Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/95 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ~. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, November 16, 1995, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERSi Present: JEFF ANDREW, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY KENNETH HERSH ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN MICHAEL DHANENS Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary Commissioner Brady stated he was not present at the Monday meeting, however had listened to a copy of the tape and would be participating on items at this hearing. 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Jill Kleiss submitted a speaker's card and spoke regarding the proposed Marketplace development. She gave background on the filing of their lawsuit and the preparation of an EIR by the applicant. She felt the 3-week estimate for writing of the draft EIR was an accelerated process for evaluating all impacts, stating her feeling the preparation should take months. She gave a time line for review of this project, asking that a mid-January date be scheduled for hearing on the EIR. She stated they are not anti-growth; scale of the shopping center is the issue in this situation. A court decision will not be rendered until December 15, 1995; therefore the hearing date should be delayed until after the holidays. Minutes, PC, 11/16/95 Page 2 Hollis Carlisle submitted a speaker's card and spoke regarding the proposed Marketplace stating his feeling that with a document as comprehensive as this EIR it is important that adequate time be allowed to assure it is satisfactory. He felt the schedule is too tight. He said he was informed by the Air Pollution Control District that it requires a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of 90 days to review and respond. Under the schedule the public would not have time to respond to concerns by reviewing agencies. He felt a more appropriate date for a hearing on this item would be in January, 1996 and requested the date be moved forward to this time. George Martin stated his law firm is representing Castle and Cooke. He stated he lives across the street from Ms. Kleiss. He purchased his home in 1986 and expected this shopping center would be built. He felt one neighbor should not have the right to take another's rights away simply because their property was developed first. Regarding the issue of the EIR he said he personally advised Castle and Cooke to have it prepared and the lawsuit was not dropped. They have agreed to comply with all mitigation measures of the EIR. He stated regarding the issue raised by Ms. Kleiss that this is being rushed, that his client is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars each month. Once the EIR is certified the lawsuit will be moot. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. 3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS None 4. WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN - TRACT 5799 (DeVille Homes) There was nothing to add to the staff report given at the Monday meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Gerald Almgren, DeVille Homes, stated his agreement with conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Hersh said he was very pleased with this plan. Chairman Andrew felt in the future applicants should build what is approved rather than coming in after walls are constructed and asking for approval. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve proposed Conceptual Wall and Landscape Plans for Tract 5799 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A." Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 11/16/95 5. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISED COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN Page 3 (Milazzo & Associates) Chairman Andrew abstained from participating on this item because he markets property for the general partner. Vice-Chairman Delgado chaired the meeting. Staff report was updated from the Monday meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened. David Milazzo represented Conroy's Florist, the applicant. He pointed out that C-2 zoning which would be typical of this type of development would allow a great deal more signage. He said the reason for this signage change is because of the business going through a national name change. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Discussion continued regarding the location of signs. Responding to question by Commissioner Delgado, Mr. Eggert said the city does not regulate the copy of a sign with respect to the phone number of 1-800- Flowers being placed on it. It is only regulated with regard to height, and area. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens to make findings set forth in the staff report and approve Revised Comprehensive Sign Plan #P95-0003 subject to conditions outlined in the staff report. Motion carried. Commissioner Andrew was absent due to an abstention. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5301 Staff report was updated from the Monday meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. John Linford, Attorney, represented the landowner and applicant. He submitted a letter requesting approval of this last possible extension. He gave a history of subject property. He stated this land is not an active oilfield saying the exhibit he submitted is production data showing there has been no production within the past 2-3 years with only nominal, intermittent production for three years prior to Minutes, PC, 11/16/95 Page 4 this time. The land owner and developer are in the process of entering into a written joint well abandonment surface restoration agreement with the operator of the west half of the property.' George Dickey, Alta Engineering/Hughes Surveying stated the zoning of the property is consistent with the general plan and is adjacent to R-1 zoned property. The issue of the revised specific plan alignment for Morning Drive can be addressed with a revised map or conditions. He requested the approval of this extension of time. Responding to questions by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Linford said there were 26 unabandoned wells. A joint well abandonment agreement has been worked out with Emjayco Oil such that the developer and Emjayco have agreed to pay for the abandonment cost and restoring the surface to developable conditions at one-half cost each. The progress schedule is being worked out at this time. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Grady said the proximity of cogeneration facilities makes production from this field more viable than in the past. Mr. Grady said he agreed with staff's recommendation because there is nothing before the commission stating Emjayco Oil Company would leave this area within the next year. There is also the chance since nothing has been signed by Emjayco, that any verbal agreement not to drill could be rescinded. Mr. Linford said they are reviewing this agreement at the present time and they have indicated no interest in placing these wells in production or taking advantage of a cogeneration facility. Commissioner Hersh felt too many indefinites exist. He felt after all problems are taken care of it would be time to request a new map. Responding to questions by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Linford said wells could be abandoned and the property be returned to its pre-existing condition within one year. Mr. Dickie responded to question saying the only revision to this map would be that of the alignment along Morning Drive. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Grady said the recently adopted Morning Drive specific plan line would have an impact on this property. It would have to be redesigned to accommodate this new alignment. If a revised map were submitted conditions which apply as of the date of submittal would be placed on the project. If an extension were granted phases of the map could be recorded without issues of the map being addressed such as abandonment of oilfields and realignment of Morning Drive. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Grady said fees for a revised map would be less than for submittal of a new map. Minutes, PC, 11/16/95 Page 5 Discussion continued regarding the possibility of continuing this item for a two- week period. Mr. Dickie said this map would expire before that time. A decision must be made at this meeting. A letter has been submitted with Emjayco Oil saying they would be willing to discuss a possible arrangement with the developer for abandonment of wells, relocation of electric and flow lines with regard to their mineral interest on a portion of the southeast 1/4. The tentative map as approved addresses the abandonment and relocation of facilities or mitigation with block walls and fire wall facilities. Commissioner Boyle stated he had trouble believing the oil company would pay within the next year for abandonment of the well sites. Chairman Andrew stated he would be agreeable to a two'week continuance in order for a signed contract to be brought back before the Commission. Absent this contract he would not be in favor of approval of an extension of time. Wiley Hughes said there was a signed agreement with the previous owners indicating Emjayco Oil would pay a portion for abandonment of wells. Given the opportunity he felt the oilwell situation could be taken care of. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Hughes said they would like to develop an R-1 subdivision. Commissioner Hersh stated his concern that this project go through the CEQA process again to ensure the property is clean before being used for residential purposes. He said he was not willing to grant a two-week continuance and for the previous reasons would support staff's recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to continue this item for a two-week period. Motion failed to carry by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Ortiz, Andrew NOES: Commissioners Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Tavorn Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, to make all findings in the staff report and extension of time for Tentative Tract 5301. call vote: seconded by Commissioner Delgado adopt resolution to disapprove an Motion carried by the following roll AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Ortiz, Tavorn, Andrew NOES: None Minutes, PC, 11/16/95 Page 6 Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Delgado to make all findings in the staff report and adopt resolution to disapprove an extension of time for Tentative Tract 5301. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Ortiz, Tavorn, Andrew 7.1 NOES: None PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE 5666 Commissioner Dhanens abstained on this item because his firm has received income from the developer within the past 12 months. Chairman Andrew abstained on this item because he lives in a subdivision which is in close proximity to this subdivision. Chairman Delgado stated previous Zone Change #5657 has been withdrawn. Staff report recommending approval was updated from the Monday meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Randy Wheeler represented the applicant. He emphasized this is a reconsideration of a previously approved project. The basic concepts have been unchanged. The revisions are for increased golf area and to move housing away from the freeway. The number of units has been decreased from 711 to 678. The project is scheduled to begin immediately. Regarding conditions of approval he stated agreement with them, but felt confusion exists concerning the trail and trail head, stating he wanted the previous condition to remain as there is a request by staff to change it. Concerning the requested change to the condition regarding the trail and trail head, Mr. Grady said the Parks Department is trying to clarify what is capable of being constructed with the allotted $30,000. Mr. Cramer said staff has come to the conclusion that as shown on the PUD the staging area could exceed this $30,000 amount. Mr. Wheeler responded to question by Chairman Delgado, stating he felt the condition is acceptable as written. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Cramer said cost of several items of the proposal for the trail and trail head are not certain. Minutes, PC, 11/16/95 Page 7 Discussion continued between Mr. Wheeler and Commissioner Brady concerning gating of the proposed community. Concerning questions regarding a letter received from CalTrans, Mr. Walker directed the commission to a memo dated November 15, 1995 to Jack LaRochelle responding to their concerns. Modification to or elimination of the deceleration lane would not cause a problem and would be funded as part of construction costs of the freeway. It is a very minor change. Regarding the letter from the North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department, Mr. Grady responded to question saying this does not impact the city and no action is necessary on the part of the City. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle regarding changes to Condition #69 concerning access, Mr. Wheeler said these are acceptable to the applicant. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration subject to modifications in Exhibit "A" and approving the requested zone change to modify the existing Planned Unit Development east of the Rio Bravo Canal/Goose Lake Slough on 229 acres as shown on Exhibit "C" with conditions in Exhibit "B," including the modification in the memo dated October 31, 1995 to condition #69 and recommend same to City Council. Responding to question by Mr. Grady, Commissioner Boyle said he did not intend to include Mr. Cramer's change to condition concerning the trail in his motion. Mr. Grady clarified the condition is such that a staging area would be developed to whatever level could be accommodated by $30,000. Commissioner Boyle stated this was acceptable to him and he would leave his motion as previously stated. Discussion continued regarding the cost of staging area. Commissioner Hersh stated he would have to agree with Commissioner Boyle's previous motion given the fact that staff cannot give information concerning the top end of costs. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Hersh, Ortiz, Tavorn, Delgado NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Andrew Minutes, PC, 11/16/95 Page 8 7.2 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE P95-0002 Commissioner Dhanens abstained on this item because his firm has received income from the developer within the past 12 months. Nothing was added to the staff report from the Monday meeting. Public Portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested prezoning from County E (1/4) zone to City E (Estate) zone on 18 acres, as shown on Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Ortiz, Tavorn, Andrew NOES: None 8. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE TIMING OF THE FIRST OF TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE DRAFT MARKETPLACE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. Deputy Attorney Hernandez explained the role of the commission in the hearings concerning review of the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Responding to questions by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Hernandez stated the public will have an opportunity on two occasions to state their comments concerning this EIR. Commissioner Brady felt the present schedule would be adequate. Commissioner Boyle stated his concern that the holding of meetings on December 21, and January 4th is not ample opportunity for those involved to make'written objections, for the consultant to consider these objections and for the consultant to give any additional comments that they may have with regard to the EIR. He felt this issue should not be rushed during the holidays and suggested this be scheduled for a special meeting on December 14th, with the second meeting being held on January 4, 1995 or a second special meeting held on January llth to hear this item only. Minutes, PC, 11/16/95 Page 9 Mr. Grady responded to a question by Commissioner Andrew, saying if it were felt by khe commission that there was not adequate time to study this issue after the second meeting, it could not be postponed to a later date per the contract with the consultant. Responding to questions by Commissioner Hersh, Ms. Kleiss gave information concerning time they need to review comments from agencies, given the fact that the Air Pollution Control District has 30-90 days for review. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Hernandez said certification of the EIR in this matter could affect litigation in this case and there are contractual obligations which must be changed by the City Council. Commissioner Hersh said he did not want to review this EIR until it has been reviewed by all agencies concerned. Mr. Hernandez said the commission will review the adequacy of the Draft EIR and make findings, making a motion to forward findings to the City Council. This would help them in making the final determination. Commissioner Hersh said he would not approve anything that has not gone through the complete review process. Mr. Hernandez clarified the commission is not making a recommendation to approve the final EIR. There is a responsibility stated in CEQA guidelines that the Commission review the adequacy of all Draft EIR documents. Commissioner Hersh was concerned about the hearings being held during the holidays. Mr. Grady clarified two scoping sessions were held giving an opportunity for comment regarding the notice of preparation of the EIR and to identify issues which should be evaluated in this document. The Draft document is prepared by the consultant based on evaluation of issues raised. This draft document is going to agencies for a 30-day review. The commission will be conducting the hearing to take public testimony on the consultant's evaluation of the issues raised. These comments will be evaluated by the consultant and become part of the final EIR. This document will then be heard by the City Council. He clarified the commission's role of sitting as a hearing body to take testimony on the draft document. This document is a completed EIR, however is missing public comments on the report. This is the reason for conducting the hearing. Discussion continued regarding the completeness of the document before review. Mr. Martin said if the Commission does not have an adequate document to review he stated he would ask for more time for review. He stated they want proper public input. Responding to question by Chairman Andrew, Mr. Grady said it is possible by the time this draft document is heard by the commission that all agencies would have had the proper time to review it. Minutes, PC, 11/16/95 Page 10 Commissioner Brady disagreed with Commissioner Boyle's comments regarding the hearing needing to be conducted earlier. He felt the commission needs as much lead time to review it so that the commission understands it before taking comments concerning it. He asked if it would be unusual to not have comments from the APCD before conducting the adequacy hearing. Mr. Grady said the negative declaration is more conclusive than the Draft EIR and time for responding is shorter than with the Draft EIR. Mr. Hernandez clarified the APCD's comments cannot override an EIR and have the same effect as any other public comment brought before the commission. Commissioner Brady was concerned there would not be sufficient time for staff to provide responses to concerns raised at the first hearing date in a timely manner for the second