Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/00 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall ROLL CALL Thursday, AUGUST 17, 2000 5:30 p.m. MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice-Chairman MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are Withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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 -August 17, 2000 Page 2 (Ward 6) 3.1) 3.2) 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. Agenda Item 4) - Extension of Time for VTT 5700 (Revised) (Porter-Robertson) Agenda Item 8) - Consistency Finding for the acquisition of a 12-acre park PUBLIC HEARING - Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract 5700 (Revised) Phase 3 (Porter-Robertson) consisting of 24 lots on 5.34 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) located approximately 1,200 feet south of Harris Road, and % mile west of Stine Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group Vote. (Ward 7) PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Tract Map 600~ (Porter-Robertson) containing 305 lots for single family residential purposes, one drill site lot and one sump lot on 80.49 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow a reverse corner lot and to reduce lot width; and a waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.3 by reserving a drill island for mineral access; generally located west of Highway 99 and north of McKee Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote (Ward 5 ) PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change P00-0410 (Crown Rosedale Associates, LLc) Zone Change to prezone the site from M-3 (Heavy Industrial) to M-2 (General Manufacturing) on approximately 20 acres, located along the north side of Rosedale Highway, West of State Route 99. (Continued from August 3, 2000) (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote Agenda, PC,*Thursday -August 17, 2000 Page 3 7. PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON ADEQUACY OF THE DRAFT (Ward 5 ) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE P99-0647 (CITY IN THE HILLS). The City in the Hills' project is a General Plan Amendment~and Zone Change to the Land Use, Circulation Elements, and zoning ordinance. Land Use Element amendments from MUC (Mixed Use Commercial), LR (Low Density Residential) and HR (High Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 96.9 acres and from MUC and LR to HR on 65.5 acres. The Circulation Element amendment consists of new and realignment of arterials and collectors. Zone Change from A (Agriculture) and R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 96.9 acres, from A to R-1 on 500 acres, and from A and R-1 to R-3 (Limited Multi-Family) on 65.5 acres. The site consists of 693.9 acres located between Paladino Drive, State Route 178, Masterson Street and Queen Road (extended). This hearing is to receive comments on the adequacy of the DEIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION: Receive Comments and Refer to Staff. (Ward 6) GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING (City of Bakersfield) for the acquisition of a 12-acre park located on the east side of Akers Road, approximately 1,300 feet south of McKee Road. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Make Finding Group Vote. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal 10. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Ordinance Review Committee Report on Fences in the Front Yard. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF 12, NEXT PRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT August 7, 2000 Planning Director Held August t7, 2000 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE Absent: JEFFREY TKAC ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Assistant City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JAMES MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) Agenda Item 4) - Extension of Time for VTT 5700 (Revised) (Porter-Robertson) 3.2) Agenda Item 8) - Consistency Finding for the acquisition of a 12-acre park Minutes, PC, August 17, 2000' page 2 A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the Consent Agenda items. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract $700 (Revised) Phase 3 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 6) Se~ Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Tract Map 6006 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 7) Mr. Grady stated the applicant has requested a continuance to the September 7, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against the project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague. to continue item Tentative Tract Map 6006 until the September 7, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried. = PUBLIC HEARING -'Zone Change P00-0410 (Crown Rosedale Associates, LLC) (Continued from AugUst 3, 2000) (Ward 5) Chairman Dhanens stated that he listened to a tape Of the August 3, 2000, hearing regarding this item and will be participating in tonight's discussion. Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution and memorandum from Stanley Grady dated August 15, 2000, adding Condition No. 3 as follows: "if a retail project is submitted for site plan review, the applicant shall obtain approval of site layout and apply public safety measures consistent with industry standards as determined by the City's Director of the Office of Environmental Services. It shall also be noted that any development of the site requires a site plan review process, staff review, environmental documentation and a public hearing." Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Bob Drury, representing the applicant, stated that they have no problem with the condition recommended by staff and is available for any comments or questions that anyone may have. Minutes, PC, August 17, 2000 Page 3 Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague thanked Mr. Huey for the memorandum the Commission received along with the aerial photograph and the analysis of the area surrounding the property regarding safety issues brought up at the last meeting. The memo states that a block wall 10 feet tall should provide adequate thermal protection against any type of explosive material at the north side of the property. Commissioner Sprague said that he is now satisfied that there would be no safety issues if there were a buffer zone provided on the north edge of the property but would still like to see some greenbelting done for an additional shield. Commissioner Sprague said that the site plan will probably take care of that, therefore, after reviewing the memo and the site, he is satisfied that the zone change is in order and will support the project. Commissioner McGinnis asked if the property immediately north of the site is county property or city property? Mr. Grady said it was in the county. Commissioner McGinnis then asked if the zone change were approved this evening, would there be anything to preclude another user to come into the property on the north and use it for a Heavy Industrial type zoning that may have an effect on the zoning we are considering? Mr. Grady said they would be able to use the site for any use permitted in the County M-3 zone. They would have the same options as the applicant. They could go commercial or industrial. Commissioner McGinnis asked if a refinery could go in there? Mr. Grady said "yes" it could. Commissioner Brady asked Kirk Blair, Assistant Fire Chief, if he was in concurrence with the memo that Mr. Huey provided? Chief Blair said "yes." Commissioner Brady asked if the Fire Department had any concerns that could not be mitigated by the use of the wall that has been suggested with regard to the zone change for this property? Chief Blair said he thought the wall would be adequate. There is not a gaseous problem or explosive problem with the tanks they have now on site. Commissioner Brady asked where the wall would be constructed? Chief Blair said he assumed it would be on the property line. Commissioner Brady asked if the block wall would be constructed on the property line of all adjacent M-3 zoned property? Chief Blair said they would have to wait until they find out what is going to go there to find out what kind of mitigation we would have. Commissioner Brady said that Commissioner McGinnis brought up an interesting question in that if in Chief Blair's understanding that he feels that in all the types of operations that can be conducted on M-3 type of zoning if a block wall is sufficient as a mitigation measure if this property were to be used in a retail fashion? Chief Blair said that without knowing what would be going in, he wouldn't want to guess. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Grady to point out on the overhead the properties adjacent to the subject site that have M-3 zoning on them. Mr. Grady demonstrated that the properties wrap around the western side, there is a portion to the east and then a C-2 portion in the south and east corner of the site. Commissioner Brady asked if all the property surrounding the property except for the commercial property to the east and right on Rosedale Highway is an M-3 zone? Mr. Grady said "yes." Commissioner Brady then asked what kind of operations can be conducted in an M-3 zone? Mr. Minutes, PC, Au~lust 17, 2000 Page ~ Grady said that without a county zoning ordinance he could only tell him in a general sense that any heavy manufacturing use or any commercial retail use would be permitted in the county. Commissioner Brady asked about the future uses of the M-3 property and if there is anything to prevent the property owner to the west from putting in a refinery or some type of operation that might pose a problem if a commercial operation were put on the M-2 zoned property? Mr. Grady said "no, there isn't." Commissioner Brady asked if there was some way to condition the subject site that if the use of the adjacent zoned property would present a problem, they would be required to put in a wall in the future or do they have to make them construct everything up front? Mr. Grady said that because of the zoning, it would be difficult to condition the property at all as to what the appropriate mitigation would be. The applicant is requesting prezoning to have the same rights as it has in the county. We are not providing any more intensive or less intensive use of the property than they could do currently in the county. From an environmental stand point, we are not creating a new situation or a new incident. The condition as we wrote it provides for the Director of the OffiCe of Environmental Services the opportunity to visit what would be appropriate mitigation to address your concerns for potential retail uses that are permitted on this site. That they would be properly buffered from the known hazards that are on the site. There is no way to properly buffer this site from any and every potential use of the adjoining site when through our ordinance the way we have designed it, it is intended