Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/94MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, June 16, 1994, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. · ROLL CALL o COMMISSIONERS: Present: ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: STAFF: Present: PUBLIC STATEMENTS STEVE MESSNER, Chairperson JEFF ANDREW, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY STEPHEN BOYLE DOUG DELGADO KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO DARREN POWERS, Alternate LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary No one made any public statements at this time. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agendh. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS None 4.2 PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 2-94, SEGMENT IV Commissioner Brady abstained because of a conflict of interest; his residence is located within this maintenance district. Request was received for continuance on this item. Minutes, PC, 6/16/94 Page 2 Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Powers to continue this item to the next general plan cycle in September 1994. Motion carried. 4.3 a,b,c PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 2-94, SEGMENT V AND ZC #5566 Staff report recommending denial was given. Mr. Hardisty made correction to recommendation asking that if it is followed the approval of the negative declaration should be removed and finding #'s 2, 3 and 4- should be struck for both the general and specific plans. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Bill Lewis stated he had owned a business at the airpark for 28 years. He felt that airplanes and people don't mix and felt that this project was not necessary. He said a sign is posted requiring a 20 degree left turnout immediately after take- off to avoid the school and in doing so it would place them directly over this project. He felt it would be uncomfortable for residents to live on the departure end of a runway. He felt there was plenty of other property in the city for housing. He was concerned that noise could not be mitigated. Harry Hackney stated-he has been a tenant at the airpark for about 20 years. He was concerned about the safety of housing being located in such close proximity to an airport. He asked that this not be allowed. Responding to question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Hackney said the airpark is considering allowing larger aircraft to land at this airport. Chairman Messner asked if the expansion with the potential use for jet aircraft was looked at when noise contours were drawn. Larry Jamison, Airport Manager, stated his opposition to the location of this project citing Safety reasons and the possible closure of the airport beCause of noise. Minutes, PC, 6/16/94 Page 3 Patrick Moffey spoke saying he has an existing business on the west side of subject property, stating he does not work for the airport and is unbiased. He said his office is close to Union Avenue and said there is a lot of air traffic generating a lot of noise. He said he has noticed planes taking off over subject property and did not feel it would be beneficial to allow residences on subject Property. Roger McIntosh represented the applicant. He submitted additional information for the Commission. He outlined the proposal. He said they would have no problem mitigating issues which staff has raised. He addressed the land use incompatibility issue relating to multi-family residential adjacent to light industrial. He quoted the 2010 Plan definition of light industrial being able to locate in close proximity to residential and commercial uses with a minimum of environmental conflicts. He stated they took exception to the narrative dealing with the airpark regarding safety, land use compatibility and noise with regard to reference by staff to a draft comprehensive land use plan which was never . adopted and has no aUthority over land use designations. Regarding staff's identification of a total of 14 crashes, he referred to map submitted outlining the locations of these. It is his understanding the FAA regulates flight patterns as soon as the aircraft leaves the runway and he was informed that the departure patterns were high enough that they are not a concern in this application. Staff refers to recommendation of an establishment of a B-1 zone which Prohibits multiple family dwellings, saying he felt this was an example of inverse condemnation should this use not be alloWed. Regarding the noise issue he said the 60 decibel contour barely touches the southwest corner of the site in the year 2010. Regarding staff's analysis that the project is inconsistent with the Casa Loma Specific Plan and Metro 2010 Plan and the comment that the 7.1 designation was placed on the site to act as a buffer, he said if this is the situation the property owner should be compensated for the taking of the use of the property. Regarding statements in the staff report he said light induStrial is not incompatible with industrial development according to the 2010 Plan and Casa Loma Specific Plan. This application does not discourage the development of aviation related uses but merely enhances the opportunity to provide desperately needed affordable housing in this area. He referred to map from final master plan updated for the airpark saying this report conflicts with the draft comPrehensive land use plan in that the clear zone only extends approximately 450 feet north of Watts Drive and the project site is approximately 1,000 feet north of Watts. Drive and should not be affected. Noise concern is not a problem as the interior noise levels can be mitigated and exterior levels are already below allowable levels outlined in the 2010 Plan. Safety impacts can be addressed by proper control and observation of guidelines established by the Bakersfield Airpark and the FAA. He stated their disagreement with staff's recommendation for denial and requested approval of this application. Minutes, PC, 6/16/94 Page 4 Mike DePetro represented the applicant. He Said jobs and housing haVe been identified as issues for this area of the city. He quoted the Casa Loma Specific Plan specifically regarding the need to minimize the negative effect of airpark expansion and need to provide affordable housing opportunities for low and moderate income and elderly residents. He cited the increase in gap of availability of affordable housing and need. The site was selected next to a church, park and elementary school. He felt if the rules set forth for departure from the airpark are followed both the airpark and this proposed community can be compatible land uses. Charmaine Curtis, Director of Housing Development for Mercy Housing, spoke saying there is no other location in the city in which development of housing would have a greater impact. After looking into a number of sites, this proposed site appeared to be best suited. She felt issues of incompatibility could be worked out through mitigation. Responding to questions by Chairman Messner, Ms. Curtis said the fact that a school, church