Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/20/00AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall · Thursday, January 20, 2000 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN B 0 YLE MA THEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. A PUBLIC STATEMENTS ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $334 non-refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $334 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, Thursday ' january 20, 1999 Page 2 (Ward 4) (Ward 7) m CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. 3.1) 3.2) 3.3) 3.4) 3.5) 3.6) Agenda Item 5.1) -Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 10470 Agenda Item 5.2) - Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5327 Revised Agenda Item 5.3) - Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5882 Agenda Item 5.4) - Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5632 Agenda Item 7.1) - General Plan Consistency Finding for Acquisition of 90 acres adjacent to the China Grade Landfill Site Agenda Item 7.2) - General Plan Consistency Findin.q for Acquisition of Parcel for Water Well Site APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held December 2 and December 13, 1999. PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 5.1) Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 10470 (Simpson-Lusich- VanCuren, Inc.) consisting of five parcels of 13.22 acres, zoned C-1 (Limited Commercial), located at the southwest corner of Buena Vista Road and White Lane. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group Vote. 5.2) Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5327 Revised (Genevieve Myers) consisting of 93 single family residential lots on 20 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), located on the north side of Hosking Road approximately 1/4 mile east of South "H" Street. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group Vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday - January 20, 1999 Page 3 (Ward 4) (Ward 6) (Ward 4) (Ward 4) 5.3) Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract 5882 (Castle & Cooke) consisting of 682 single family residential lots and one church parcel on 245~38 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-l-CH (One Family Dwelling-Church), located at the southeast corner of Brimhall Road and Allen Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group Vote. 5:4) Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5632 (Joseph D. Champion) consisting of 211 single family residential lots on 50 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), located at the west side of Wible Road approximately 1/4 mile south of McKee Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Group Vote. Approve PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5882 (Martin-Mclntosh) consisting of 569 lots on 245.21 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-1 CH (One Family Dwelling-Church); and a request for private streets on a portion of the subdivision, and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.I., located between Brimhall Road, the Kern River Freeway Specific Plan Line, Jewetta Avenue and Allen Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from October 21 and November 18, 1999) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vo~ 6.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 5961 Optional Design (DeWalt Corp.) consisting of 50 lots on 20.5 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); including a request to deviate from city standards, located south of Olive Drive on the west side of RiverLakes Drive. (Negative Declaration 'on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vo~ Agenda, PC, Thursday - January 20, 1999 Page 4 (Ward 7) (Ward 3) (Ward 4) 6.3) Vesting Tentative Tract 5971(phased) (Martin-Mclntosh) consisting of 170 lots on 40 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned A-20A (Agriculture - 20-acre minimum) to be rezoned to R-1 (One Family Dwelling); and a request to deviate from subdivision standards regarding separation of streets and allow reverse corner lots, located on the northeast corner of Hosking Avenue and Akers Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGR 7.1) Request. by Kern County General Services Division for a finding of consistency pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for the proposed acquisition of 90 acres adjacent to the China Grade Landfill site for buffering and monitoring purposes. Subject property consists of three parcels located approximately one mile east of the intersection of Alfred Harrell Highway and Fairfax Road. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Make Finding Group vote 7.2) Request by the City of Bakersfield Property Management Division for a finding of consistency pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for a proposed acquisition of parcel for use as a water well site, located southeast of Brimhall Road and Verdugo Lane (Lot 2, Unit 3 of Tract -5869). (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Group vote Make Finding COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTR A) Committees Agenda, PC~ Thursday - January 20, 1999 Page 5 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. 11. ADJOURNMENT Janua~ 5,2000 ~Secretary Planning Director ' :'~? :~;,'MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ~' , · -i.' :.. ~'~,.~_~ ~ : ·~ OF THE ~- '~ ~ -~ -': ;:~?:~--"PLANNING COMMISSION ·, ~ ': .'!'~..