for this relationship to occur. Chief Blair said that he was not sure if when an M-3 comes in on the adjacent property and wants to do something if we can put mitigation measures on the new business coming in with the existing neighbors. He is not sure if the county could do that. Commissioner Brady asked if we would have to rely on the county to make some mitigation measures? Chief Blair said if the roles were reversed, the city would. Commissioner Brady asked if the concerns that he is raising will be addressed at the time of the construction of the retail project? Mr. Grady said "that is correct." Commissioner Brady asked who will be making those determinations? Mr. Grady said the Director of the Office of Environmental Services. Commissioner Dhanens asked Chief Blair about the memo Mr. Huey submitted and the calculations he submitted regarding setbacks. Chief Blair then described what kind of injuries could occur within a certain distance to and on the subject property and explained that that is why a block wall was recommended. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady what the setback is to a structure in the rear? Mr. Grady said there are no setbacks. If the building is built correctly, they could put it on the property line. Commissioner Dhanens stated that he does not have a problem with the application including the language that is proposed in the memorandum of August 15 knowing that it is going to site plan review and further staff evaluation wherein the Fire Department, specifically Ralph Huey, will have the ability to review the project and propose whatever mitigation measures he deems appropriate at that time. Commissioner McGinnis asked Chief Blair if the proposed 10-foot block wall would be on the north border of the property with nothing recommended on the west border? Minutes, PC, August 17, 2000 Page $ Chief Blairsaidthat was correctandthereasonforthatis because ofthelocation of thetanks. Commissioner McGinnis asked if when the applicant comes in with some kind of project, if staff would have any input about where buildings are located on the parcel? Mr. Grady said that staff does not regulate where buildings are placed on a site. We would look at it to make sure the parking requirements and landscaping requirements are met. Whatever standards they are building at, they must meet the standards. Dennis' Fidler, Building Director, said that the Fire Department is going to require a minimum of 20 or 25 feet around the building. Even though the building can be built to the back property line, there will probably be a minimum of 20 feet. Even though codes and zoning would allow it, the fire code will prevent it from being built on the property line. If the County processes an application they are going to mitigate their laws. They don't'want danger to an "M" occupancy as well as a "C." Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Drury if he could tell the Commission where he might put a building on the parcel? Mr. Drury said that at this time their proposed uses are pretty fluid and they are not in a position to submit any plans. Mr. Drury said they are willing to work with the Fire Department and staff to help mitigate those as best they can. Commissioner Sprague said that he thinks that when the applicant submits a site plan on this project and it comes before staff and environmental documentation that the buffer zone will be addressed and landscape as well as brick wall. He feels that most of this will get mitigated when the site plan is reviewed. He feels comfortable that this will end up being a nice project and a safe project because they are now aware of the complications that could be imposed on this property by the adjacent M-3 property. Therefore, he still supports the project. Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve the requested Zone Change P00-0410 to amend the zoning district from M-3 (Heavy Industrial) to M-2 (General Manufacturing) zone located along the north side of Rosedale Highway generally west of State Route 99 as delineated in Exhibit "A" and recommend same to the City Council and adding Condition No. 3 from the August 15 memorandum from Mr. Grady. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Dhanens NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac Minutes, PC, August 17, 2000 Pacde 6 PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON ADEQUACY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE P99-0647 (CITY IN THE HILLS). (WardS) Staff report was given explaining the project and process. The purpose of tonight's hearing is to continue the public comment period and to receive oral comments on the contents of the EIR. The end of the 45-day public review period is September 8 and after the end of the public review period all of the oral and written comments will be responded to in a response to comments document. That document and the Draft EIR will constitute the final EIR. On September 21, the Final EIR will be heard by the Planning Commission and the public will have another opportunity to provide comments on the EIR. In November or possibly December the City Council will review the Final EIR and the project is subject to a public hearing. The City Council will have a chance to certify the EIR and also decide whether or not to approve the project. At this time Mr. Grady had to leave the meeting and Mr. Gauthier took over for him. Mr. Gauthier stated to Chairman Dhanens that staff has a motion before them to refer the comments they receive from the