and park were in close proximity was a major factor in the determination of the site. Mr. DePetro said criteria were developed for the location of this type of development in this area Such as availability of infrastructure and specific special needs of those utilizing the facility such as transportation. Reverend Ishmael' Kimbrough stated he is the pastor of the church next to this site. He said the church located on their site because they believed the adjacent property would be residential. He said this is the first opportunity in 40 years for something positive for this community and he strongly suggested that the commission allow it. Sister Debbie Hull stated she worked with outreach services for Mercy. She stated her support for this development because it is an answer for a need of this community. Responding to qUestion by Chairman Messner, Mr. DePetro said Phase I of the development would consist of 56 units with more in the future. · Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Ms. Curtis said this would be rental housing and would be affordable to those earning below 50 and 60 percent of median income for the City. Jessie Bradford said he was a member of the committee for this project2 He gave information concerning the selection of this site such as affordability, location of amenities. He said aircraft Would not be flying over this project at take-off. Minutes, PC, 6/16/94 Page 5 Ann Everly said she has Worked 'in the community for 13 years and has lived on Madison for 40 years. She felt this location would be ideal because of transportation. Raquel Valenzuela said she had lived in this area for over 30 years. She was concerned about the lack of housing and shopping centers in this area. She said residents are in favor of this proposal. She felt if there are problems with the airport it is because it is not monitored. Gil Anthony stated he was on the advisory committee for this project. He felt this would be a quality project for a blighted, isolated area. Sherman Tyler said he was on the committee for this project. He said he has been flying into the airport for many years and did not remember flying over the park. He urged the Commission to ~look into the take-off pattern from the airport saying it would not interfere with this housing project. Mrs. Benales stated she has lived on Casa Loma Drive for 30 years and felt that affordable housing is needed in the area. Mr. Hackney said there is no mandated pattern because this is an uncontrolled field. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Chairman Messner said it is without a doubt this community needs this type of project, however the issue is whether the airport is too close to preclude this type of use. Responding to a question by him, Mr. Hardisty said the noise model for this project used a 2 percent component for heavy aircraft. Commissioner Messner felt the noise study concludes that these smaller aircraft would not be much of a noise nuisance.. Responding to question by Chairman Messner, Mr. Hardisty said the 7.1 designation from the Casa Loma Specific Plan is comparable to a Light Industrial designation. Commissioner Messner said in other situations this Commission has allowed residential use next to light industrial. Responding to question by him regarding the requirement for the 20 degree turn, Mr. Hardisty said this should take aircraft away from this project site. ~ Commissioner Andrew thanked those who spoke. He stated his understanding for the city's concerns regarding safety, however felt there was a need for affordable housing in the community and felt these were ideal surroundings for this type of development. He felt if the proximity of the airport were too dangerous for this development it would also be too dangerous for the existing Minutes, PC, 6/16/94 Page 6 park and school. He felt the risk was overcome by the reward, and he was glad to see some initiative being taken for development in this area. He stated he would support the project. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Ms. Marino said the project could not be conditioned to provide notice to new tenants regarding the noise issUe. She also said she was not aware of any nuisance lawsuits arising from the airpark. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Hardisty said an analysis is not available regarding frontage of the parcels and availability of utilities. Commissioner Brady stated his concerns about aircraft travelling over the church and park and said. he did not feel it was a good idea for housing to be constructed under these circumstances. He felt alternative sites exist. He said he would not support this proposal because he could not consciously place human lives in harms way. COmmissioner Marino felt this was a very worthwhile project. Responding to question bY him, Mr. Kloepper said sewer and water are generally available in the area. Mr. DePetro resPonded to question by Commissioner Marino, saying a factor in choosing this site was that it was a one owner piece of property. Responding to questions by Commissioner Marino, Ms. Curtis gave income information for renters of subject property. Responding to question by him, Mr. Jamison said there is no on-site manager at the airpark to enforce the 20° turnaround of aircraft. Most violations of this are occurring on the weekend. Since becoming airport manager he has not had a complaint of aircraft flying over the school. As long as airplanes are flying at the proper altitude nothing can be done. CommissiOner Boyle felt homes and airports do not mix.and was concerned about crashes. Responding to question by him, Mr. Hardisty explained the process if the commission recommends adoption of this proposal. Commissioner Boyle urged approval of this project because it appears to be what is needed and it has the support of the residents. CommissiOner Hersh was bothered by the fact that the city has not seemed to have been concerned .about a buffer around the airport until a proposal is brought before the Commission. He felt this would provide affordable housing, is supported by the residents in the area, contains needed transPortation in the area and would be an improvement to the community. He stated concerns regarding Minutes, PC, 6/16/94 Page 7 encroachment of residential onto industrial uses and the conflict it may cause, h'owever could support it because he felt it was very well received by the community. Commissioner Delgado felt this project is very much needed in this community, however due to the isSUes of noise and safety he wOuld be very concerned about voting to approve this project. The community desperately needs this type of housing, however he wants the project to be long-lasting. He said he took issue with statements made regarding the taking of property, because it is designated light industrial and is compatible with the environment in which it is located. -He stated he would not support this request. Chairman Messner said he would be willing to make an exception for this situation because of the location and community support, stating