Gottschalks to the mall entrance. Commissioner Tragish inquired when they had the shopping center mall on Ming Avenue if they required them to provide some kind of pedestrian access through the parking lot to get to the mall. Commissioner Tragish stated he is concerned with pedestrian safety. Staff responded with regard to recent shopping centers, retail design standards apply to those and there is a requirement for parking modules with landscaped pedestrian access ways through the parking lot to those centers. Staff pointed out that that specific ordinance does not apply to this project, however it is a PCD and can be put on the project. Staff suggested that a request could be made that the eastern parking field, towards the northern edge, a landscape pedestrian-friendly walkway in a east-west direction to provide safe access to the theatre from the parking field on the east side. Commissioner Tragish commented that he thought there were some problems with crime in the theatre in the mall there and inquired if there is anything that can be done to mitigate this issue and provide safety for the patrons. Staff responded they are not aware of those problems at the East Hills Mall. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there are any other theatres on this side of town, to which Staff responded that they did not believe there were. Gerald Sherman stated that there have been no shootings at this mall. Commissioner Tragish stated his concern with the elevation and that he did not know what the two metal pieces were. He further indicated that he found the design somewhat strange and he wished that some of the theatres would be more aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the mall. Mr. Holsworth responded that this is one of the theatres that is a typical art deco style, however he is not an expert in theatre market. Commissioner Tragish inquired if any other drawings or elevations were submitted for the project, or if the submissions were just for the movie theatre. Mr. Holsworth responded the only submission was for the movie theatre. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the restaurant, to which Mr. Holsworth responded that this site plan is designed to have a free-standing restaurant pad, which has not been designed at this point. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the whole footprint to the west of the restaurant is the theatre, to which Mr. Holsworth responded in the affirmation. Commissioner Tragish concluded by stating that he thinks the design of the theatre is bizarre and he has a problem with it, and would like it to be more consistent with the area or the neighborhood. Commissioner Stanley commented that this is an improvement, given the current situation of East Hills Mail and will benefit the model. He stated that he thinks it will bring in a more affluent clientele that will help to improve the mall. Commissioner Stanley inquired if there were sidewalks, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. He also commented that there will be improved circulation on the inside and thinks this looks like a pretty standard theatre. Commissioner Johnson commented that the sidewalks along Mall View Road will be an added amenity to the area. Minutes of Planning Commission -- October 2, 2008 Page 12 Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the zone change 08-0472 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit A, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis Stanley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac RECUSE: Commissioner Blockley Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve Plan Development Review number 0-0977, with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, incorporating the September 30, 2008 memo from the Planning Director,. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis Stanley, Andrews, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Tragish RECUSE: Commissioner Blockley Commissioner Tragish incorporated his previous comments into the record as the reason for his no vote on this item, adding that there is a lack of pedestrian walkability in the northern part of the parking lot and therefore is not conducive to a safe and walkable situation. He further commented that the design of this particular theatre lacks a lot as far as consistency with the neighborhood in its aesthetics. 8.2 Zone Change 08-0491 Pre-Zoning(Moreland Consulting, Inc.) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one from the public spoke in opposition or in favor of Staff's recommendation. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish indicated that he took this item off the consent calendar because he had some questions. He pointed out that this part of Taft Highway is a mess and there is a lot of high density mobile ports to the direct west of the project. He inquired if they can put a condition in that there be a decel lane on the corner of Chevalier and Taft Highway. Staff responded that Chevalier is a collector and Taft Highway is an arterial and as such the City has a standard intersection expansion detail that does have a right turn lane that would go onto the collector. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if Chevalier is a collector, to which Staff responded that it is a four lane collector and therefore the developer would put in their two lanes on Chevalier. Commissioner Tragish concluded by stating his questions were answered and he is okay with the project. Commissioner Johnson inquired if it was appropriate to proceed since the applicant is not present, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Stanley, to approve the zone change 08-0491 Pre-Zoning with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit A, and incorporating the memorandum dated September 29, 2008 from Marian Shaw, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Andrews, Tragish, Blockley RECUSE: Commissioner Tkac Minutes of Planning Commission - October 2, 2008 Page 13 9. COMMUNICATIONS: Staff referenced a memo dated September 19, 2008 in response to commissioner question regarding the project on Belie Terrace Road and the parking for the apartment complex. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Johnson commented that he neglected to ask for comments to no votes on agenda item 5.2a and 5.2b and provided an opportunity for comments to be made now. Staff commented that they will go back through and summarize the comments as to those reasons. Commissioner Stanley stated that his comment reflected his view on those items. Commissioner Blockley commented that it appears that Monitor Street turns into Shannon Drive, which turns into Chevalier. He pointed out that if that's correct, then they are continuing a tradition. -11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director October 17,2008