public and themselves to staff for preparation of the Final EIR. Each comment will receive a written response in the Final EIR. ' Public portion of the meeting was opened. Jim Reynold, a resident of the area, stated that he is in favor of the development of East Bakersfield and he is saddened by all the farm land that is being taken up and this is where the city should be built. He does have some concerns regarding traffic and roads. He noticed on the plan that there are several roads within the project that lead to Highway 178. He is concerned that Highway 178 will be another Rosedale Highway.' He feels that a traffic plan needs to be made along with this so that when 11,000 people get in their cars on a two lane highway on 178 that they are not stopped dead in the traffic. He is appealing to the Commission to address this problem. He feels there should be a minimum of four lanes and after Fairfax to Oswell there should be six lanes. Mr. Reynold also had a concern for parks and feels there should be a minimum of a 30 acre park. He appealed to the Commission to plan this new addition to the community correctly. Carlin Farber, a resident of the neighborhood, stated that they received no information on this project. There were no public notices of the hearing received by any of the people in the area. Her concern is that 11,000 people in the space is going to be a problem. Noise will be a problem. The people living out there are living on 2-1/2 acre lots and to putting 11,000 people on small lots with poorly planned highways and destruction of environmental assets is a negative way to develop. She mentioned a concern they have about a gas line that cuts across the property. Most of the people do not like the freeway realignment and do not understand why they weren't notified. Minutes, PC, Au~lust 17, 2000 Page 7 Ms. Farber said they are not opposed to development but most of the people out there live in 2,500 square feet or better homes on 2-1/2 to 10 acres and she would like to see some of the development look like the existing development that's out there. Commissioner Brady asked staff to verify that the realignment of 178 occurred a long time ago and is not a part of this EIR. Ms. Shaw said that is correct. Ms. Farber asked why they weren't notified? She also asked about the co-gen plant and mentioned that it is a hazard and should be talked about in the EIR. Commissioner Dhanens asked staff what the notification procedures are for the Draft EIR? Mr. Gauthier said that newspapers and property owners within 300 feet and those requesting notices in writing. Commissioner Dhanens asked if the people north of Paladino Drive should have received a notice for this hearing? Mr. Gauthier said ".yes." Danny Russell, lives on property adjoining Paladino Drive, said that he is not opposed to development but his concern is the lot size. They have at present 2-1/2 acres per house and the area is zoned for animals. They enjoy having their horses and don't want people to start complaining about them. Mr. Russell also asked if there is a possibility of increasing the lot sizes closer to Paladino to blend in with the existing neighborhood? Michael Farber, a resident of the area, said the area is very quiet and peaceful now and is concerned about the noise the project will bring. The project will bring in commercial centers, 6,000 square foot lots along with apartments and 11,000 people in a 698 acre area. To put it in perspective he said that in his 2-1/2 acre lot, he could have 18-1/2 homes and over 40 people. They all know development is coming and they are not going to stop it but they never dreamed that an entire city with 11,000 people and full blown commercial centers would be dropped at their front door with its inherent congestion, noise, traffic and ultimately a certain amount of crime. He asked that the project be tempered somewhat with the lots adjacent to 178 be possibly a 1/4 acre with lots gradually increasing those lot sizes to be commiserate with the lot sizes on both Paladino and Pitts and delete the large commercial area. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague said that he is very familiar with the northeast area of Bakersfield and the development that has happened in the past and what is going on now. Commissioner Sprague feels like this is the beginning of a balance of the City of Bakersfield. He feels like this will be properly planned out for transportation and for the way it is built out and the adequacy of the area. Commissioner Sprague feels what the residents will see is country-oriented development.that is going to become the gem of Bakersfield. Commissioner Boyle said that his greatest concerns are over traffic. He asked staff who pays for the build out of 178 to freeway status and the relocation of the freeway? Ms. Shaw said that major projects like that are generally funded through the State Minutes, PC, August 17, 2000 Page R Transportation Program which comes under local control through Kern COG. We will also contribute gas tax or development fee funds as they become available for that type of project. Commissioner Boyle asked what part of the EIR explains what fees the applicant would be paying that would be allocated towards the completion of the freeway as part of this project? Ms. Shaw said that comes about as part of the evaluation of the traffic study. The amount he would be contributing is not yet set. Commissioner Boyle asked if the EIR is approved and the project is approved, what assurance do we have that the