Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/07/94MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, April 7, 1994, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun AvenUe, Bakersfield, California. 1.' ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: DARREN POWERS, ChairPerson STEVE MESSNER, Vice ChairPerson JEFF ANDREW DOUG DELGADO KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO KATE ROSENLIEB Absent: BILL SLOCUMB, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS~ Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: PUBLIC STATEMENTS Present: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary Chairman Powers stated he had received approximately one dozen speakers cards to speak on the cogeneration plant, stating for those present that they would have the chance to speak during the hearing. Chairman read the notice iof right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. 3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS None Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 Page 2 4.1 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5644 (REVISED) Commissioner Andrew abstained because he is marketing properties for the subdividers of subject property. · Commissioner Rosenlieb Stated she would abstain because an owner of the property had been a source of income to her within the last year. CommisSioner Marino said he was not present at the Monday pre-meeting, however had listened to the tape. Chairman Powers said Commissioners Messner, Marino and Hersh were not present at the previous hearing on this item, however no testimony was taken. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Darrell Whitten represented the applicant. He stated he had read and reviewed all conditions of the map. ~ He addressed condition #11, page 2 of Public Works Conditions regarding dedication of land saying the land required for dedication is not owned by the developer. He said the developer is willing to make the improvements,-however dges not want to acquire the land. He suggested that the Commission wait until development to the north goes in and ask the developer to dedicate the land to the city, at that time they would be willing to make improvements. Mr. Kloepper responded saying the condition was recommended because a school is located in the area to serve this tract and he did not feel it was satisfactory to route traffic through existing residential areas. Responding to concerns by Chairman Powers, Mr. Kloepper said the city will work with the subdivider to acquire an easement for the road. Mr. Whitten felt the requirement of providing proper access to the school should have been the burden of the school. Mr.. Kloepper said the city does not have control over school development as they are not required to obtain a permit from the city. He felt in following the applicant's request the commission would be approving a · development with impaired circulation. Responding to questions by Chairman Powers, Mr. Kloepper felt there were convincing arguments that could be applied to property owner to the north to make dedication. Mr. Whitten felt_condition #19.1 places a financial burden on the first phase of development. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 4/7/94, Page 3 Phil Klassen stated he was the subdivider. He said the developer to the north has been unwilling to negotiate in the past. He felt they are being asked to mitigate a situation that is beyond their control. He did not feel most residents in the area would use Campus Park Drive. Responding to question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Whitten said the previous requirements were the same as they are on this revised tract. He said the market is not as is was when the first tract was approved. Commissioner Messner felt perhaps the construction of Campus Park Drive could be deferred again which would allow more time to,plan for the remnant portion. Commissioner Delgado felt it would be more appropriate to require improvements in phases rather than all up front. Responding to question by him, Mr. Kloepper said traffic mitigation fee is dependent on the applicant's traffic study. Responding to question by Commissioner Delgado, Mr. Hardisty said fire hydrant requirement is based on a spacing requirement and areas to be protected, 'therefore it would not be Unusual to require a large amount on a less dense subdivision. Commissioner Hersh said ;he found it difficult to require a developer who does not own adjacent propertY to provide dedication of it. Commissioner Marino proposed change to Condition #'s 11 and 19.1. Mr. Whitten felt putting the street in should be done in two phases. Mr. Kloepper felt the latest opportunity to construct Campus Park Drive should be at the time of development Qf phase 3. Mr. Kloepper felt the construction of Campus Park Drive should be tied to the construction of Ramblewood Lane so that phase lines could change if necessary. Commissioner Marino suggested this construction be tied to the city acquiring sufficient interest in the property outside the tract boundary to allow full construction. Mr. Kloepper was agreeable with this, however not any sooner than construction of Ramblewood Lane. MotiOn was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Hersh'to approve Proposed TentatiYe Tract 5644 (Revised) subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A!' with the following change: Minutes, PC,. 