Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 21, 2003Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Gay, Tragish, Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac None Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Jim Movius, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items Commissioner Blockley abstained from this item. 4.1a Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the vacation of a portion of Thelma Drive and the alley between Goodman Street and Bernard Street. (City of Bakersfield). (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 3) Motion made by Commissioner Tkac seconded by Commissioner Spencer, 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 Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6192 (Delmarter & Deifel) (Ward 7) (Agenda Item 5.4) 4.2b Approval of Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6199 (Mclntosh and Associates) (Ward 5) (Agenda Item 5.4) Minutes, PC, August 21, 2003 Page 2 Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke either for or against the projects. Public portion of the hearing closed. There were no Commission comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 5.1 Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6196 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Ward 5) Public portion of the hearing was opened on August 7, 2003. Applicant has requested a continuance of this item until September 4, 2003. Staff agreed to the continuance. No one spoke in opposition to the continuance. There were no Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to continue this project until September 4, 2003. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Gay None None 5.2 Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6191 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) (Ward 3) Public portion of the hearing opened. Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Gordon Nipp, speaking for the Sierra Club, spoke in opposition of the project. He presented comments in writing for the written record. They feel that the developer should pay an air quality mitigation fee. One developer has agreed to pay a $1,200 per house air mitigation fee which they feel should be a city- wide, county-wide, valley-wide mitigation measure for the air pollution caused by these projects. They also feel that the developer should be required to build photo voltaic panels. It should be offered as an option to buyers. They feel that street lights and signs should be designed to minimize light pollution. The nearby soccer and baseball fields generate a lot of light in the area. They should require a developer to shield the street lights for ones that do not shine up in the air. The Negative Declaration states there are no cumulative impacts. The Sierra Club thinks there are large cumulative impacts to air quality, biological resources and traffic congestion that have not been adequately addressed. They feel there are a number of omissions in the air quality study that was done. The Negative Declaration does not compute the construction emission estimates. Construction emissions are well over the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District's significance threshold of ten tons per year. That in itself should lead to a full-fledged EIR for the project. Secondly, there is no real discussion of potential carbon monoxide hot spots. The general plan update says that Highway 178 in Minutes, PC, August 21, 2003 Page 3 the year 2020 is going to be a level of service "F" which means traffic will come to a standstill much of the time. That leads to carbon monoxide hot spots. They feel this is an issue that should be dealt with. Another thing that should be considered in the project is sensitive receptors. This project is right next to an elementary school which has "sensitive receptors." Small children are very sensitive to air quality issues. There is absolutely no mention of cumulative impacts. The rest of the projects in the area should be considered as cumulative. There are about 7,000 residences proposed for the area. These houses will generate approximately 25 times more reactive organic gases than the significance threshold. Twenty-six times more NOX and 12 times more PM~o than the significance threshold. These are not small issues and need to be dealt with. The materials he submitted for the record include the details. The Sierra Club feels that a mitigation measure should be established that makes sure the air quality does not get worse because of all these projects. Each project should pay an air quality mitigation fee. It will keep the air quality from getting worse. The fee can be used to pay for projects that are effective in reducing emissions elsewhere - offsetting the emissions from the project. He then stated the concern the Sierra Club has regarding cumulative impacts for biological resources. If this area is paved over, native plants and animals that are out there now are not going to have a place to go. There are many endangered and uncommon species out there and they feel that some area ought to be set aside for these species. Some species will not survive in the open space that has been set aside for this purpose. An area that is flat and big enough should be set aside to preserve some of the native species that are out there. Mr. Nipp said there is no traffic study for this project and since it is not the only project out there, one should be done. At buildout there will be about 15,000 houses which figures out to be about 140,000 vehicle trips a day. Without some planning, the area will be turned into another Rosedale Highway. They feel that a comprehensive traffic study should be done that analyzes the impacts of this project and all of the other projects on Highway 178, 184 and Alfred Harrell Highway through Hart Park. Traffic congestion can degrade the quality of life. They hope the Planning Commission will not approve this project. They request it be sent back to the planners for a full-fledged EIR. Arthur Unger, also representing the Sierra Club, presented a handout to the Commission for the record. He also stated a concern regarding air pollution. He feels the city and county is not doing what they could. Impacts should be avoided and minimized by builders. The material he presented listed some. Mathew Malahowski, a resident on Eagle Ridge Street, said he was both opposed and in favor of the project. He stated a concern about sprawl and the density of population. These lots appear to be very large with small houses. He also stated his opposition to the blocks that will be over 