freeway will in fact be built within the 20 year time parameter? Ms. Shaw said that she cannot give him any assurance. It dePends on the funding that comes through Kern COG either on a five year or seven year cycle. Commissioner Boyle asked if this project were on the cycle for the five or seven year cycle? Ms. Shaw said "no, it is not." Commissioner Boyle asked if there is anything the Commission could require now to make, sure the level of service does not drop below "C" or does all of that depend on the freeway being built? Ms. Shaw said that she cannot answer all of the questions. She had not had a chance to review the traffic study in depth. Ms. Shaw said the Traffic Engineer and his staff have taken a preliminary review of it. Commissioner Brady said his major concerns that the EIR should be looking at is alternatives for building of city streets in the event that Kern COG or the state fails to come through for funding of the freeway as part of the development of this project. The widening of 178 from Fairfax on its present alignment past Mesa Marin to four lanes would seem to be at least a minimum that should be required as part of the project or at least considered as part of the Draft EIR in the event that the freeway system is not developed in a manor that is consistent with the development of the project. Commissioner Boyle said that he doesn't know how they can approve a project that is based On the construction of a freeway if they are not certain if and when it is going to be built. He said that he did not see this in the EIR. Commissioner Boyle asked what happens to the kit foxes that are out there if the project is approved? Mr. Gauthier said that there are rules in place to deal with endangered species in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. The Final EIR can detail the plan. Commissioner Boyle said that the Draft EIR should consider phasing of lot sizes so that as you get closer to Paladino the lot sizes increase from city minimums. That would make the land use more compatible with the area surrounding it. Commissioner Boyle asked if the general plan designation on the bulk of this property is already for residential use? Mr. Gauthier said that what is being asked for tonight and what the Commission will consider on September 21 involves less people than what is permitted right now by our general plan. Minutes, PC, August 17, 2000 Parle 9 Commissioner Boyle asked if parks are normally considered as part of the discussion in the Draft EIR as part as aesthetics or land use compatibility? Mr. Gauthier said that it is considered in project analysis. The standard they have to meet is 2.5 acres of park for each 1,000 that is proposed. We have to wait until the actual subdivisions come in so that we can calculate how many lots there are. Mr. Gauthier said that his calculations are that between 24 and 27 acres of park would be required for some 11,000 people. Staff is discussing that with the applicant as part of the development agreement. Commissioner Brady asked if there has been some study of the project site to determine whether Soil subsidence issues have been addressed? Mr. Gauthier said the initial study looked at soils but that the EIR will address any issues that the Commission brings up. Commissioner Brady said that soil subsidence issues need to be addressed in some fashion for this document to be declared adequate in any way. Commissioner Brady stated that if there is any repository for any paleontological finds, they should be deposited first in the City of Bakersfield or Kern County areas. We have museums locally and any treasures that are found should not be shipped off to the LA County Museum. Commissioner Brady said that he noted some recent articles in the newspaper about some theft of transportation funds by our Governor and a local representative who sent the money to Southern Californian because they were needy of our transportation dollars than us: He would like that addressed. If we are talking about building a freeway and that freeway if going to be used as mitigation for traffic, we need to address the significant loss of funds that normally would have been administered by Kern COG which now they can't administer because we don't have them any more. That needs to be addressed in the EIR. The idea of alternatives need to be addressed. He does not believe the document can be considered adequate without more assurance of funding for the freeway lines. Commissioner Brady said that in the traffic section of the Draft EIR if the mitigation is tied to a specific date or development? Ms. Shaw said that the mitigation is to the rate of buildout, not a specific date. Commissioner Brady said the document needs to clarify that. Commissioner McGinnis asked staff if there are any plans tO update the noise study that was made September 8, 1995, regarding Mesa Matin? Mr. Gauthier said that not unless some inadequacies in it were discovered or questions that it did not resolve. Commissioner McGinnis stated that things have changed a lot since then and what concerns him is that section summarizes with the statement "the raceway noise, therefore, is considered to be a significant, unavoidable, adverse impact." Commissioner McGinnis said that he would hate to see 11,000 people move into the City in the Hills and then tried to shutdown Mesa Marin Raceway because they are making too much noise. He thinks that an updated noise study should be done and included in the report. Minutes, PC, August 17, 2000 Pa~e 10 Commissioner