Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 15, 2003Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Commissioner Tkac Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Jennie Eng, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a 4.1b Approval of Capital Improvements Program Budget FY 2003-2008 determination by the Planning Commission of consistency with the general and specific plans. (City of Bakersfield - Public Works Department) (City-wide) Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on 3rd Revised Tract 5882, Phases 3A, 3B, and 3C (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4) Motion was made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Zone Change 03-0360 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 3) Public portion of the hearing opened. There were no public comments. Public portion of the hearing closed. There were no comments from the Commission. Motion was made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. Minutes, PC, May 15, 2003 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING -Tentative Parcel Map 10929 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 3) Public portion of the hearing was opened on May 1,2003. Mr. Grady said the Commission should have a memorandum from the Public Works Department dated May 7 concerning a revision to condition 6.3 which would need to be included in any motion on the project. There is also a memorandum dated May 13 from the Planning Department which provides the Commission with a list of the conditions that were on Vesting Tentative Map 6149. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. No one spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. Dave Dmohowski, representing the applicant, stated they are in agreement with staff's recommendation and the conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Ellison asked if the conditions that were added at the City Council meeting the previous night for Tract 6149 would carry through to this parcel map? Mr. Grady said yes. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10929 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution A and including Public Works memorandum dated May 7, 2003 and the memorandum from the Planning Director dated May 13, 2003. AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 6.1 Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6182 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 3) Public portion of the hearing opened. Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report including a memorandum from Stanley Grady that contains the motion and refers to two memorandums that revise conditions for the project. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, spoke against the project. He stated the Sierra Club would like a full fledged EIR for the project. It is one of the largest in the area proposing to build 361 single family residences. Some of the issues they are concerned about is the Blunt Nosed Leopard Lizard habitat that the project will be built on which is a fully protected species under State law. They feel that the Negative Declaration is grossly deficient in many ways. It fails to describe the project's impacts on biological resources. They also have a concern about air quality and the health impacts. They suggest the city acknowledge the public health risk of increased Minutes, PC, May 15, 2003 Page 3 development and devise some strategies to lower the risk. Mr. Nipp asked that the EIR answer the following: If the water purveyor has enough rights to serve this project and all of the other potential projects in the area and how much water has to be removed from the Kern River? What affect will withdrawing the water for this project have on the environment downstream from the withdrawal points and what affect will the storm drainage have on the quality of the river water? Mr. Nipp said that they have a concern about the air quality and asked that the developer pay an air quality mitigation fee. The fee, they think, should be proportional from the project to the center of the city. The fee could be used to fund a number of measures to improve air quality. They would also like the developer to plant trees to a 40% canopy and the developer should be required to have solar water heaters. They would like to have light pollution minimized. They would also like to see a traffic study done. Arthur Unger, representing the Sierra Club, stated concerns about air quality and the affect sprawl is having on citizens. Mary Griffin, Kern Audubon Society, said they support the Sierra Club. They conduct many field trips in the area and they are very concerned that there has not been any mitigation to protect the ground nesting birds during their breeding season. She commented that there should be some accountability for the public funds that have been collected to protect the endangered species. A better monitoring system should be implemented. The following spoke in favor of the project: Dave Dmohowski, representing Lucas Development Company, said they have with them tonight a number of their technical consultants who will address issues related to air quality and traffic. They are in complete agreement with the conditions and mitigation measures recommended by staff and those which have been suggested as a revision in memorandums staff has submitted to the Commission. He would be happy to respond to any questions or concerns related to those. Fred Woody, from WZI, addressed air quality issues. The analysis they conducted concludes 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 or organic compounds and nitrogen oxides The local cumulative air pollutants of carbon monoxide and hazardous air pollutants were 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 EIR and the General Plan Update EIR which considered the impact of development of additional housing in the city limits. Matt VoVilla, representing Pinnacle Engineering, said that California Water Service Co. will be the purveyor. The project will use about 375 acre feet of water per year at ultimate build out. The new treatment plant will be able to provide 67,200 acre feet per year. California Water Service Co. has filed a report with the California PUC stating its ability to serve the whole area. They have water rights to the area and the Kern River. Regarding the question about storm water runoff, Mr. VoVilla said this project is governed by an EPA permitting process and a storm water pollution prevention plan will be required as part of the grading and other improvements of this project. Mr. VoVilla stated that as far as traffic impacts go all facilities in the area, when mitigated, will function at a very good level of service. The study they prepared used the Kern COG traffic model. This project is not a land use change