~, , . . - Held January 20, 2000 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE Absent: MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: Staff: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Tkac read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) Agenda Item 5.1) - Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 10470 3.2) Agenda Item. 5.2) - Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5327 Revised 3.3) Agenda Item 5.3) - Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5882 3.4) Agenda Item 5.4) - Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5632 3.5) Agenda Item 7.1) - General Plan Consistency Finding for Acquisition of 90 acres adjacent to the China Grade Landfill Site 3.6) Agenda Item 7.2) - General Plan Consistency Finding for Acquisition of Parcel for Water Well Site Minutes, PC, January 20, 2000 Page 2 A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the Consent Agenda items. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held December 2 and December 13, 1999. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 5.1) Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 10470 (Simpson-Lusich- VanCuren, Inc.) (Ward4) See Consent Agenda 5.2) Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5327 Revised (GenevieVe Myers) (Ward 7) See Consent Agenda ,5.3) Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract 5882 (Castle & Cooke) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda 5.4) Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5632 (Joseph D. Champion) (Ward 6) See Consent Agenda Commissioner Boyle was seated at 5:41 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5882 (Martin-Mclntosh) (ward 4) Staff report given recommending condition No. 39 clarify that an 8 foot long block wall is to be built along the west and southern sides of the high school separating the residential and the high school. Staff recommended approval with conditions attached to the staff report and as modified by the two Public Works memos the Commission received. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Karen Christiansen Principal of Liberty High School, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation. Ms. Christiansen stated that a definite barrier needs to be in place between the school and the homes on the south and west. They would Minutes, PC, January 20, 2000 Page 3 prefer streets but if not streets then they agree that an 8 foot block wall will due. The wall would muffle the noise and stave off foot traffic of students who take the most direct route. Students will cut through property and walk over small fences or jump over small walls unless there is something more substantial there. An obvious separation is definitely needed. The school conducts a variety of activities year around from 7:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. and a wall would serve as a noise buffer. Pat Preston, Assistant Principal for Liberty High School, spoke in favor of the City's recommendation. One of their concerns is on February 1 they will start softball practice on the south side of the campus and baseball and softballs will end up over the block wall. They would have preferred a street be in place but the addition of a block wall at least 8 feet tall would help mitigate the problems of sound and light from the stadium which is being built on the west side of the campus. Roger Mclntosh, representing the applicant Castle & Cooke CA, stated that he had talked with staff and he would like to address a few conditions of approval. He stated that he had reviewed the memo dated January 19, 2000, and October 20, 1999, from the Public Works Department and they agreed with the revised conditions of approval from the two memos. Mr. Mclntosh thanked the Commission for allowing the continuance they had requested in the past. The reason for the continuances was because they had on-going conversations with school district representatives to try to resolve the issue of the wall as well as Invermay Street and the requirement to construct it with the first phase east of Old Farm Road. In addition to those two memos he requested some additional wording on Public Works Condition 10 which says, "dedicate and construct right turn lanes at all entries into the subdivision." Mr. Mclntosh requested to add the wording "that meet traffic warrants." He had this discussion with Ms. Shaw in October and he had forgotten to mention it to her this morning when he talked to her. Mr. Mclntosh stated that Mr. Deeter in the Traffic Department agreed with the change. Ms. Shaw stated the Traffic Department did agree to this change. Mr. Mclntosh also addressed Condition Nos. 38 and 39. These had to do with the construction of Invermay Street with the first phase to be recorded east of Old Farm Road. Invermay Street runs perpendicular to the local street adjacent to the high school and the reason they don't agree with the condition is that they would like to maintain some flexibility there in perhaps doing some lot line adjustment for the three parcels north of the high school. If the street is built during the first phase of development, they would be locked into a street location. It wouldn't leave any flexibility in case a church or school wanted to build on that site and wanted a little bit larger parcel or two parcels and the street would have to move100 feet one way or the other. They would like to maintain the flexibility and build that street when the phase that that street is in gets recorded. By that time they will know what the purchaser or the builder will Minutes, PC, January 20, 2000 Page want and where they will want to see that street. They are asking for that condition to be stricken. They will build that street with the phase that it is located in.. The second issue Mr. Mclntosh wanted to address is the 8 foot block wall around the school site. He stated that this is.3,000 lineal feet of block wall and would cost $150,000. Mr. Mclntosh stated that this doesn't make sense. He then showed aerial photographs of some school sites in the high school district. Mr. Mclntosh said the school district puts in 8 foot high chain-link