Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 3, 2003Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac None Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Jim Movius, Marc Gauthier, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Blockley stated that he has listened to a copy of the tape of the minutes for the Planning Commission meetings of March 17 and 20 which he did not attend and is prepared to listen to further testimony and make a decision on those items that were continued from that meeting to this one. Commissioner Tragish stated that he has listened to a copy of the tape from Monday's pre-meeting. Commissioner Ellison stated that he would abstain from voting on Item 4.2d because he has a conflict on interest on that item. Commissioner Gay said that he will abstain from voting on Item 9. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of March 3 & 6, 2003. 4.1b Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the acquisition of an 11,552.50 square foot vacant parcel located at 630 Baker Street for redevelopment purposes. (City of Bakersfield). (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 2) 4.1c Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on Tract 5882, Phases 2A & 2B (Mclntosh & Associates) located south of Brimhall Road, east of Allen Road. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 5) 4.1d Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on Tract 5882, Phases 2D, 3D & 3E (Mclntosh & Associates) located south of Brimhall Road, east of Allen Road. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 5) Minutes, PC, April 3, 2003 Page 2 Motion was made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items Approve Extension of Time for Revised Tentative Map 5667 (Ward 4.2a 5) 4.2b 4.2c 4.2d Tentative Parcel Map 10948 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 3) Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 10949 (Brundage Lane Development LLP) (Ward 1) Approval of Vestinq Tentative Tract 6165 (SmithTech, USA, Inc.) (Ward 7) 4.2e&f) Approval of GPA/ZC 02-1248 (Porter-Robertson Eng) (Ward 4) Public portion of the hearing opened. There were no comments from either the public or the Commission. Public portion of the hearing closed. Motion was made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote PUBLIC HEARING - Public Scopin.q Meetinq for preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment/RiverLakes Ranch Amendment/Zone Chanqe P02-0806. (Ward 4) Mr. Grady stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to take comments on items that would be proposed to be evaluated in the EIR for this project. Michael Houlihan from MBA Associates spoke about what is contained in the initial study and what is involved in the process of preparing the EIR and what the schedule looks like. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one from the public came forward. Public portion of the hearing closed. Commissioner McGinnis asked if the tower lines will pass over the structure on the southwest corner? Mr. Grady said that he would have to look at the full scale drawing to tell but as far as having it evaluated as an environmental issue, they can look at that to determine whether or not there is some potential impact as a result of that. Mr. Grady said they normally do not allow tower lines to pass over structures. Commissioner Blockley said the analysis in the EIR should include the vacation and utilization of retail space in the city. Mr. Grady said the market analysis that they had on the 99 project was not part of the environmental review process. That was a document submitted by the applicant to support their conclusion that there was a market for this particular project. That was not something required by the environmental document. Commissioner Blockley withdrew his request that it be included in the EIR but he would still like to see one of those for this project. Minutes, PC, April 3, 2003 Page 3 Commissioner Gay asked if just the EIR will be heard on September 18 or will they be reviewing the whole general plan amendment project at that time? Mr. Grady said the Commission would be reviewing the project and the EIR on September 18. Commissioner Ellison stated that he is satisfied that the environmental impacts will be sufficiently studied. He looks forward to receiving the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Gay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to refer the comments received tonight to staff. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Parcel Maps 6.1) Tentative Parcel Map 10948 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 3) See Consent Agenda 6.2) Tentative Parcel Map 10949 (Brundage Lane Development LLP (Continued from March 6, 2003) (Ward 1) See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 7.1) Vestin,q Tentative Tract Map 6149 (Phased) (Pinnacle Engineering) (Continued from February 20, 2003 (Ward 3) Public portion of the hearing was opened on February 20, 2003. Staff report was given on Monday but Mr. Grady said additional memorandums have been prepared providing the Commission with additional mitigation for the blunt nosed leopard lizard which has a protocol list to be followed in the event the lizard is observed on the site during any phase of the construction. There is also a memorandum dated March 25 which has some additional conditions and clarifications concerning phasing for this subdivision. The phasing would allow for the wall not to have to be entirely constructed along State Route 175. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions attached in the staff report and the memorandums added to the project. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, offered some comments on the new air quality impact study and the limited traffic impact study and on the mitigation measures that have been added since the previous hearing. Mr. Nipp feels that cumulative impacts will degrade the community's already dismal air quality and suggested very strongly that this be sent back and requested that a full fledged EIR be done for the project. He suggested that before air quality measure 35 is adopted that it be sent to the City Council to be treated as a policy matter. No one else spoke in opposition to the project. Minutes, PC, April 3, 2003 Page 4 Jim Fry, representing the applicant Sage Community Group, spoke in favor of the project. He stated they agree with all of the new conditions that were placed on the project. They have the local air quality expert on hand to describe the air quality analysis that she did for this project and the mitigation measures that they have agreed to. Mr. Fry said they are available to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Mary Jane Wilson, President of WZl, Inc., stated they were asked to conduct an air quality impact analysis for Country Club Estates. Their analysis followed the approved protocol established by the California Air Resources Board and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The analysis is conservative in nature which means the estimates of emissions are greater than those that are actually experienced. Ms. Wilson said that the analysis concludes that the impact for the project as designed and mitigated is less than significant because it is below the district's threshold of ten tons per year for reactive organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. Secondly, it also concludes the local cumulative air pollutants of carbon monoxide and hazardous air pollutants were also found to be less than significant. The air quality impact of this project is not peculiar to the parcel or the project and has been substantially mitigated as contemplated in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR which considered the impact of development of additional housing within the city limits. Ms. Wilson then went over a few of the mitigation measures for this project and stated that she is available to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Matt VoVilla, representing Pinnacle Engineering, stated his company prepared the Traffic Impact Study for the project. They looked at the cumulative impacts of the project and stated that the traffic impact study is conservative. The traffic study showed that with all the facilities in the project area, traffic impacts can be mitigated. He stated he is available to answer questions. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish asked if the access road (Park Palisades) from this project onto 178 will be signalized and have full access? Ms. Shaw said that so long as 178 is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, they have indicated that there will be no signal at that intersection. She is not sure if a left-in will be allowed there. Commissioner Tragish asked Ms. Wilson's response to Mr. Nipp's comments that the air impact study did not take into consideration the 11 or 12 projects in the area. Ms. Wilson said they utilized the protocols in the guidance manual that you are suppose to use. There are specified radiaii that you use for investigation of those projects. When you are looking at cumulative air emissions, they are looking particularly at locally cumulative air emissions. Commissioner Tragish asked how far away they analyzed? Ms. Wilson said they used one mile. Commissioner Tragish asked if that is enough to get a true reading of the potential pollutants or the environmental impact in that area? Ms. Wilson said that is commonly utilized. If the project is under 10 tons the guidance manual says that you don't have to do the cumulative impact analysis but they did it for disclosure to the public. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. VoVilla if the traffic growth is based on Bakersfield or some type of model? Mr. VoVilla said the traffic model is prepared by Kern COG who studies demographics and patterns of growth and they generally accept what Kern COG comes up with. Commissioner Tragish said he supports the project. Minutes, PC, April 3, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Blockley asked if as the size of the project increases if the number of mitigation measures that are required also increases? Mr. Grady said it might depend on the type of project - whether it is a compact development with more units in a small area or if it is a moderate size project spread over a larger area. That is why there are a number of variables that are taken into account when you run the model. Ms. Wilson said there is a portion of CEQA that says you have to consider the whole of your project in your CEQA document and so in this case because the whole of the project exceeded the ten tons, they had to determine which mitigation measure could be utilized that would make it less than significant. If someone had broken this up into four separate projects but it was the same person, you would have had an issue of circumventing CEQA. Commissioner Blockley asked if it was four separate projects totaling 500 + homes and four separate owners, if we would have worse air quality? Ms. Wilson said yes. Commissioner Ellison said he has no questions but is very pleased with the project. He th is happy to see a traffic signal going in at Miramonte and 178 after the 100 home is built. He is in complete support of the map with all of the mitigation measures. Commissioner Gay said he is happy they are going to build the traffic signal at Miramonte