so, therefore, the perimeters of the Kern COG Minutes, PC, May 15, 2003 Page 4 traffic model apply to this project right now. They wanted to be conservative so they took the Kern COG Year 2030 volumes and added the trip generation from the project directly to that and then analyzed all of the streets and intersections. The way the study was done, they likely have some double counting as far as trips and traffic on the roads. They are very comfortable with the mitigation and totally confident that when mitigation improvements are implemented, this area will operate at a very good level of service. Mr. Dmohowski stated he would like to respond to some of the opponents environmental issues. They think the mitigated negative declaration is appropriate rather than a new EIR. In many cases, it is not much different. The EIR includes a more detailed cumulative impact analysis and analysis of alternatives for the project which isn't relevant here because the general plan dictates this will be a residential project. It also provides for a statement of overriding considerations and in this case they have already identified all the issues that have the potential to be significant under CEQA and have come up with mitigation and conditions to address those. They are in agreement with the mitigation measures for the Blunt Nosed Leopard Lizard and Burrowing Owl. Mr. Dmohowski said that in regards to the tree canopy that the residential landscaping will have a dramatic increase compared to the existing condition on the various sites in the northeast. Also, there is nothing in the project that will prevent individual homeowners from implementing on-site power generation devices but they feel that they should not be mandatory. Eric Powers, Real Estate agent who represents Lucas Company and their acquisition of this property, commented that 70 percent of the opposition's testimony tonight was taking the Commission's time shooting holes in the air quality study that was voluntarily done by the applicant. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is an ordinance or law requiring the developer to pay an air quality mitigation fee? Mr. Grady said there is not. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Dmohowski and Mr. Woody to explain Condition 38 and the options that it allows the applicant to quantify emissions. What is boils down to is each one depends on various factors - different times and different circumstances. Mr. Woody said that the developer supports those mitigation measures. They are feasible options that can be quantified, however, they also support the idea of flexibility and having all of the options available. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Dmohowski if there will be a signal at Pacific Palisaides? Mr. Dmohowski said no the city does not want a traffic signal there. There will be some median breaks for left turn entry into the project. With the added lane miles from the improvements of the adjoining tracts there will be a very significant improvement in traffic service in that area in a safe condition. Commissioner Tragish asked Steve Walker, Public Works Traffic Engineer, if it is necessary to have a condition for signalization at Pacific Palisaides? Mr. Walker said the traffic study listed it as one of the possible mitigations to improve the intersection in the future, however, the turn restriction accomplished the same effect and in light of Caltrans saying they will not allow signalization, it is an appropriate substitute. Minutes, PC, May 15, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Blockley said that they have a clearance survey dated March of 2003 from a certified wildlife biologist saying that there is no kit fox dens, etc. on the site. There is a whole series of mitigation measures that are conditions on the project and Commissioner Blockley feels that the measures are adequate. Commissioner Ellison said he read the air quality study and the one thing that has really helped him with the air quality issue is the letter written by Heather Ellison of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Board in which she states "the District encourages projects that incorporate clean air strategies such as this project in its plans, programs and guidance documents." He said that both sides have made some good points but that he is quite comfortable that this project fully mitigates the cumulative air quality impacts with the 49 mitigation measures attached to the it. Commissioner Ellison said that he has a concern regarding traffic on 178 and noted that Tentative Tract Map 6149 had a phased approach as to when the traffic signal should be installed on Miramonte and 178 and wondered if a similar condition for this tract map could be required? Commissioner Lomas asked if storm water will be draining into the Kern River? Mr. VoVilla said that as part of every grading project in the city and the state they have to obtain a storm water pollution elimination permit. They have to prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan. Basically, it consists of detention basins. All of the projects in the northeast have detention basins. There is one water course that crosses 178 at the southwest end of the project. Ultimately, it will reach the Kern River. Commissioner Gay said that he would encourage the Sierra Club to spend the money on a development that would show us a better way of building homes instead of on lawsuits. Commissioner Gay said that, whoever makes a motion, he would like to see the signal option at Park Palisaides be deleted which refers to conditions 5, 10.5 and 46. Commissioner Tragish asked if Commissioner Ellison's request for a condition to be imposed similar to Tract 6149's be possible? Mr. Grady said that if you get the applicant's agreement, you can apply it to the project. As it is currently positioned, there is no ordinance that requires this applicant to contribute to that signal. Commissioner Tragish asked if a condition could be imposed to say that whoever's project has the hundredth home built first has to signalize the intersection? Ms. Shaw said that at this time there is no requirement on this tract to install that signal - just a requirement to pay its proportionate share. If the tract to the south goes away, there is no requirement to build the signal. If the Commission wishes the signal to go in whether the one to the south goes in or not, it should be addressed with this tract. Commissioner Ellison said he wants to make sure the signal gets in. Commissioner Ellison asked Mr. VoVilla if he had any suggestions on how the Commission could secure a traffic signal at that intersection and make sure that it meets their intent? Mr. VoVilla said they have no objection with the same threshold being applied to 6182 as was applied to the map to the south. Commissioner Ellison read condition 32: "With the recordation of the phase containing the 100 lot the subdivider shall install a signal at the intersection of Highway 178 and Miramonte." Commissioner Ellison asked Ms. Shaw if the condition would have to be modified or can they insert it as a condition of approval with the applicant's agreement? Ms. Shaw said the condition should say "the construction of the signal will have the same threshold as the tract to the south." Minutes, PC, May 15, 2003 Page 6 Mr. VoVilla said they do not object to the identical condition be applied. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the requested Tentative Tract Map 6182 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution and incorporating the revisions contained in the two Planning Director's memo dated May 14, 2003 and Public Works memo dated May 13 and 15, 2003 from Marian Shaw, Public Works, and removing all conditions regarding the signalization at Park Palisaides and 178 and including the condition that the traffic signal at 178 and Miramonte be installed based on the same threshold as Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6149. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Gay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac A 10 minute recess was taken. 6.2 Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6184 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 3) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report and memorandums from the Planning and Public Works Department. Public portion of the hearing opened. Gordon Nipp said he did not know if an air quality study was done on this project but if not he suggested that the issue as far as air quality is concerned is the same on this project as it was on 6182. Air quality knows no boundaries. Mr. Nipp said that if an air quality study has not been done then the City should be consistent throughout. He also suggested that if condition 38 is included in this project as well that it does not include cumulative impacts. The condition only reduces the appropriate air pollutants down to the level of 10 tons per year. He suggested that something be done - perhaps a policy measure - to deal with the cumulative impacts of these developments. Trisha Harbison, representing SmithTech USA, said they are in agreement with the conditions of approval and the memorandums from staff dated May 7 and May 12, 2003. Ms. Harbison said there has been an air quality study done and mitigation measures have been included in the conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6184 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A including memorandums from staff dated May 7 and 12, 2003 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the Minutes, PC, May 15, 2003 Page 7 following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Gay None Commissioner Tkac 6.3 Vestin,q Tentative Tract Map 6186 (Phased) (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 4) Public portion of the hearing opened on April 17, 2003. Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report including a memorandum dated May 13 from the Public Works Department that revises condition numbers 3 and 6.1. William Bailey, a resident at 601 Pinto Street, said he is not in opposition to the project but wanted to clarify some information about the extension and paving of Johnson Road from Pinto Street to the other end of Johnson Road. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Bailey if his concern is that they will be paving their half or both halves of the street? Mr. Bailey said he has received conflicting information from the county and the city. The county says that the whole street was deeded to the city. Ms. Shaw said she believes the jurisdictional boundary is at the centerline of Johnson Road. She is not aware that it has been deeded to the city and she cannot check it very quickly. Commissioner Gay asked Ms. Shaw if the developer will be improving Johnson Street as the developer will be doing their phasing not only on the south half as long as it remained in the city? Ms. Shaw said that is correct and that Johnson is a collector and the half-width will be 45 feet. Mr. Bailey also objected to Johnson Street being a straight shot and all of the traffic that speeds down the street and the dust that blows because of it. Barry Eaton said he has the mineral rights to the property and he wants to make sure that as an operator they will be able to maintain all of their rights and privileges. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Eaton if he is aware of the drill site that has setbacks acceptable to the city? Mr. Eaton said he is aware of the dimensions but is not aware of what the ordinances call for. He doesn't want to be in the position where he might have some liability. He is aware that certain things have to be done and is working with the applicant to try to arrange all of those with different options. Jeff Smith, consultant to Mr. Eaton, said that Mr. Eaton has recently taken over the operation of this area. He is not aware of the ramifications of whether it is a drill island or a drill site. It is their understanding that if it is a drill site he can't re-drill his well without having a conditional use permit which would be taking away his right to continue his operation as it exists today. The other issue is that this is R-1 and mineral extraction is not residential. They feel there should be a different application of use. He also said that they just found out about this a few days ago and were not notified of this project in a timely manner. They are asking for some clarification and support so that their rights to continue operating in this area are not eroded or taken from them. Commissioner Gay said that their rights were covered by some of the Commissioners on Monday as they asked staff about notification. The Commission received a memo from staff that the person of record at the time, Mr. Thomas Ladd, was notified and asked if there was a change of ownership? Mr. Smith said there has been a change in ownership as of a few months Minutes, PC, May 15, 2003 Page 8 ago but his client has not received a notice. Joseph Austin, Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, said that he doesn't want to come out being opposed but would like to give the Commission some information and remind the Commission that in their review letter of March 14, 2003, they noted that as illustrated the proposed tract may not conform to the setback development standards required by city ordinance for active wells and storage tanks. Mr. Austin showed a photograph on the overhead looking easterly and southerly down Johnson Road. Mr. Austin pointed out the location of a vent pipe on the tract map 25 feet at right angles to