4/7/94 Page 4 Adding the wording to Public Works Condition # 11: The applicant will work With the City and developer to the north to acquire an offer of dedication from the property owner to the north for the south side of Campus Park. The balance of the' condition to remain as written in the staff report. Public Works condition #19.1 to read as follows: The subdivider shall construct: - With the first phase to bei recorded east of the intersection of Ramblewood Lane and Campus Park Drive, the south side of Campus Park Drive from the west tract boundary to Mountain vista Drive including the portion outside the boundary of the tract or as soon thereafter as the city has acquired sufficient interest in the prOperty outside the tract iboundary to allow full construction. Motion carried. Commissioners ~Andrew and Rosenlieb were absent. 4.2 'PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5678 Chairman Powers abstained on this item due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Messner chaired the hearing. Staff report was waived b~cause a two-week continuance'was requested. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Harvey Sparling stated hewas a homeowner in the Oaks directly north and adjacent to this proposed development. His concern was that two-story homes might overlook his property. He asked the developer to consider providing a less dramatic transition from their neighborhood to the proposed development, asking that they build only ranch!style homes on the four lots which abut their development and increase: the setback distance. Roger McIntosh represented the applicant, saying they were asking for a two- week continuance. He said-he would be willing to meet with Mr. Sparling within this two-week period. Commissioner R°senlieb Stated to Mr. Sparling that by ordinance the applicant is allowed to construct two-story homes, however he has in the past agreed to single-story homes on certain lots in an effort to mitigate impacts to existing neighborhoods. Perhaps these differences can be worked out, She encouraged Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 Page 5 the Commission to look hard at this project at the future hearing regarding a park connection. She also asked for an explanation regarding why this applicant is being asked to integrate the utility corridor into the project because there have been projects which were not required to do this. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to continue this item to the meetings of April 18, and April 21, 1994. Mr. McIntosh said the cul-de-sac on the northwest quarter has been redesigned and opened up to the park and this will be presented at the future hearing. 5.1 a&b Motion carried. PUBLIC' HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-94, SEGMENT II AND ASSOCIATED ZONE CHANGE #5542 Commissioner Delgado abstained from Participating on this item because of a conflict of interest. Commissioner Messner abstained from participating on this item because his employer is a possible recipient of steam from this proposed operation. Chairman Powers said the two planning commissioners that would be-seated at the next hearing are at this hearing, therefore they could participate on any items continued from this agenda to the next hearing. Staff report was given. Mt. Gauthier stated Mr. Huey, Fire Safety Control Division, woUld be discussing what hazardous materials are used at the site, what safety precautions are required in handling and storage and mandatory routes to the site. Mr. Huey said a risk management and prevention is required for the hazardous materials to be used on site. He said the most significant material to be used is anhydrous ammonia. He explained mitigation to be required for the Use of this material and the route for delivery. He also said chlorine and sulfuric acid would be used on site, however in such small quantities that there is no off-site risk. He said solutions of sodium hydroxide would also be used and would be stored in separate above-ground storage tanks. Overall preliminary reviews indicate they are taking good safety measures in constructing the plan. Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 Page 6 Discussion continued regarding hazardous materials. Mr. Huey responded to questions by Commissioner Rosenlieb, saying they have looked at worst case emergency scenarios and less than half a mile would cause dangerous levels. He described dangerous level~ as defined by the State and Federal Governments as causing an irreversible problem within a 30-minute time frame with no mitigation. He said a significant ammonia release has not occurred in the past in the city. Commissioner Hersh asked Mr. Huey if any damage or adverse chemical problems have occurred with the recent earthquakes and aftershocks. Mr. Huey said there have been no off-site consequences. Presentation of staff report continued. Commissioner Rosenlieb Stated she received approximately 20 calls with 18 being in opposition and 2 being in favor. She asked for a show of hands of those in opposition and those in faVor. Chairman Powers said his office had received approximately 75 phone calls regarding this issUe. Commissioner Hersh said ihe had received 43 phone calls on this subject. Commissioner Marino said he spoke with 25 persons regarding this matter. Commissioner Andrew said he had received approximately 70 phone calls. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Michael Robison, 6508 Derby Drive, approximately 2,300 feet from the proposed cogeneration plant, said he is the president of Royal Coach Estates Homeowners Association. He attended', the informational meeting and held a meeting of the assOciation in which only one homeowner was in favor. He said in addition to those present they had a petition with over 320 signatures opPosing this use. He was concerned about noise, saying the peace and quiet was the reason they purchased in this area. He also stated concerns of reSale value of their homes, night glow of lights, hazardous chemicals and chance of spills. He asked for additional reports to be prepared concerning these issues. He was also concerned about the possibility of chemicals mixing in the case of an accident and the possible view of a smoke stack. He asked that this plant be denied, stating he felt there were too many factors involving residents, children and surrounding area. F°rrest Stine, 6308 Cliffwood, said he did not feel secure with the hazardous materials on the site. He ~thought perhaps the plant could be placed in the same area as other plants. Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 ' Page 7 Meg Harris, 6609 'Royal Coach Drive, stated she submitted a letter to the Commission. She said shoe was told she would not know the cogeneration plant was there, she said this was a direct contradiction to the written report which states the electrical lighting from the facility would be clearly visible from the north, southeast and east and the smoke stack would be in full view of any resident located north, east or southeast of the site. She was concerned about the negative impact from this iplant on property values and the possibility of this opening the door to other industrial type uses and closing the door for future residential development. She felt it would be an irresponsible .mistake for the commission to sacrifice the long-range planning for the area in return for the short-term benefits such as the tax revenue from this project. She felt if another plant is necessary to serve~ the Kern River Oilfields it should be built within the boundaries of this field. She requested denial of this proposal. Shirley Ralston spoke stating she is the principal at Dr. Juliet Thorner School. She said her name was used favorably in Destec's report and asked that it be removed. Robert Fairman said he is an attorney representing Meg Harris. He cited the applicant's argument for amending the general plan based on the fact that this is in a declining oilfield,, saying conversely the residential development is growing in this area. He felt the LR~.designation should be expanded rather than decreased as in this case. He stated he did not understand why the applicant chose this site, and had not heard any information concerning alternative sites. He did not feel the long-range goal of thel city should be altered to accommodate a situation which the applicant created. He was concerned about the noise impact and was concerned that the study l~as not addressed the issue of possible amplification of noise by berms or the'prevailing wind direction with respect to noise impact. He cited air quality concerns and hazardous materials concerns. He said Ms. Harris feels that aSide from the reports that have been performed additional evaluation of the noise issue needs to be performed and that an accidental release study should be performed on the ammonia prior to approval.' Public controversy should be considered by the lead agency to be a significant impact. He felt the prime issue' is that this is the wrong location. He asked that this item be continued to 'a future hearing or that it be denied. Responding to question by Chairman pOwers, Mr. Fairman said he referred to experts retained by Ms. G°ldner and he did not think they would be giving testimony at this hearing. :. Patricia Bernal, 9112 South Union Avenue, said she was the property owner of 200 acres of Section 12, her property being adjacent to and north of the proposed site. She stated her opposition to the proposals. She asked for notification of future meetings, saying she only learned about it through the newspaper. Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 Page 8 Jim Rummell, 5909 Meadow Oaks Court said with regard to the comment that the hills would hide the facility, these are capable of being moved. He was opposed to this plant being placed in their community in close proximity to housing. Mark Dawson, 5805 Diamond Oaks Avenue, stated he and his wife's opposition to the project because of noise, the hours of operation being 24 hours a day, glare, air quality and odors. He .asked that the current zoning be 'left intact with the remaining unimproved areas being developed with cOmpatible uses consistent with the residential develOpment. He asked that the project be denied. Carl Jones said he moved to the northeast to get away from congeStion, noise, pollution of the southwest:. He asked that the Commission protect the residents from this type of use. Carrie VanWagoner spoke saying she is a homeowner in the Royal Coach development. She said sh*e was a teacher at the Dr. Juliet Thorner Elementary School. She stated her concern with health and safety of the children. She felt the existence of the fault zone within 500 feet of the cogeneration plant site should be cause for more :extensive review on the ammonia storage tanks. She said if an earthquake exists the children could not be removed within the 30- minute time frame. , Shirley James, 5801 Mead'Ow Oaks Court, stated her concerns regarding noise, possible opening of the dOor to other industrial uses, decrease in property values, concerns regarding earthquake faults, environmental impacts. She said she spOke to Mr. Huey who stated there may be an ammonia odor, stating she did not want to smell this 24 hours a day. 