hearing date. Commissioner Brady said he would like to see the commission send a request to the City Council to give flexibility in modifying the date for the second hearing and have staff contact the consultant to see if this flexibility could be worked in with regard to modifying the second hearing date. Commissioner Boyle felt comments from various agencies would not be available by December 21st. The purpose for his suggestion of holding a hearing on December 14th was to take testimony. Discussion continued regarding the possibility of an extended hearing schedule. Mr. Hernandez said there are statutory hearing requirements for this item to be heard before the City Council. The City Council has already scheduled hearing dates for this item. A hearing date of January 11, 1996 would not allow sufficient time to meet the statutory requirements. Commissioner Boyle said he would still strongly recommend a meeting be held on December 14, 1995 for the purpose of beginning the process of taking public testimony without any expectation that a conclusion will be reached at this hearing. He stated he would like to hold hearings some time other than during holidays. Responding to questions by Commissioner Delgado, Mr. Grady said the target date for receipt of the Draft EIR is December 1, 1995 and would be distributed to the commission on that day depending on what time of day it is received. Chairman Andrew clarified the commission is not drawing a conclusion on anything at the first hearing, however is just reviewing information and taking comments from the public. He felt the time of hearings surrounding the holidays should not be an issue because if it is important to the community they will attend hearings. Commissioner Hersh agreed that December 14, 1995 would be a good time for the first hearing on this item. He agreed with Commissioner Brady's comments that the 4th of January, 1996 would also not be a good date for the second hearing because of people taking vacations during the holidays. Minutes, PC, 11/16/95 Page 11 Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Commissioner Brady stated his proposal for the commission to send a request to the Council asking whether they felt it would be beneficial to them for the commission to have additional discretion to modify the date presently set for the second hearing. Commissioner Hersh asked staff to check into this and bring a report back for the December 7th meeting. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Ms. Kleiss said a meeting held on December 14th would not work out for them nor would it be acceptable to them because of lack of time to review agency comments. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Grady stated a 10-day notice would be sufficient for public hearing on this item. Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh to request staff review some of the questions asked at this hearing and bring back answers to the commission on December 7, 1995, making it an agenda item. Commissioner Hersh asked legal staff to define the commission's role on this issue. Mr. Hernandez stated this would be given to the commission in writing. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Grady said information could be transmitted to the Council with regard to conducting hearings on dates different than what are proposed, along with Mr. Martin's agreement to changing of hearing dates. Commissioner Boyle suggested that a recommendation be made to City Council such that if reports are not back prior to the meeting of January 4, 1996 and if the applicant carries through with agreement in requesting an extension, that the commission have the ability to extend the hearing on the matter. Discussion continued regarding a motion to this effect. Mr. Grady clarified public agencies have 30 days in which to respond. If they choose not to respond within this time frame there are no comments from them with which the commission can make a decision. Their comments could come in at the time of City Council hearing which the council may or may not accept. This is within their purview. Minutes, PC, 11/16/95 Page 12 Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to make a recommendation to the City Council that they give authority to the Planning Commission at the hearing on January 4, 1995 to continue the hearing schedule on this item if the following two conditions exist: That reports are not back from the various agencies who have an opportunity to comment on it. 2. The applicant agrees with the continuance. Motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS A)' Written None 10. B) Verbal None COMMISSION COMMENTS Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Hernandez said regarding the Draft EIR of the Marketplace the commission is limited to making a decision based on the information presented at the hearing because of the creation of record. Commissioner Hersh apologized for missing the subdivision committee meeting the previous Tuesday. Commissioner Ortiz stated for the record that he had spoken with Mr. George Martin on another issue. After the matter was taken care of the conversation made its way to the Marketplace. No remarks were made with regard to the EIR nor the lawsuit. It was a general discussion, however he wanted the commission and legal counsel to be aware of this. He also cited receiving several calls from board members of the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce regarding the issue, stating once again the conversations were general and did not address the EIR nor the lawsuit, but conversations in which opinions were given to him. Minutes, PC, 11/16/95 Page 13 Commissioner Andrew stated he would prefer a staff report be given at the Thursday meeting because those from the public present at the Thursday hearing may not have been present at the Monday meeting at which time staff report was given. Commissioner Hersh stated his agreement with this. 11. A. Committees Mr. Grady reminded the Chairman of a previous discussion concerning a committee to be set up with regard to a proposed Hillside Ordinance, answering a previous question that the alternate may serve on committees. Commissioner Andrew said he would set this committee in the future. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF 12. THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Mr. Grady gave a description of hearings for the next meeting. Commissioner Boyle was not in agreement with cancellation of this meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary STANLEy GRADY, Secretaw~ Planning Director