Sprague asked if the specific line right-of-way has been purchased by Kern COG as of this date? Ms. Shaw said no one has purchased any right-of-way for the future alignment as of this date. Commissioner Sprague asked if the applicant has made application to purchase the right-of-way within the two year period? Ms. Shaw said she did not know that. Commissioner Sprague asked the applicant to clarify that. John Ciccerroni, with Mountain View Bravo, said that no application has been made to Kern COG. commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Fidler to comment for the public how clay soils are mitigated in the northeast and what his department does to make sure there are no problems with expansion and settling. Mr. Fidler said each tract as it is developed requires a soils test. In doing so, they have to have a geo-technician and/or a soils engineer. They make the recommendations. In the last ten years they have made better strides than the 30 years prior to that. Commissioner Sprague.stated that he has talked to residents in the development to the south and there have not been many, if any, noise complaints. Mr. Collins has built additional facilities that buffers the noise. Commissioner Sprague believes the applicant in making the plan come to fruition, the north face of 178 with General Commercial and the R-3 will provide a buffer zone between the recreational area and the race track. CommiSsioner Brady said he noted that part of the Circulation Element notes that there is a bikeway sub-element that is going to be applicable to this project. Is that part of the trails element the Commission looked at in the past? Mr. Gauthier said the trails plan he is referring to is part of some property to the northeast. Commissioner Brady stated that some of the property around the area have homes and he imagines that this property does have people who ride on it. Commissioner Brady asked if it would be appropriate to discuss a horse trail element similar to what was done in the past. Mr. Gauthier said that it could be done, but none of the zoning permits horses. Commissioner Brady asked if the Commission would see the bike way and its layout? Ms. Shaw said that they will see some bike ways either on the street or a separate path. Commissioner Brady said that he had some concerns about safety between pedestrian and cars. Mr. Fidler said when the noise study was prepared they did a projection for more traffic and buildout. Commissioner Dhanens stated that he would like any discussion of land use compatibility to include a section that discusses the compatibility with the LR to that portion that is existing. Not necessarily to the adjoining land use. The discussion needs to' revolve around the existing home sites and their size and their compatibility. Minutes, PC, Au~lust 17, 2000 Parle 11 One other thing Commissioner Dhanens would like looked at is the fact that there is zoning in place for large animals and how this development would affect each other. Commissioner Brady wanted clarification on the above point. He said that the way he understands Commissioner Dhanens statement is that even though the subject property is not zoned for the residences to have horses, the adjacent property's historic use of the subject property for horse trails needs to be considered? Commissioner Dhanens said that if there is any historic use of the subject property for horse trails and they are going to be removing that ability by the development of this property, there needs to be some discussion of that in the document. Commissioner Kemper stated that in the Polo Grounds there are neighborhoods with no horses, but they do have horse trails that traverse the area for the horse people. She would like a mixed-use trail be considered that would accommodate both bicycles, horses and pedestrians since it has been historically a horse area. There were no other Commission comments. Commissioner Kemper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to refer all of the comments to staff for preparation of the Final EIR. Motion carried. Commissioner Kemper reminded the public that they have until September 8 to contribute any additional comments to the city and if they want to be put on the mailing list, make sure to send your name and address in writing to the citY, GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING (City of Bakersfield) for the acquisition of a 12-acre park located on the east side of Akers Road, approximately 1,300 feet south of McKee Road. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 6) See Consent Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS There were no written or verbal comments. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS Report was given by Commissioner Sprague regarding fences in the front yard. The committee felt that the current ordinance was satisfactory and they reported this back to the City Council with a few recommendations to the Council specific with particular areas of the city that might be affected and that was that above a four foot level they would consider see-through wrought iron fencing up to a height of five to six feet and concrete pillar blocks based on the applicant and the area. MinUtes, PC, Au~lust 17, 2000 Pa~e 12 11. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, that due to a conflict in meetings required of the Council Chambers on September 5, 2000, that a pre-meeting would not be held. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Planning Director . September 6, 2000