the tank within Johnson Road. The committee revising the Oil and Gas Ordinances asked for some form of codification for reciprocal setbacks when developing in oil fields and he believes that 1566.050 would apply. The development would satisfy the development standards pursuant to this chapter, including but not limited to setbacks. That would refer to the setbacks codified in 1566.040 for 75 foot setback from the right-of-way of any dedicated public street for a well and storage tanks. He will be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Gay asking for clarification if he means that by the applicant's map, there is not the appropriate setback on the east/west orientation to the well and that the tanks are not shown on this tract map and that they are closer to the street? Mr. Austin showed the Commission on the map where the tanks are located and said that it might be prudent to remove tanks for part of this development to get them to conform. Matt VoVilla, representing the developer, said they concur with staff's recommendation and conditions and the memorandum dated May 15, 2003 from Public Works. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Ellison asked if the tanks and well would be a legal non-conforming use? Mr. Grady said yes. He also asked if the owner would have to acquire a conditional use permit to do any work on his well? Mr. Grady said no but if he would drill a new well he would. Commissioner Ellison said it would be nice to have the well conforming with the ordinance. Five feet is all they need He would like any ideas from the applicant as to how they could do this. Commissioner Tragish said Johnson Road would be taken care of with the paving. He asked Mr. Eaton what exactly does he want? Mr. Eaton said that the technical aspects and ramifications of something done now not fully understood for future application or need can be devastating to an operation. He wanted to know if there is a legal status or definition between an island and a drill site? He is not sure what non-conforming will mean to him. The mineral rights owners do not want to give up the site. Commissioner Tragish asked if he had an opportunity to read the conditions of approval for this project? Mr. Eaton said no. Commissioner Tragish feels staff has done everything they could do regarding notification. He asked if a continuance were to be made so that Mr. Eaton and fellow individuals could have adequate time to review this matter with their legal counsel what would the next date be that this could be heard? Commissioner Gay said that perhaps the applicant has some flexibility in making a "legal drill site" in their plan? Commissioner Tragish called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Grady said June 5, 2003, would be the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. VoVilla if he would agree to a continuance of two weeks to give Mr. Eaton time to clarify his concerns and possibly work out the appropriate language that would Minutes, PC, May 15, 2003 Page 9 go into the continuance? Mr. VoVilla said they would rather not have it continued. He was informed by staff that 75 feet is the typical offset required by the code from the street. They would be receptive to shifting the north/south street that bounds the east side of the drill site five feet to the east to achieve an additional setback of 75 feet. He thinks they would then be in compliance with the code. Commissioner Tragish said he still would like to have a continuance so that Mr. Eaton can talk to the appropriate individual so they may be able to make some objection or suggestion that he may want to make and Commissioner Tragish would like to hear what that would be. Commissioner Ellison said that after hearing the testimony of both sides and given the complexity of what we are dealing with he could support a two week continuance. Tony Hogg, Coleman Homes, said that to clarify as to how they worked through this project, that Mr. Eaton has been working with them for three to four months. He has a copy of this tentative map and the old tentative map which had a drill site on it. He said they have talked to Mr. Eaton about potential solutions and that he has known about this for a long time. They have already had one continuance and would not like to have another. Commissioner Ellison said he would still support the continuance. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to reopen the public hearing for Vesting Tentative Tract 6186 and that the hearing be continued to June 5, 2003. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish None Commissioner Tkac DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW - 2100 HEIGHT STREET (PROJECT NUMBER 03-0252) (G. W. Wilson) (Ward 3) Public portion of the hearing opened. G. W. Willson stated they have complied with all of the requirements. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Ellison stated that he is the one that requested the PUD for this project and is in support of the review. Commissioner Tragish asked if the chain link fence between the property and school will be replaced? Mr. Grady said he has not personally seen the existing fence but the condition requires a new six foot fence on top of the retaining wall. Commissioner Gay asked if the Commission required trees or shrubs on the west side of the property. Mr. Grady said there was no requirement for landscaping. Minutes, PC, May 15, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Gay asked if they are going to be able to come up with the required 11 parking spaces for guests as the plans only show eight? Mr. Grady said they will be able to come up with them without having to remove buildings or any required fire lanes. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to approve the PUD Development Plan review number 03-0252 at 2100 Height Street with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution including the Planning Department memorandum dated May 13, 2003 as it pertains to condition A.6 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish None Commissioner Tkac COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Grady complimented the Commission on conducting a well run meeting. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commissioner Gay asked Ms. Gennero if the Commission should refer to the Council to maybe look into a comprehensive development plan or assessment district to handle the traffic issues on Highway 1787 Ms. Gennero said not at this time. Commissioner Tragish complimented Commissioner Gay on the good job he did as Chairman tonight. 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on June 3, 2003. 11. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Minutes, PC, May 15, 2003 Page 11 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director Ju~y 7, 2003