fences at their school sites and normally do not like block walls as it attracts graffiti. Most of the schools in the photographs were buffered by streets and had chain-link fence all around the site. Mr. Mclntosh requested that the Commission disregard the school district's request for the block wall as they did not respond within the allowed 15 day deadline as stated in the Map Act. Mr. Mclntosh stated that the compatibility of a school, high school stadium, playfields, athletic fields and residential lots is an impact, of the school on the adjacent residential property. He went on to say that a part of the EIR for the South of Brimhall Road project addresses land use compatibility. It mentions that there is a land use around the residential project, it identifies a high school located at this location and as a result of the review did not have a problem with the compatibility and the land use issue. There were no mitigation measures ' required in the EIR. It was certified and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Mclntosh feels that if there was such a problem with land use compatibility, it should have been discussed in the EIR. Since a Notice of Exemp. tion has been issued, it can't be made a mitigation measure without complete CEQA environmental review. It is listed under mitigation measures. It was added by staff as an arbitrary thing because staff felt it would be a good thing to have. He asked the Commission to keep in mind that this is a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and they can only take into consideration ordinances, policies or standards that are in place at the time the application is deemed complete. That was September 3, 1999. There is no ordinance requiring the block wall and they ask the Commission not to go with staff's recommendation. Mr. Mclntosh stated that if the school district wants the block wall, they should build it. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked about the half street to the north, Patrick Henryl and whether or not it is still a half street? Mr. Mclntosh said that Patrick Henry is currently built to half street standard but ultimately will be a complete full local street. Commissioner Sprague asked if that would supply the school with secondary access? Mr. Mclntosh said that Patrick Henry is currently being used as secondary access over to Jewetta. Commissioner Sprague said that as far as the brick wall goes, he agrees that most of the older schools have chain- link fencing but Chavez School on the east side was required to have an 8 foot Minutes, PC, January 20, 2000 Page 5 block wall and it is in place and it was required to be.built. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if this was a policy call or is this something in the book that says an 8 foot wall has to be built around the school? Mr. Grady said there is not an ordinance requiring the block wall around the school. The Planning Department's review of this was based on the fact that the previous map which was approved in 1997 had streets all around it which provided an adequate buffer. Mr. Grady said that Mr. Mclntosh is correct about the utilization of the EIR in the sense that it evaluated the entire Brimhall project but under CEQA subsequent projects can receive additional environmental analysis. It is the Planning Department's opinion that there needs to be some kind of buffer between the high school and the residential subdivisions that are now backing up to the school. It is the recommendation of the Planning Department to put in an 8 foot block wall. Not by ordinance but to mitigate the impact of the schoo. I being adjacent to the residences. Commissioner Sprague said that he was concerned about the baseball fields and the light glare and the foul balls going in the backyards and wanted to know if the sump could be moved to create a greenbelt buffer zone? Mr. Mclntosh said that is going to be a tough area to sell anyway because of the small lots and proximity to the freeway. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Mclntosh if he knew what is proposed on the south lot that faces Jewetta? Mr. Mclntosh said that that is actually part of an adjacent tract (5827) and they are all lotted out and there is no requirement to put a block wall along the school. Commissioner Sprague asked staff why condition number 13 of Public Works memo of January 19 is being deleted? Is street lights going to be there?. Ms. Shaw stated that street lights were not being deleted but the condition had to do with the wattage of the street lights. Commissioner Sprague asked if this is a policy call or is this something in the code? Ms. Shaw said that they are currently undergoing a change in what they are going to be requiring for street lights. This is actually mis-written. It should have read at the intersections, not the entire street. Since they are still going through the change in requirements, they cannot require a vested map to conform with it. Commissioner Sprague said that he was concerned about the base'ball fields and the back lots and is afraid the school district may come someday and put netting up on their side in back of nice houses. He asked staff if there was anyway to solve that problem rather than build a buffer wall? Mr. Grady said the only thing to do is put the roads back that were on the existing map. Commissioner Boyle said that Mr. Mclntosh had convinced him that the map should not be granted and give up the buffer of the streets. Mr. Mclntosh has convinced him that every.one of the schools have a street buffer. Commissioner 'Boyle also said that $150,000 is a major cost but when you divide it by 572 homes, that is $262 per house. He does not see that as a significant cost that's going to impede the subdivision. Minutes, PC, January 20, 2000 Page 6 Commissioner Boyle also stated that he wasn't convinced the city instigated the requirement for a block wall. The school district may have brought the issue up to the city. There is no evidence to support either scenario. Commissioner Boyle said that the purpose of the timing of the statutes is to make sure the develoPers don't have their projects dragged out unnecessarily. He is not aware of anything in the statute that says that if a sabsequent request is submitted prior to the map being approved that the Commission is prohibited from considering it. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Hernandez for some legal guidance on this. Mr. Hernandez said that as far as the Map Act is concerned, Mr. Mclntosh is correct but, however, as far as CEQA is concerned you can't read that particular deemed approved statute to override the public's ability (or in this case school district's ability) to make comments on the Negative Declaration in this case. Commissioner Boyle said that according to the map on the continuance the school is surrounded by a street on all four sides of the school and now the Commission is being asked to change the map and allow the applicant to build lots in a different configuration. Commissioner Boyle stated that in his opinion the developer needs to mitigate the effects of changing his map. He has no problem requiring the 8 foot block wall or an appropriate modification of that. Commissioner Boyle said that he would support the condition of adding a block wall if the developer feels that he cannot do that, then the developer can go back to their existing map. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he agreed with Commissioner Boyle in respect to the fact that Mr. Mclntosh has pointed out that hardly any of the high schools in town have block walls and he feels it.would not be a particularly more effective buffer to raise an 8 foot block wall around a high school as a buffer zone between the school and their activities and the residents. According to the revised map Commissioner McGinnis stated that approximately 25 lots in the subdivision as it stands now would butt up against the high school and judging by the size of the lots, they appear to be the more prime ones in the subdivision. He personally would not want his backyard to look onto the football stadium or baseball fields. Commissioner McGinnis stated that there definitely needs to be some division between the resident's property line and the high school's property line. Commissioner McGinnis said that he would favor the streets going back into the subdivision surrounding the school and eliminate the cul-de-sac lots that back up to the high school. Commissioner Brady asked staff if the school gets to avoid going through the CEQA process? Mr. Grady said that review and approval of the school district plans is done through the State. It is not done locally. There are some design standards they have to meet but they are not regulated by the city. Commissioner Brady asked if that meant the school does not have to comply Minutes,' PC, January 20, 2000 Page 7 with the 65 dB noise requirements that all other operations in the city has to comply with? Mr. Grady said they would have to comply with whatever the noise requirements are for the State of California for schools. If the State's standard is different than the City's they would be complying with the State's standard. Commissioner Brady said his concern is how we can put the burden to mitigate some impacts on the developer when the school is the cause of the impacts? Mr. Grady said that the subdivision is required to address school impacts from the subdivision in terms of facilities. The design and construction of the facility is regulated through the State. When we look at the relationship between the subdivision and the school as part of the review of the Subdivision Map Act, CEQA does allow us to take into consideration those site specific impacts that would occur as this facility goes in. The stadium is on the school site, but the subdivision is being built around the school. The subdivision has options. Commissioner Brady said that he is trying to find out what the legal basis is for requiring the developer to put' in the block wall. The city is not mitigating, an impact created by the subdivision going in. The impact is created by the school, not the subdivision. Mr. Grady said that if this were a park, there would be an ordinance that requires that the developer build a block wall between the residential and the park. Its not because the park has a football stadium or because the park has some high use activity. The same thing is true for the school. They are requiring the block wall so that the residences are being buffered from the school that they would be adjoining. The same way it would be if it were a park. Commissioner Brady said that if there were an ordinance, he would understand it, but if the wall is being proposed as a mitigation of an impact, he is trying to find out what that impact is. It is not an impact created by the subdivision. The impact is created by the school. Commissioner Brady asked the City Attorney if there is some legal basis the Commission can require a wall to mitigate impact not created by the subdivision but by some other entity. Mr. Hernandez said that he agrees with the analysis by Mr. Grady but as an additional independent basis to require this condition, you have the police power. You don't only have to rely on CEQA and mitigation measures. If you can show there is a nexus and a proportionality to the condition that is being required, in other words, the nexus is - does the development create the need for the condition, and is the condition reasonable? The proportionality is - is the condition that is imposed proportionate to the impact that the development is creating? Mr. Hernandez