he felt these things oUtweighed the concerns. Commissioner Marino said he would be more comfortable continuing this item in order to look at the possibility of alternate sites. Mr. DePetro said they have been working on this project for a very long time and have found the ability of finding land in this area would make it very difficult to develop' such a project On another site. Responding to questiOns by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Hardisty said the Commission does not have the authority to return fees to the applicant. Mr. Hardisty suggested that if the Commission is inclined to approve this proposal a motion be made in the direction to have staff prepare the appropriate resolution for approval so ithat findings can be formulated and the record can be established based on testimony and comments. This would be returned at the following hearing. Commissioner Andrew felt if this location is appropriate for a school and park it should be appropriate for residences. Those who choose to live in the proposed residences would do so knowing the risk involved. He felt the rewards outweighed the risks. Motion was made by Commissioner Andrew, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to approve the Negative Declaration and approve the project, requesting staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions and findings and submit those to ·the Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, pC, 6/16/94 AYES: NOES: 4.4 a&b Page 8 Commissioners Andrew, Boyle,· Hersh, Marino; Messner Commissioners Brady, Delgado *5-minute break was taken at this time: PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 2-94, SEGMENT VI AND ZC #5567 .~ ~ Commissioners Brady, Boyle and Marino abstained because of conflicts of interest. 4.5 a&b Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to continue this 'item to the next general plan cycle in September 1994. Motion carried. CommissiOners Brady, Boyle and Marino abStained because of conflicts of intereSt. · PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 2-94, SEGMENT VII AND ZC #5563 Commissioner Andrew abstained because of a conflict of interest due to the fact he was involved in the sale of the property. ~ Staff report recommending approval was given. · Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Dal~ clark represented the applicant. He stated agreement with conditions of approval. Public portion 'of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and .approving the requested general plan amendment from LR (Low Density Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential) on 20 +/- acres, as shown on Exhibit "B" with conditions attached in Exhibit "A," with addition of nuances contained in the letter from Kern High School District dated June 16, 1994 and addition of memo from the Planning Department dated June 15, 1994, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, 6/16/94 AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Messner Page 9 NOES: None ABSTAINED: -' Commissioner Andrew Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from an'R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling, 1 dwelling - 2,500 square feet) zone, as shown on Exhibit "C" with conditions as attached in Exhibit "A" with addition of-nuances contained in the letter from Kern High School District dated June 16, 1994 and addition of memo from the Planning Department dated June 15, 1994, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: . Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Messner NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Andrew 4.8 a&b PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 2-94, SEGMENT X AND ZC #5549 Staff report was updated. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Dennis Scott represented Kern High School District stating they are opposed to the designation of this property to service industrial with an M-2 zoning designation. This area has become a major educational support center. There are concerns that the amount of property designated as service industrial surrounding the schools could adversely affect the educational process. He said in March the district submitted an analysis of potential environmental impacts in which they pointed out uses Which could cause fumes, odor, dust, gas, noise and vibration. Permitted uses in the M-2 zone include industries which routinely handle hazardous materials. He stated their support for recommendation by staff that this property be approved as light industrial with an M-1 zoning designation. They also have no objection to expansion of the list of uses for this project as long as they are subject to. conditional use permit requirement within the M-1 designation. Minutes, PC, 6/16/94 ". " Page 10 Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration and denying the requested SI (Service Industrial) land use designation, and approving the LI (Light Industrial) land use designation, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit "A," including the expanded list of uses as outlined in the Kern High School District letter dated April 4, 1994, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: · AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Messner . NOES: None Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report'approving the ~ Negative Declaration and denying the requested M-2 (General Manufacturing) zone, and approving the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zone, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit "A," including the expanded list of uses as outlined in the Kern High School District letter dated April 4, 1994, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Boyle, Brady, 'Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Messner ' NOESi ' None Responding to question by Chairman Messner, Mr. Hardisty Said the consistency finding for this site would ~be deferred until the Council takes actiOn. o COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) ~ Verbal Mr. Hardisty said the Council referred the matter of senior citizen zoning' to the Commission at their last hearing. They added an advisory comment that they would like to see a preliminary workshop with Kern City at their community center. Commissioners Hersh, Marino and Brady volunteered to meet on this subject. Mr. Hardisty said staff would advise the Commission of the date for this workshop. ? / Minutes, PC, 6/16/94 Page 11 Mr. Hardisty said the hearing was conducted on the proposed rezoning of Wible and Berkshire. The ordinance was accepted for first reading, however the hearing was continued until June 29th for a decision concerning adoption. 6. COMMISSION COMMENTS A. . Committees Chairman Messner asked about future meeting concerning the trails issue. Mr. Hardisty was unsure of the exact timing, however stated staff had met with property owners sketching out a trail plan and have asked interest groups to look at it and get back with Staff. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p:m. Laurie DaVis · Recording Secretary ~~t~ary Planning.D~ :..