but is concerned about the secondary access on 178. He asked Ms. Shaw if this is going to work? He would like to see a controlled right-in/right-out intersection. Ms. Shaw said they haven't added a condition regarding that on this particular intersection but what they have done in the past where they are allowing full access initially is to record a covenant to put the property owners on notice that it is not their right forever to have free left-out of there. Also, what they have done in the past is to restrict left turn out access from the beginning either through the use of a median or a turn restrictor in the local street. Commissioner Gay asked if the Commission could ask the applicant to do this or would staff do that on their own without further direction? Ms. Shaw said they could ask the applicant if he is willing to do that. Jim Fry said they wouldn't have a problem agreeing to that condition. Commissioner Gay said he is glad to see development on the east side of town and supports the project. Commissioner McGinnis asked if when Tract 6000 across 178 went through if there were any traffic measures as far as their contributing towards any enhancement of 1787 Ms. Shaw said she doesn't remember any condition other than payment of the transportation impact fee. Commissioner Tragish asked Commissioner Gay to clarify the condition he is asking for. Commissioner Gay said his interpretation is that the applicant agrees to a controlled access and would leave it to staff to make the appropriate wording as to a controlled access prohibiting left turns out. Ms. Gennaro said that her suggestion would be to add the language that the applicant agrees to restricted left turn access at the intersection of Park Palisades and 178 in a method to be approved by the Public Works Director. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6149 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A incorporating memorandums dated March 25, 2003 and March 27, 2003 from the Planning Director and the applicant's approval of a restricted left turn access at Park Palisades and Highway 178 and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, April 3, 2003 Page 6 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac None None 7.2) 7.3) Vestinq Tentative Tract 6165 (SmithTech, USA, Inc.) (Continued from February 20, 2003) (Ward 7) See Consent Agenda Vestinq Tentative Tract 6169 (Phased) (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 5) Public portion of the hearing opened. Mr. Grady said the Commission should have a memo from him dated April 2, 2003 which had some corrections to locations of walls and clarifies Condition No. 35 for this particular tract. There is also a memo dated April 2 from Ms. Shaw with conditions that have been modified. Mr. Grady said that this subdivision at one time was proposing to have saddles at the end of the cul-de-sacs and at the pre-meeting staff was recommending denial as the Parks Department had some concerns about it. The denial has been changed to a recommendation of approval from staff subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Harold Robertson, representing the applicant, stated they have read the staff report and the memorandums and agree with all of the conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing closed. Commissioner McGinnis asked staff to explain the resolution between the Parks Department and the applicant concerning maintenance. Ms. Shaw said the concern that had been expressed by the Parks Department was that in other areas of town the amount of money that was recovered from the maintenance district was not sufficient to pay for the maintenance of the small landscape islands in these small cul-de-sacs. The applicant has agreed to raise the subdivision to a different level of funding to offset the additional costs. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6169 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A incorporating memorandums dated April 2, 2003 from the Planning Director and Public Works Department. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, April 3, 2003 Page 7 Five minute recess taken. PUBLIC HEARING - Comprehensive Siqn Plan 02-1155 (Nadel Architects, Inc.) (Ward 5) Public portion of the hearing opened. Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. No one spoke in opposition. Bill Sampson, representing the applicant Castle and Cooke, stated they have worked closely with staff and the sign program. They have made some concessions. They have brought the pylon signs down from 35 feet to 26 feet. Mr. Sampson said that because this is such a large site - % mile long - they are allowed four pylon signs. Two on the frontage street and two on the side street. They are requesting that three be allowed on the frontage street and none on the side streets. Mr. Sampson, responding to a question by Commissioner Blockley during Monday's pre-meeting, said there will be no signage on the tower. The tower is strictly an architectural feature. Responding to Commissioner Gay's question regarding the pylon signs and the residential across the street Mr. Sampson said that the Commission had approved larger pylon signs at the Ralph's site on Stockdale and the residential is 120 feet away where theirs is 250 feet away. He then showed some pictures of both sites on the overhead. Mr. Sampson said that if they had not come to the Commission with a GPA and zone change and had M-2 property, they would be allowed 30 foot pylons along Gosford and if the property were divided into seven parcels, each of the owners would be allowed a 30 foot pylon sign. They are asking for a total of three and feel that the impact is less than significant to any area around