'She urged the Commission to vote no. Patty Heizer, 4932 panorama Court echoed the importance of this area being on top of an earthquake fault and the statement regarding "no measurable leaks." Regarding the transportation route she said the trucks carrying the hazardous materials would be travelling through her community. She asked the commission to use their wisdom and good judgement and vote no on this plant. Mia Patterson, 4616 Derby Drive, stated her concerns regarding H2S gas which is very deadly. She asked that this request be denied because of proximity to residential neighborhoods~stating she felt it would be dangerous. 'J Susan Dunn, 6116 Panorama Drive asked if any other sites were considered for this project. Mr. Gauthiet said in making application for a land use proposal they are not required to provide alternative sites. Mr. Frederick said all of Section 12 was looked at, however th,is site was chosen because of its location being across from the China Grade Landfill. Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 Page 9 Bill Green, 6213 Derby Drive, stated his opposition to this proposal saying he was not against the plant perse, however felt once it is zoned a precedent would be set. Jim Brown, 6116 Diamond Oaks, proposed that the best use for this site is low density residential. Jim Creech, 4176 PinewoOd Lake Drive represented owners of property to the east of this project. He said he was not notified of this project, saying he purchased his prop.erty based on the general plan designation at the time of purchase. He stated his Opposition to the project. Gary Leary, 4009 Fairwood Street, was concerned about water usage, where the water would come from and the poSsibility of a draught. He asked if the operators would be willing to restrict power production if they are not able to sell all of the steam. He asked about routes of powerlines through the project, asking if they would be above or:below ground. Teri Goldner spoke stating she was a lawyer representing Charlotte Johnson and the Johnson Family Trust. She cited Section 15201 of CEQA regarding the requirement of wide public involvement. She said she was told those who were not notified were outside the 300-foot notification range, however felt this does not satisfy CEQA. Regarding noise she said she was told berms would be 40 feet high, however the staff report states they will be. 30 saying she' was concerned that the project is constantly changing: She said her expert, M.F. Wolf and Associates, was concerned that vibration levels were not analyzed and no backup data was given. The box variety of Wall system may actually amplify the sound. The report did not provide any methodology or assumptions for the analYsis and it only evaluated impacts to the north. She. was concerned that she has not received the modelling, assumptions and data to support the findings.. Regarding light she was concerned about the constant bright glare which would be visible from homes. She cited the comment in the staff report saying there would be an atmospheric glow. She was concerned :that the photos being taken 200 feet above the ground did not depict What the lighting would actually look like from surrounding properties. Regarding air study documents she said she was not provided the assumption or methodologY for conclusions. She said she has not had enough time to review data from this project. She stated her expert on air quality said this plant would pollute the air a lot more than what the applicant indicates. He also said the anhydrous ammonia could create more problems than those indicated by the applicant. She said her consultant felt this project was inconsistent with the general plan with respect to the close proximity of low density_residential property. She asked why a power plant would be placed in an oil field that it is not going to serve, saying she was told by Destec that they made an agreement with P.G.&E. in 1985 to place it in this area. She did not feel the Minutes, 'PC, 4/7/94 Page 10 residents should be impacted because the applicant made a poor business decision. Under CEQA a requirement of the EIR process is that review would have to be made of alternative sites. She asked that this requirement for an EIR be made for this reason and also to stUdy the cumulative effects. She asked that this project be denied and if not that it be continued for additional review. Lance Kranenburg, resident of Royal Coach community stated his concern regarding this project. He was concerned about the chemical tank holding the ammonia and possibility of lines breaking. Carrie Wykoff, 6304 Stonegate, was Concerned about this project and the effect it would have on their lives and the fact that this project would affect the community for many years to come. She stated her concern for children at the neighboring school and for the possible liability to the city if problems occur in the future. Property owner, 6313 Royal Coach Drive, stated her concerns with the transportation route. She asked who would pay to maintain and upgrade the roads due to large trucks using it for the cogeneration plant. Dale Hill, 6513 Royal Coach Drive, felt those in favor of this project are only in favor because jobs will be created for them. He said he was not opposed to this cogeneration plant