stated that he thinks the answer to both those questions is potentially "yes." Trash, noise, rubbish and security reasons are all adequate reasons that you can impose pursuant to the police powers as requiring this fence that staff is proposing be placed between the school and the residential development that's an issue. That's an independent basis aside from the CEQA mitigation issue discussed by Mr. Grady. Commissioner Brady said he thought it was a better plan to keep the road all the way around the school. It's a better design. Minutes, PC, January 20, 2000 Page 8 Commissioner Boyle asked staff if this were a commercial site, not a school district, and a subdivision was put in next door to it and it was determined that a block wall is necessary, would we have any ability to require the commercial site to put in a block wall? They are not the applicant, the usage is already there? Mr. Grady said it would depend on whether the commercial center was built prior to the existing ordinance and the subdivision was going in. If the subdivision was going in and the center existed prior to our ordinance, the subdivider would be putting the block wall in. We currently have an ordinance that requires buffering between residential and commercial. Commissioner Boyle stated that the high school has already been built. That's the illustration here. It was built without a block wall or other type of buffer because it is regulated by State law. We have no control over that. The applicant has a valid map that shows a reasonable mitigation as a buffer. The applicant has requested to change that map and it seems to Commissioner Boyle that the applicant as a matter of public safety needs to make sure there is some type of buffer. The only buffer that makes sense to Commissioner Boyle he said is the block wall. If the Commission doesn't want to approve the wall, they shouldn't approve the map because it seems like everyone agrees that there has to be some type of buffer. Unless the applicant has a better idea, the 8 foot block wall is the only choice the Commission has to create the buffer. Commissioner Kemper said that with the deletion of the streets, they have gained 15 to 20 lots. Having the street as a buffer is a superior map. If there is not going to be streets all the way around the school, the block wall is the next choice. Ms. Shaw asked the applicant if Patrick Henry Street was fully improved on the south side, the high school side, all the way to the high school? Ms. Shaw stated there is a note to abandon the north half from the end of the cul-de-sac to the west boundary of the high school. Ms. Shaw asked what will happen to the south half? Mr. Mclntosh said that it is shown on the map as it exists. It is all the way to the west boundary line of the high school, it is half street and they are proposing to abandon the north part of that. They do not want the high school traffic to go through the adjacent neighborhood. They are proposing to come back with a cul-de-sac on the north side and make the connection on Invermay into Brimhall Road. Commissioner Brady asked staff if Brimhall is an arterial or a collector? Ms. Shaw said that in this area it is an arterial. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Mclntosh if he had to choose between denial of this map and you keep the street around it or approval of this map with an 8 foot block wall, what would his choice be? Mr. Mclntosh said that neither or those are options. Commissioner Brady asked staff what the 8 foot block wall would mitigate? Mr. Grady said that to some extent it would mitigate the noise especially from the activity of the high school students immediately adjacent to the wall. Commissioner Brady asked if there is an appreciable difference in buffering noise between a 6 foot and an 8 foot block wall? Mr. Grady said he did not know the degree of difference but he Minutes, PC, January 20, 2000 Page 9 could find out for him. Mr. Mclntosh said that it was 5 decibels from a 6 foot block wall from no wall. It might be a decibel difference from 6 to 8 feet. Commissioner Brady asked if an 8 foot high chain-link fence was put up if it would have the same purpose as an 8 foot block wall for purposes of security and keeping kids out? Mr. Grady said it is a barrier, but its not the same as the block wall. You would still have the builder's fence which is typically redwood stakes. It is a physical barrier but not as substantial as a block wall. Commissioner Brady said that he still has some concerns. He doesn't know if they 8 foot block wall will do anything that a chain-link fence wouldn't do. He doesn't think the block wall will diminish anything from the school. He feels that all the Commission will be doing is trying to pass off the burden created by the impact of the school onto the adjacent property owner that is not creating the impact. Commissioner Sprague asked what is there now? Mr. Grady said that he believes there is a chain-link fence. Commissioner Sprague asked if the fence were 8 feet? Mr. Mclntosh said there is an existing chain-link fence but did not answer the height. Mr. Mcintosh asked to speak in answer to a question that Commissioner Brady asked. He said that he has been informed by his client that he would rather have the wall than the denial .with the right to appeal. Commissioner Sprague said that he has a problem asking the developer to put in a $150,000 brick wall when there is a chain-link fence already there. Commissioner Sprague said it sounded to him that the applicant will agree to putting in a block wall as the best way to solve the problem. Mr. Mclntosh said "not at all" he would rather have the map approved with the ability to appeal that condition. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady if at the time the CEQA documents were done related to the high school and the Commission made a consistency finding, was it contemplated at that time that there would be a street on all four sides of the high school? Mr. Grady said that at the time there were no subdivisions in front of them so they did not have a site specific relationship between the school site and any subdivision. Commissioner Boyle asked if the issue of the block wall has ever been addressed as part of the CEQA process? Mr. Grady said "no" it has not. Commissioner Boyle said the existing map that has been approved accomplishes two things. The space created by the street attenuates noise because noise over distance decreases and the 8 foot high chain-link fence provides security for people going on to .the school campus. If they kept the existing map, there would be no issue but the applicant has come in and said they would like to do something different to their property that is more beneficial to their property. So the two concerns - noise and safety - still need to be addressed that were solved by the existing buffer. As part of the Commission's obligations, they have the Minutes, PC, January 20, 2000 Page 10 right to invoke police powers and say they need additional things for purposes of public health and safety. Commissioner Boyle stated it was the applicant's responsibility to give the Commission a proposal to solve the problems as he has changed the design of the project. The applicant has given no evidence to the Commission to address those concerns. At this point, the only proposal in front of them is the 8 foot block wall. Commissioner Boyle's recommended that the Commission approve it with the conditions and let the applicant take it up with the City Council on appeal. Commissioner McGinnis asked what the applicant proposed for rear fencing on his property? Mr. Mclntosh stated that the subdivider is proposing a 6 foot block wall on the 14,000 square foot lots and wood on the other lots. Commissioner McGinnis stated that the s~;hool has solved the security issue with the 8 foot chain-link fence which he thinks is quite effective. He also doesn't see how a 8 foot block wall will solve the noise, light and other problems in that location. Commissioner McGinnis would prefer to go back to the old map with streets bordering the school but he would support the 8 foot block wall proposal. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Mclntosh if a continuance would give him time to work something out, some solution that they could all agree upon in-lieu of making a determination tonight. Mr. Mclntosh said that normally that would not be a problem but since it has been continued 3 times already, they are at the point where they need to move forward. They are not in favor of a continuance. They would rather have the subdivision approved. If it is approved with a 6 foot block wall or an 8 foot block wall, they reserve the right to appeal that decision. Commissioner Boyle asked if it was acceptable to delete condition No. 38? Mr. Grady said that condition was put in so that there would be another way into the school site rather than going down to Jewetta and the Planning Department thinks the condition is necessary. Roger Mclntosh said in an effort to come to some kind of compromise he suggested a new alternative to the plan. He then showed it to the Commission on the overhead. Commissioner Boyle asked if, since the applicant is proposing this, if it can be appealed to the Council. Mr. Hernandez said they wouldn't have a right to appeal it to Council. Commissioner Boyle said that it creates another problem as they need to hear from the school district to see if it is acceptable to them. Karen Christensen, Principal of the high school, said that she did not have the authority or information to speak for Business Services of the Kern High School District. Commissioner Boyle stated that he thinks Mr. Mclntosh has made a proposal that is worthy of consideration and asked if the school district can appeal the decision if they do not like the resolution? Mr. Grady said "yes" they can. Commissioner Boyle said that he would be willing to support it. Minutes, PC, January 20, 2000 Page 11 Mr. Grady said that if he understood Mr. Mclntosh's proposal correctly that it puts a wall or buffer along both sides of the school. He doesn't think the school district would object. It satisfies the concern as far as staff is concerned. There would be block wall from the northern part of the site down to where the street would be adjacent to the school and then the sump would provide the other buffer over to another block wall. Commissioner Sprague said-he thinks this is a good way to mitigate the problem. If the rest of the Commission approves of this, he supports it. · Chairman Tkac asked staff if the Commission could make this motion without the State's approval, or is that an issue they have to contend with this evening? Mr. Grady said "yes you can" the State is not involved in this decision. Commissioner Sprague asked if the sump was still a temporary one. Mr. Mclntosh said this would not be a temporary sump. Mr. Mclntosh then clarified the new design of the project and asked the Commission to approve it with the 8 foot block wall and/or the new design in case the school district doesn't approve it. Commissioner Brady said he supports the compromise proposed by Mr. Mclntosh on behalf of his client and if the school didn't think it was necessary for them to build any other road other than the one they did, he didn't see why the applicant should put in an additional secondary access for the school, therefore, he would be in support of changing the timing of the construction of Invermay Street. He would support deleting condition No. 38 and the change to Public Works condition No. 10. Mr. Hernandez asked for some clarification on Mr. Mclntosh's statement that the map be approved with both conditions. He said it will create some confusion. Commissioner Boyle said that Mr. Mclntosh requested that they approve one or the other- not both. Mr. Mclntosh asked to change condition No. 36 to read 26 instead of 25. They would like to break down the phases into smaller portions on an area to the west of Old Farm Road where there is no wall. Mr. Grady said there was no objection to that. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and to approve the revised Tentative Tract Map 5882 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the following changes: to incorporate the memorandum of October 20 from Marian Shaw and the memorandum of January 19, 2000, from Marian Shaw, the conditions in Exhibit "A", condition No. 10 be modified to say "dedicate and construct right turn lanes that meet traffic warrants at all entries into the subdivision", item 38 be deleted, item 36 be changed from 25 phases to Minutes, PC, January 20, 2000 Page 12 6.2) 6.3) 26 phases, item 39 be deleted and in its place substitute that the applicant will submit revised maps prior to recordation of any phases that are acceptable to the Planning Director with a six foot block wall on phases 4B, 4C and 5A up to the new redesigned street that will run from Weathersfield Court to Stoneington Court, the sump will be redesigned on phase 6B to run along the south side of the school boundary and that on phase 6C the applicant will build a 6 foot block wall and also build a block wall on any portion of phase 6B that is not encompassed by the sump. MotiOn carried. A five minute break was taken. Vesting Tentative Tract 5961 Optional Design (DeWalt Corp.) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to the staff report. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Robert Balow, representing Fruitvale Properties, said they have reviewed the staff report and are in agreement with all of the conditions and would like to request approval of the map as is. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked the applicant to explain how the secondary access is to be provided in this tract? Mr. Balow said there is a crash gate at the end of the north cul-de-sac and that the Fire Department approved it. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5961 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" Motion carried. Vesting Tentative Tract 5971 (phased) (Martin-Mclntosh) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh, representing Delfino LLCr, stated that they have reviewed the staff report and agree with the conditions of approval and askfor the Commission's approval. Minutes, PC, January 20, 2000 Page 13 Public portion of the meeting was closed. Chairman Tkac asked if this had anything to do with the South Beltway? Mr. Grady said "no" the Commission took the Hosking alignment out of consideration. There has been a committee that has met and has an alignment that will be coming to the Planning Commission in February which is south of Taft Highway. Chairman Tkac said is that because it wasn't adopted and it is no longer under any consideration? Mr. Grady said the answer is the entire body of information that was presented to you is the information going to the City Council: He is not suggesting that they are going to go back and choose something different than what the Commission recommends, but he would be inaccurate if he told them that because yob are no longer considering it that that information will no longer be transmitted to the City Council. The Commission's recommendation is the recommendation that goes to the City Council but they will also have all the other considerations and deliberations. That information will go along with the record to the City Council. Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5971 with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" Motion carried. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 7.1) Request by Kern County General Services Division for a finding of consistency pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for the proposed acquisition of 90 acres adjacent to the China Grade Landfill site for buffering and monitoring purposes. Subject property consists of three parcels located approximately one mile east of the intersection of Alfred Harrell Highway and Fairfax Road. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward3) See Consent Agenda 7.2) Request by the City of Bakersfield Property Management Division for a finding of consistency pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for a proposed acquisition of parcel for use as a water well site, located southeast of Brimhall Road and Verdugo Lane (Lot 2, Unit 3 of Tract 5869). (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda Minutes, PC, January 20, 2000 Page 14 10. 11, COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications. COMMISSION COMMENTS. Commissioner McGinnis reported that the South Beltway Committee met on two occasions the last one being on January 5 with staff as well as Commissioner Sprague, Commissioner Dhanens, himself and several members of the community. They have come up with what appears to be an acceptable alignment and will be on the agenda in February. There were no other Commissioner comments. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF NEXT 'PRE-MEETING. On a motion by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, it was decided not to have a pre-meeting on January 31, 2000. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary · ' January 31, 2000 MEMORANDUM Januaw 26,2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION STANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 3, 2000 AGENDA The agenda has been revised to correct an error in the agenda numbers listed under the "Consent Agenda." JENG P:\mpc.wpd