than any other options would have created. He said he would be available to respond to Commissioner comments. Public portion of the hearing closed. Commissioner Tkac asked if they were coming down in height in-lieu of some width or just generally in height compared to the other ones that he used for an example? Mr. Grady said they'd would be coming down in height. Commissioner Tkac said he has been by this area and he thinks they have done a good job. The neighbors are probably the biggest concern with light and glare and he feels that has been very well mitigated. Given the size of the project Commissioner Tkac feels that it will have minimal impact. Commissioner Gay asked if the monument signs have a set separation or are we exempting any separation we might require? Mr. Grady said they have met the separation. Commissioner Gay asked if the city is now allowing scrolling electronic signs? Mr. Grady said there are some specific regulations and the Commission has some discretion about whether they will allow them or not. Commissioner Gay said he disagrees with the number of signs. He would like to see one or two of the pylons on Gosford reduced. They have large wall signs on the buildings and he feels that one pylon on Gosford and one on Harris Road would be sufficient and leave the monuments as Minutes, PC, April 3, 2003 Page 8 they are. Commissioner Tragish said he has similar thoughts as Commissioner Gay. He feels the area will be too lit up. He would rather see a pylon on the corner of where Pacheco will be vacated and where Harris Road is. It concerns him greatly that the nearby residences have to have this in their neighborhood as it is. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Grady what the Commission's limitations are for allowing signs? Mr. Grady said the only limitation is to apply the existing ordinance to the project. They have discretion to respond to what the applicant has proposed as far as the number of signs, the size of signs. Staff has provided the Commission with a table that compares what they are requesting to what is permitted in the ordinance in a C-1 and C-2 zone. The Commission does have discretion to modify the sign plan as to what they feel is appropriate. Commissioner Tragish said he feels that Castle & Cooke does a good job in town. They put out some beautiful, well maintained projects but he feels the signs are a bit much. He feels that if anything it should be understated. He would go along with the two pylon signs at the corners and leave the monument signs. Commissioner Blockley said he agrees with the other Commissioners regarding the signs. He does not think there should be so many signs along Gosford. Commissioner McGinnis said he concurs with staff. What is being proposed is in good taste and it is far enough away from the residences to not cause a concern. Commissioner Ellison said he agrees with Commissioner McGinnis. He is confident the applicant will put in some nice signs. Commissioner Gay said he is looking into the future with development occurs south of Harris Road when there will be more pylon and monument signs put in. He doesn't have a problem with the signs, just the volume and quantity. He would like to make a motion restricting it to two monument pylon signs placement to be the applicant's choice. Mr. Sampson said he is hearing that it is the gross number of signs that appears to be an issue. He said the pylon signs are the most important signs to their project and he is willing to give up some monument signs to bring the total number of signs down. The pylon signs are the most important for marketing and the pylon signs are shorter than most in the city. Commissioner Tragish said he feels Commissioner Gay had a good suggestion and would vote in favor of a motion like that. Mr. Grady said that Condition No. 2 in the sign plan requires that the signs be looked at in the photometric study that is done for the site itself. The spillage issue would be addressed as part of the comprehensive sign plan. Commissioner McGinnis said he disagrees with several of the Commissioners. He doesn't think giving the applicant two pylon signs is a compromise. He thinks he is entitled to the two pylon signs. Mr. Sampson said the three pylons signs are the most important and he would prefer to give up a couple of monuments. They have to do a photometric study again for the lighting so that there is no spillage. Commissioner Gay said he appreciates Commissioner McGinnis comments but that he would Minutes, PC, April 3, 2003 Page 9 not support the motion as it is written. Mr. Sampson has made some nice concessions but he feels that someone on the second floor of the residences will be looking out the window at pylon signs. His motion would be for two pylon signs. Mr. Sampson asked if it would be possible that opposite the three pylon signs on the opposite side of Gosford that some large evergreen trees be planted that are closely spaced that would form a barrier opposite the pylons? Commissioner Tkac said that this was a tactic used effectively at the Marketplace and with the width factor of the road and the canal, the trees would be a kind offering. Commissioner Blockley said he would support that so long as the buffer is wide enough that when you are looking at the edge of the sign, you won't see much. Mr. Sampson said there will also be a median going down the middle of Gosford that will also create an additional buffer. Commissioner Blockley said he feels that is a good solution to the problem. Commissioner Gay asked with the 300 foot notice requirements if the residents in Silver Creek received one? Mr. Gauthier said yes. Commissioner Gay asked Commissioner Tragish if the offer of the trees would satisfy his concerns? Commissioner Tragish said the point is well taken with the trees in the median and if it is sufficiently landscaped and someone will maintain it and they knock off three monument signs it is very persuasive. Motion made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to adopt the attached resolution with all findings and conditions approving Comprehensive Sign Plan 02-1155 with the exception that the applicant reduce the monument signs by two and that he provide adequate landscaping opposite the three pylon signs as they exist now and that the approval be subject to the discretion of the Planning Director. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: None 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element and Circulation Element Amendments: 9.1) General Plan Amendment 01-1023 (David Dmohowski) (Continued from March 20, 2003) (Ward 4) Public portion of the hearing opened. Commissioner Gay abstained from this project. Mr. Grady said that Mr. Ralph Huey from the Haz Mat Department is available to answer any Commissioner questions and that staff is recommending approval. The following spoke in opposition to the project. Minutes, PC, April 3, 2003 Page 10 Richard Monje, representing one of the property owners Mr, Reyneveld, spoke to the Commissioners. He asked that the Commission either deny the project or continue the project until all of the parties involved can continue some discussions. They have had some preliminary discussions but nothing substantially has been accomplished to either mitigate or eliminate the impacts on Mr. Reyneveld's property. Mike Kranyak, President of San Joaquin Facilities Management, owner of the other parcel. He said he does not have a problem with a new alignment but the new alignment would essentially condemn his property. He requested a continuance so that the parties can continue their discussions. There were no other comments opposing the project. The following spoke for the project. Dave Dmohowski, representing Shell Oil Co. US, spoke in favor of the project. He presented a modified alignment to the Commission. Their goal was to find an alignment for safety reasons that would allow a complete connection from Olive Drive to Rosedale but still meet some of the safety concerns. They tried moving the alignment as far to the west as quickly as they could given the city's engineering standards for curvature of the road, radius and the tangents. There is no way to bring the road back onto Mr. Kranyak's property to the east without violating some city design standards. This may provide an improved relationship to that realigned road for Mr. Kranyak's property but does not provide a direct connection as the original alignment did. Mr. Dmohowski said this is a difficult equation to solve. Their intent was to respond to both the city's and county's concern for a public roadway. It is not designed in any great engineering detail at this point without having at least a conceptual go ahead from the city and county that they were on the right track from a policy point of view. There is much engineering that remains to be done if the basic policy decision is made based on safety and other considerations. Mr. Dmohowski then demonstrated on the overhead that if either of the alignments that they have shown this evening were to be implemented or adopted by the city, there are a variety of ways to provide either a private easement or a public local street into Mr. Kranyak's property. The future extension of Krebbs through Shell property and easterly would be one way and relocating the existing adopted easement from Landco to the south is another way. Shell is prepared to make those kind of agreements in order to assure that Mr. Kranyak is not denied proper access. Mr. Dmohowski said he would welcome questions or comments from the Commission. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish said he had several questions for Mr. Dmohowski. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is any other way to implement any kind of safety techniques or procedures other than moving Landco to the west such as moving the tanks or constructing a blast wall? Mr. Dmohowski said that they are physically feasible mitigation measures for the safety issue, however, there would still be a lot of traffic - about 24,000 trips per day - just 45 feet away from the blast wall and that the cost of moving the tanks would be very expensive. Commissioner Tragish asked if Shell has looked into the cost of moving the tanks? Mr. Dmohowski said that Shell is not prepared to respond to that question tonight. Minutes, PC, April 3, 2003 Page 11 Commissioner Tragish asked if there has ever been a study to determine what other alternatives or options are open to mitigate some of the safety concerns that the applicant has? Mr. Dmohowski said that the major mitigation for the fire and other hazards resulting from ignition of the chemicals is really distance. That is what they have done here and that is how the road ends up in its current alignment in relation to Mr. Reyneveld's property. They have not specifically studied any other alternatives. Commissioner Tragish asked if there has been calculations by Shell to determine the degree of safety that is being achieved by moving the road? Is it justifiable? Mr. Dmohowski said they believe that there is a benefit to the public to move the road. There are 24,000 vehicles per day that could use that road in the future. Mr. Dmohowski said they would have no concern based on industry safety standards with industrial uses south of the centerline of the realigned road on Mr. Reyneveld's property but they have concerns about any habitation or physical improvements north of