totally, however did not want it near his neighborhood. Robert Blane resident of Sky Ranch asked why this cannot be built in the Kern River Field where others exist. He felt the property would be better utilized as residential. Danny Russell, 10901 Pitt~ Avenue concurred With previous concerns. He stated his concerns regarding water for the area and possibility of the residents having to pay additional costs for water because of this facility. Sharon Hoffman~ homeowner of Royal Valley Homes, stated her concern that the applicant is trying to impose something on residents who prepared for the future knowing what the zoning Was at the time of purchasing their property. She was also concerned about the possibility of precedent setting. Terry Bartels; 3425 StoneYbrook said distribution lines leaving the site create noise. Wayne Robertson, 5917 Meadow Oaks Court was concerned about the prevailing winds bringing odors to their properties and was concerned about obstruction of his view. Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 Page 11 Walt Weir represented Pacific Gas and Electric Company saying he was not in favor or opposed to the project but stated he was available to give information regarding power lines if' necessary. Connie Slaughter, 5409 P!avada, stated her concern being that her children attend Dr. Juliet Thorner Elementary school and the fact that she treats children with respiratory illness and was concerned about possible emergency leaks. She was also concerned about noise bouncing off surrounding hills. Kay Little, 3313 Juniper Ridge Road said the decision the Commission would make on this issue is very. important because of the investment they have made in their homes. She asked for denial of this project in their community. Brad Barnett, 3204 MayV~ood Drive said they chose to live in the northeast because of the lack of industrial development. He asked that this project be denied. Henry Owen McCarthy, 3'101 Oak Ridge Drive, addressed the Commission stating his concerns that an EIR was not prepared and the notification process being only 300 feet. He felt this plant should be placed in the oil fields. He suggested the commission delay making a decision on this issue. Mia Patterson, 6406 Derby-Drive, asked about past environmental spills and clean ups for these types of facilities. She asked-that an EIR be prepared. Jose Herrera, 6300 Stonegate was concerned about the possibility of an earthquake and the possibility of a chemical leak. He asked that this project be denied. 'Roger Gonzales, 6805 Highland Knolls Drive, said he has worked for a cogeneration plant in the past and understands the dangers. He was also concerned about chemicals coming out of the stack. He was concerned about subsidence of homes. He stated his concern regarding H2S gas. He stated his opposition. Steve Nickels, 3100 Shiloh Ranch ROad, was concerned about quality of life and devaluation of property. He was also concerned about the close proximity of a nursing home in the area and the possibility of evacuation in the event of a disaster. *Break was taken at this time. Amil Schaub, California Water Service Company, stated he was not in favor or opposition, however would answer questions. Responding to questions by Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 ' Page 12 Commissioners Marino 'and Rosenlieb, Mr. Schaub said they have the capability of serving this facility. Serving this facility would not increase costs for others in the area or reduce future availability of water. Mr. Schaub responded to questions by Commissioner Hersh, saying in the event of a draught and mandatory cut backs of water, the cogeneration facility would have to cut back also. Gregory Gonzales, 5312 panorama Drive spoke in favor saying if this is approved it would be located very Close to his home. He felt many of the apprehensions were unfounded because there are 44 plants in the Kern County area which have not posed any significant problems for the county or its residents. The noise generated by these plants:is much less than that encountered daily and because of its location it would be virtually non-existent. The project brings about much needed jobs and approximately $700,000 to the tax base of the city without additional tax users. He felt the benefits of the project far exceed the unfounded fears of those in oppositiOn. John Michaelson addressed the commission regarding the earthquake faults saying if there is such a dangerous fault situation in this area, perhaps residences should not be constructed. Rega:rding the water issue, he said California Water Service is going to run an over capacity line which would be good for growth in the area. He felt air quality is impr6ving because of cogeneration plants. Regarding the concerns about ammonia, chlorine and sulfuric acid he said it exists everywhere in the city. Regarding the issue of view obstruction he said the view as it exists consists of oilfields. Regarding powerlines he said those existing are high voltage lines, stating it was his understanding the power leaving this plant will leave via those lines. He felt there would be no odors from the cogeneration plant, however the dump probably causes excessive odors. He said there is very little noise with cogeneration plants. He cited the applicant's history of being a good neighbor to the community. He stated he was in favor of this request. Doug Zimmerman, 1009 McGregor spoke saying he lived in close proximity to the cogeneration plant. He said within a