the centerline on Mr. Reyneveld's property because of the physical effect on relatively shallow pipelines in that part of the property. Commissioner Ellison said he believes this is an issue of public safety rather than property rights of the owners. Commissioner Ellison asked Ralph Huey, Director of Environmental Services, if this proposed alignment safe enough? Mr. Huey said that is a difficult question to answer. It is considerably safer. When you move an object away from a source of heat or possible source of an explosion, the effect of that becomes magnified by the distance you move it away. Other safety factors need to be looked at also. These tanks are equipped with vapor recovery. That eliminates or minimizes any repeat of the incident that did occur several years ago. By moving the road they have probably removed the risk by about 300%. Commissioner Ellison asked if the Shell refinery at 3663 Gibson Street is required to have a risk management plan? Mr. Huey said he does not believe it does. He believes that the risk management plan would be required if they were handling acutely hazardous materials. Commissioner Ellison asked if the Naptha that is flammable require a risk management plan? Mr. Huey said it requires a safety plan. Commissioner Ellison said there appears to be a pipeline along the canal above ground and wondered if it were carrying product back and forth from one source to another if that is a source of some potential problem? Mr. Huey said that if it is carrying product it would be but especially if the product were a relatively thin flammable liquid. Steve Overman, with Shell Oil Products US, said the materials in the pipelines is vacuum resid carried over to the Coker facility from the Rosedale facility. The materials would include some gas, oils and Coker Naptha. Commissioner Ellison said he had hoped that the parties involved would have come up with an agreement or solution to the problem before tonight but since that is not the case, that if he voted tonight he would support staff's recommendation to approve the general plan amendment. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Huey what was stored in the tanks? Mr. Huey said Minutes, PC, April 3, 2003 Page 12 that of the two large tanks that are the closest one contains something like a salt water and one of them contains the residue from the refining operation. Naptha is in the second of the small tanks that are in a row. It is still fairly close but it is not the closest tank. Commissioner McGinnis asked what would be the ultimate danger with the heavier crude in the tank? Mr. Huey said that if a fully involved fire happened from another source and a fire got started it would be very difficult to put out. It has a large heat energy but it would not start easily. Commissioner McGinnis asked if Mr. Huey was uncomfortable with the present alignment in relation to the tanks? Mr. Huey said he advocates safety so he would advocate taking steps to make it further away from the tanks than this but that is not to say that he thinks it is a dangerous situation. Commissioner McGinnis asked if there is any proposals for the near future for paving Landco? Ms. Shaw said she is not aware of any. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Dmohowski to respond to some of the suggestions that were made by the opposition. Mr. Dmohowski said they have had several meetings with Mr. Reyneveld and that they are not anywhere near concluded. They have discussed a variety of options that would be acceptable to Mr. Reyneveld but are quite a ways from coming to an agreement. Commissioner McGinnis said he thinks Mr. Monje presented a viable argument and with the information he has right now, he would probably vote against the proposal. He feels that a continuance would be in everyone's best interest. He thinks that the problem has been created by Shell and he doesn't see why the two private landowners should be made to take the burden to cleanup a problem that they did not create. Commissioner Tkac said he has heard compelling testimony on both sides but he can't see any reason to move the road at the cost of the two landowners. Commissioner Tkac said he would like to see a continuance or he would have to vote against it tonight. Commissioner Blockley said he is all for the safety issue but he can't support a benefit to Shell at the expense of the other property owners. He would support a continuance or denying the request. Commissioner Tragish said he thinks it is safer to move it but he does think that asking the two property owners to pay for the move is unfair. He would support a request for a continuance. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is a time limitation as to when this particular circulation application has to be approved? Mr. Grady said the time limit would start when the Commission takes action on the environmental document. Commissioner Ellison asked Mr. Monje, Mr. Kranyak and Mr. Dmohowski if a continuance until June 19 would be ok? Everyone agree. Commissioner Ellison made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to continue General Plan Amendment 01-1023 until the June 19, 2003 meeting. AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, April 3, 2003 Page 13 10. 11. 9.2a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-1248 (Porter-Robertson Eng) (Continued from March 20, 2003) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION COMMENTS: None 12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- 13. MEETING: It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on April 28, 2003. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary May21,2003 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director