four mile radius there are four cogeneration plants. He commented on the applicant's reputation of being a good neighbor in this community. Michael Lackey, 4042 Patton Way said he felt what has happened at this hearing- is an emotional plea for unfounded concerns. He-said he has been responsible for building 5 cogeneration facilities and is in the process of building the 6th. Regarding the H2S concerns they do not exist. Regarding the concern that the ammonia tanks could possibly come off the foundation and rupture he said there are three plants within a one-mile radius of the epicenter of the earthquake which just occurred in southern California and this did not happen. Regarding Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 Page 13 comments concerning the smoke stack, he said they do not exist anymore. There is an exhaust stack which comes off the turbine in which the exhaust is cleaner than the air which comes 'off.a car engine. Regarding ammonia more exists at the Carnation ice cream ~plant and this is located in the center of a highly developed residential area. Regarding the glow of lights he felt a residential neighborhood would provide considerably more light than a power plant. He felt this cogeneration plant would !help to clean the air. He cited the economic benefit to the community. Danny Kane cited other industrial homes which are in close proximity to residential areas saying he felt peaceful coexistence could occur. This project will generate.revenue without Placing an additional burden on the system. Scott Kicker, DeStec Energy, said they have only had to clean up 3 sites because of lack of containment around foot of gas turbine packageS. Over a period of time these packages accumulated oil at the base of the packages. This containment has-since been installed 'around these sites so that the problem will not occur in the future. Mary Jane Wilson, WZI was present to answer questions concerning the studies. Responding to question bY Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Frederick said a cogeneration facility' had been constructed in the San Jose area around a State Hospital and at the University of Texas. Mr. Frederick responded to question by Chairman Powers saying the agreement with P.G.&E. dictated they look for property within Section 12 because this is the area the contract was tied to.- Regarding the question of what would be done with excess steam, Mr. Fiederick said steam output is contracted out and it is an exclusive contract and is produced at a fixed rate. Any steaTM not sold is shunted to the gas turbine for abatement or used for power generation. He said odor problems do not exist. The ammonia detection system, surrounding the storage tanks is very sensitive, with the detection limit being 5 parts per million. Responding to question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Frederick iSaid the power lines would be similar to telephone poles with 3 strands of wire across. Ms. Wilson responded to question by Commissioner Hersh saying vegetation in the area would be naturaI revegetation of the bermed area or trees and shrubs for the future urban setting, Stating they were prepared to provide either type. Responding to question by Chairman Powers, Ms. Wilson said the line of sight photos were taken at such a lengthy distance because they were started at the residences then moved to the facility they were done on a one to one scale so that a distorted vieTM was not achieved. Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 Page 14 Ms. Wilson responded to questions by Commissioner Andrew saying cumulative impacts modelling has been done and was presented in the application. There is no visible plume from the" emissions stack. Mr. Fredericks said regarding the noise issue they heeded the concerns expressed at the last hearing. He said their noise design package consists of the gas turbine being placed within an.enclosure, 30-foot berms surrounding the facility and a sound wall with a 95-foot isetback from the road centerline, this would allow compliance with the 65 dBA standards. Regarding transportation route he said they would adhere to the ~oute set forth by the fire department. He stated their confidence in California Water Service's estimation of providing water to the facility. He cited additional public hearings to be held at the level of Board of Zoning Adjustment and City Council. He asked for approval of this project. Mr. Fredericks respondedi to questions by Commissioner Hersh saying he conducted plant tours for ~the Commission and 5 interested parties outside the city and some news media. Marc Andrews asked concerning the comment that residential development was planned for the area who they were and where are they at this point. He did not feel anyone would want to construct homes next to the dump. Regarding the transporting of ammonia and maintenance of the roads he said it would be only twice yearly and those roads are already heavily travelled. Regarding noise he cited other areas in which similar uses exist along with residential neighborhoods. He asked for a favorable Vote on this project, stating it would benefit the community. Monty Parker, 714 Weldon Avenue said he was an instrument technician working on several of these facilities. He said these facilities develop a very small amount of emissions. The ammonia monitors are very sensitive and printouts are developed approximately every 10 minutes. Public portion of' the hearing was closed. Chairman Powers said regarding the development of housing around the site, currently there is one approved tentative tract in close proximity to this site. Responding to questions-by Chairman Powers, Mr. Hardisty said the Commission would not be approving the plant, however would be appr, oving the general plan amendment and zone change whose motive is eventually to apply for the construction of a plant. He said the conditions applied by the Board of Zoning Adjustment would be more stringent than those applied at this time and this decision is appealable to the City Council. The project may not be changed after it has been reviewed and approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment without further hearing and review. Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 Page 15 Chairman Powers stated after reviewing a cogeneration site and the modelling for the noise study he felt comfortable that the berm and sound wall are adequate mitigation for noise in the area. He stated he would support this project. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated she saw growth potential for the northeast. She said the reason an EIR was not done is because 17 studies were performed which were more comprehensive than the first EIR. She said she reviewed the studies extensively and visited the site and an existing Destec site. She said after. scrutinizing the project she felt confident in supporting the project. She felt the only way to have growth in the northeast area is by creating jobs. This is a facility that will help to create these jobs: She said the entire area is not being changed to industrial, however jus! the very north portion of this site, the balance being designated for oil fields. ~The cogeneration site is next to the dump where nothing else will be developed. She said she would not diminish the quality of life for the residents. She said if she :had any fear of this hampering the residential area she would err on the side of Caution. She said at the last hearing she raised a number of concerns of which staff incorporated another 8-9 conditions to satisfy those concerns. She encouraged those present to continue to research and provide input on this project. Commissioner Hersh said there are 44 cogeneration plants in Kern County and air pollution created by cogeneration facilities in the county is less than 1 percent of total pollutants produced in the county. Environmental groups have attacked the use of water and not one water agency has agreed with their position. He said he was disappointed because he felt those speaking in opposition had not adequately researched this project and that only 5 individuals accepted the invitation to tour the site. He said he spent a great deal of time viewing the project and researching the project. He also commented on the fact that these types of projects are placed in metropolitan areas such as universities, hospitals and schools. He commented on the discussion regarding earthquakes, saying faults are everywhere in the State. Regarding the oil field he said the producer would not give up the field regardless of the low output, saying it may be an operating field long into the future. He said it was his understanding the school system did not have a concern about this facility. Regarding H2S gas he said this is a gas burning facility. He felt the COmmission is generally in agreement about this project. Responding to question b~ Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Hardisty said everyone has had the required time by law to review this project. He felt those speaking on. this issue should deal with knowledge and not emotion. Regarding property values he felt they have dropped because of the housing market. He stated he would support staff's recommendation based on facts which he previously stated. Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 ' page 16 · Commissioner Marido said his main concern was the storage of chemicals on the site. Responding to a question by him, Ms. Wilson explained drainage from the property. Mr. Huey responded to questions by Commissioner Marino saying hydrogen sulfide is a by-product of a sulfur bearing fuel, therefore H2S would not be present. The detectors age tested with a small quantity of ammonia in water, therefore the detectors arb extremely sensitive. Mr. Huey said the main focus is on the ammonia system and making it safe, however there are no concerns with regard to achieving this. Responding to discussion, Mr. Hardisty said staff wants to avoid allowing shipment of chemicals past the school or Fairfax when the roads become more developed. Commissioner Marino said he was satisfied with the light and glare issue and .conditions to alleviate noise issues. He said approval of the use is not what the Commission is hearing, but the finding that the R-MP district within an .existing °ilfield is compatible with the general plan and change of zoning from residential!to agricultural saying he did not have a problem with this and would support staff's recommendation. Regarding the landScaping issue, Mr. Hardisty said it would be required and the applicant has indicated they would either install it as a natural reseed or if urbanization is anticipated in the area it could be imposed as such, whichever is the pleasure of the Commission. Responding to questions by Commissioner Andrew, Mr. Hardisty said noticing is mailed to those within a 300-foot radius, to those requesting a notice and notice was published in a newspa~per. Ms. Marino responded to iquestion by Commissioner Andrew saying she was satisfied that CEQA has been satisfied with the n°tice, time length of the notice and mitigation measures recommended by staff. commissioner'Andrew was concerned that'wherever this is proposed it would be Opposed by sUrrounding property owners. He said he toured the facility and felt comfortable with the measures that have been proposed. He stated he would support staff's recommendation. Commissioner Rosenlieb Said she would make a motion explaining that she would include Exhibit "C" (letter from the applicant) which makes promises that she intended to make conditions of appro;eal. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration and iapproval of the requested R-MP (Resource-Mineral Petroleum) land use designation on 16.8 acres with the stipulation that the Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 page 17 Conditions of approval shown on Exhibit "A" and "C" and the memo dated April 5, 1994 from the Planning Director shall be applicable only if the cogeneration facility (Conditional Use Permit No. 5548)is approved, and recommend same to City Council with the follOwing changes: Amendment to condition #2 to be 95 feet instead of 100 feet Amendment to Condition #3 to be 95 feet instead of 100 feet Amendment to Condition #40 to read as follows: Berms will be sculpted to conform with existing topography where possible and will be landscaped with trees and shrubs, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Hersh, Marino, Rosenlieb, Powers None Commissioners Delgado, Messner, Slocumb Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report approving the Negative Declaration and approval of the requested A (Agriculture) zoning district on 13.59 acres with the stipulation that the conditions of approval shown on Exhibits "A" and "C" and the memo dated April 5, 1994 from the Planning Director shall be applicable only if the cogeneration facility (conditional Use Permit No. 5548) is approved, and recommend same to the City COUncil with the aforementioned changes to condition #'s 2, 3 and 40. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Hersh, Marino, Rosenlieb, Powers None Commissioners Delgado, Messner, Slocumb Minutes, PC, 4/7/94 5.2 a&b Page 18 PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT' 1-94, SEGMENT V AND ASSOCIATED ZONE CHANGE #5549 Commissioner Andrew said he would abstain due to the fact he is marketing property adjacent to this project. Commissioner Rosenlieb asked that staff report be waived since there is a request to continue this item. Commissioner Rosenlieb ~sked that the Commissioners who will eventually hear this item carefully scrutinize if the city is attempting to market this property at a below market rate or free knowing there is a tremendous amount of industrial land that has been on thei market for some time. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to continue this item to the next general.plan cycle. Motion carried. ORDINANCE ADDING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ALLOWING SECOND DWELLING UNITS AS A PERMITTED USE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 65852.2 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE (OR. 17.65-94). Staff report was given. Responding to qUestion by Chairman Powers, Mr. Eggert said the recommended changes by the BIA were not incorporated. He stated he spoke to Ms. Don Carlos who expressed desire that a person be allowed to build units concurrently. He said it was staff's feeling that the second units are more of an infill project. Allowing an applicant to Construct both concurrently can encourage the possibility of a duplex being' built. This would require a conditional use permit. He said the issue of wording proposed by the BIA for architectural compatibility is very similar to staff's proposed wording and it would be up to the commission's discretion which wording they would prefer. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to make findings set fortk in the staff report and approve the ordinance as proposed and advertised, and recommend adoption of the same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Hersh, Marino, Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Delgado, Messner Minutes, 'PC, 4/7/94 7. COMMUNICATIONS Page 19 A) 'Written B) Verbal Mr. Hardisty said the Attorney's Office has arranged for an attorney to give a workshop on Brown Act and codes which is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, April 28',th at noon. He said outline would be distributed to the Commission on proposed subject matter to be covered. He asked for comment regarding proposed subject matter. Mr. Hardisty presented Commissioner Rosenlieb with a plaque Commemorating her tenure on the Commission. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS o Commissioner Rosenlieb Stated she was told the issue of requirement for amenity in the R-2 zone would be:before the commission for the first meeting in May. Regarding the slope ordinance she asked that the Commission not give up on this issue. She said a worksho~p was conducted on setbacks and ~a consensus was not reached on increasing the i residential rear yard setback in R-1 from 5 feet, however there was a consensus that the commission should look more at multi- family setbacks, she asked that the Commission continue to work on these 3 items, A. Committees ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the CommisSion, meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Laurie Davis