1,000 feet long which are a contributor to urban sprawl. Also, the super blocks will increase traffic on Eagle Ridge Street. He feels that access should be made on Berringer Street to Morning Drive. He stated a concern about the kit fox in the area and wanted to make sure they would have a place to go. Harold Robertson, representing the applicant, agreed with staff's recommendation and the conditions of approval including a memorandum from the Public Works Department. Mr. Robertson said there are members from Southern California Edison in the audience because they have some concerns regarding the fact that some of the lots back up to their easement. The applicant has agreed to adjust the boundary line of five lots so that it will be consistent with the easement line. Therefore, none of the rear lot lines will encroach on the Southern California Edison easement. Public portion of the hearing closed. Commissioner Blockley asked if there is any local jurisdiction that has a light pollution ordinance? Mr. Minutes, PC, August 21, 2003 Page 4 Grady said no. There are some jurisdictions that have an ordinance that regulates certain kinds of fixtures adjacent to residential such as the one we have for commercial projects adjacent to residential property. Commissioner Blockley asked if the local level is the appropriate place for an air mitigation fee? Mr. Grady said he knows the district is currently considering it but it is not something the city is pursuing at this time. Commissioner Blockley asked Mr. Robertson if GAMAQI requires a study of construction emissions? Mr. Robertson said that not that he is aware of. Construction activities are a temporary issue. Local ordinances provide a dust control plan, watering plans and erosion plans that take care of that during the grading operation. That is considered a temporary construction issue. Commissioner Spencer said he feels that if one development paid a $1,200 per house air quality fee that they should require it in this case. He also said that condition number 9 reads "for purposes of orderly development block walls are necessary along side yards of lots that abut Old River Road" and feels that is a "bit far out." It should be Morning Drive. Mr. Grady said that the case Mr. Spencer is referring to regarding the mitigation fee is one in response to the settlement, that if such a fee was put in place, the individual would be able to use that fee as mitigation in exchange for the other mitigation contained in the conditions of approval for the project which dealt with crushing cars or doing signal/road improvements. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Nipp if it is true his group received an air quality fee from a developer? Mr. Nipp said yes. Commissioner Tragish asked how it will be utilized? Mr. Nipp said there will be a five person committee that will look at potential projects using the same kind of algorithm that he showed during his testimony. Testing it via cost effectiveness. The committee will consist of one person appointed by the developer, one person appointed by the Sierra Club, one person from the city if the developer o.k.'s it, and one person from the Center for Race Poverty and the Environment and one person from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Commissioner Tragish said that he feels staff has sufficiently addressed the light pollution Mr. Nipp brought up in his testimony. He doesn't feel light pollution is a major problem. Mr. Nipp said there is an organization called "The International Dark Sky" organization that has all sorts of publications on the issue and they also have model city ordinances which he has passed out to the Urban Development Committee. Mr. Nipp said that the soccer field in the area lights up the sky for miles around. The lights are not shielded and he sees no reason they should point up in the sky. The same for the ball park near Mesa Matin. Commissioner Tragish says he doesn't agree with him. He doesn't think the development projects are a problem. If the soccer and ball fields are a problem, the group should consult with Public Works about it. That's where it should be corrected. Commissioner Tragish does not believe it is a city- wide epidemic of not shielding light and light pollution. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Grady what he meant by the comment published in the newspaper about a house in itself does not cause pollution to the extent of what they are talking about regarding NOX and ten tons, etc. Mr. Grady said what he meant was that a single family house by itself is not a significant source of emissions when we are talking about the amount of emissions that are in the valley. Mr. Grady said that the URBEMIS model that Mr. Nipp used as an example in his presentation to the Commission was out of date. There is a 2002 model that staff has advised engineers to use. WZI also uses the 2002 model. According to the SJVAPCD, the new model has been recalibrated based on new emissions knowledge and new data, when the model is run, the numbers come out less. Staff is comfortable with the air quality study that was presented by the engineer's staff person that prepared it that it does accurately reflect the emissions that would be generated from that project. Minutes, PC, August 21, 2003 Page 5 Also, the comments about the plant and animal species from Mr. Nipp was not accurate Mr. Grady said. The biota report survey says there were 32 plant species found, 16 plant species (50%) were introduced as non-native species. It goes on to say that no evidence of any other sensitive plant species was found on the project site. Staff is not doing this on what we feel or what we believe, we are doing this based on evidence that has been submitted to us by a reputable biologist. It also says that five sensitive animal species were reported and known to occur in the vicinity but as part of its analysis and review of the site, their conclusion was that no evidence of any of these five animal species known to exist in the vicinity was seen on the project site and no evidence of any sensitive animal species was found on the project site. Mr. Grady said he wanted the Commission to know that any conclusions staff reaches is supported by evidence from studies that are prepared by qualified individuals. Commissioner Tragish asked if Mr. Grady has had an opportunity to review Mr. Nipp's air quality run that he had done? Mr. Grady said no he has not. Commissioner Tragish asked if Mr. Grady knew if it was based on the new model? Mr. Grady said all he knows is what Mr. Nipp presented. Mr. Nipp, in response to Mr. Grady's comments, said he is using URBEMIS 2001 although the material he presented was from the URBEMIS 7G user's guide, it is essentially the same users guide. URBEMIS 2001 is the newest one approved by the EPA to his knowledge. As far as the biological resources concerned, he feels that it did not deal with the cumulative impact on biological resources. He agrees that you probably wouldn't find a lot of the species if you walk out there now, but overall in the area, there are lots of very interesting and important species that ought to be dealt with. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Robertson what his comments are about Mr. Nipp's comments on the air quality report that contradicts with his? Mr. Robertson said Mr. Nipp is just as qualified but that they have to adhere to the guidelines in preparing an air quality study for a subdivision. They follow that guideline based on the size of the subdivision, the density, the number of lots and other various mitigation measures they plug into the model that they run and it computes the tons that will be generated by this project or any other project that you apply to it. The limit is ten tons and in this case it is less than that. That is what they go by. Mr. Robertson said that he and the developer met with Mr. Nipp and Mr. Unger about three months ago on the site and went over this project with them. Some of their comments they made on the site that day they took into consideration in the layout of their subdivision. Since their meeting that day, they have had no contact with them. Commissioner Tragish asked if a sump will be built on the project? Ms. Shaw said yes and that it will be maintained by the city. Commissioner Ellison asked if a condition of approval needs to be made to allow for changing of the lot lines? Mr. Grady said it should be made a condition of approval to make sure it is part of the approval process. Commissioner Ellison asked if we allow the block length of Monticello to exceed 1,000 feet, if we are contributing to a possible problem on Eagle Ridge Drive? Ms. Shaw said one of their concerns with regards to the design of this subdivision, was the lack of a circulation connection between the south side of the tract and the north side of the tract. Primarily with the ability of the residents to access the major roads and be able to go either north, south, east or west, without a connection between the two sections it would be very difficult for anyone in the southern portion of the tract to go north on Morning Drive. That's why the conditions were modified to require the developer put in a left turn slot for southbound Morning Drive. To give the people the opportunity to make a U-turn on Morning. All of the streets onto Morning will have right-in right-out access only. There would be no capability to access Morning going to the north. With the modification to allow the U-turn, the traffic division is satisfied that the circulation for Minutes, PC, August 21, 2003 Page 6 the southern part of the tract would be sufficient and they would not need the connection between the two long streets. Commissioner Ellison asked for a comment on opening up the cul-de-sac on Berringer as Mr. Malahowski suggested. Ms. Shaw said that Morning Drive is an arterial and one of their primary aims in reviewing tracts is to limit the access from local roads onto the arterial to allow for arterial traffic to flow at an even rate. That would be three streets within a quarter mile and would create a Brundage Lane effect. Commissioner Ellison said the Commission has received many letters from residents on Bald Eagle Street stating a concern for retaining their view and asked Mr. Robertson if he has received a copy of the August 14 letter from the residents in the area? Mr. Robertson said yes he has and he has not spoken to any of the residents in the area but Mr. Blumer, the developer, has spoken with two of the residents. Commissioner Ellison asked if there has been any agreement to limit the homes to one story to preserve the view? Mr. Blumer said they are in process of negotiating with one of the persons responsible for drafting the letter. They are proposing a trade off where the ones that back up to the retaining wall are limited to single story residences in return the homeowners will screen the wrought iron fence in their backyards so that it will block the view from their yards to Mr. Blumer's project's yards. Commissioner Lomas asked how much open space we have preserved in the northeast thus far and anticipate how much more? Mr. Grady said including the cactus preserve it is about 160 acres. Commissioner Lomas said the city has set aside over $200,000 for improving traffic and is confident that the city is doing as much as they can to get ahead of the traffic issue. Commissioner Lomas asked if URBEMIS 2002 been approved by the EPA? Mr. Grady said it has been used in two of the air quality reports and yes it has been approved for use. Commissioner Lomas asked if there were anyone in the audience that wrote one of the letters the Commission received? No one responded. Commissioner Lomas asked if a copy of staff's response were sent to each one of the letter writers? Mr. Grady said they have been sent but don't know if they have been received as they were mailed yesterday. The staff person who prepared the report has been in contact with some of the individuals. Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Grady to explain what the Commission's constraints are under the Map Act when they are dealing with tract maps. Mr. Grady said the Commission's discretion is limited to applying mitigation measures from CEQA and existing ordinances. The Commission has to apply the ordinances and rules and regulations that are on the books at the time the map is deemed complete. The Commission can negotiate for added conditions from the developer if the developer agrees to it but the Commission has no discretion to add conditions that aren't supported by either environmental consequences or supported by adopted ordinances and standards. Commissioner Gay reiterated that without the developer's approval we cannot limit the development to single story? Mr. Grady said that is correct. Commissioner Gay said he thinks the Sierra Club is very selective in their opposition on many times like this. For Mr. Nipp to go after this northeast project when 15 minutes before 225 homes were approved in the southwest without a comment about an air quality mitigation fee. He thinks the Sierra Club is being selective in their extortion techniques in what they are trying to do in the northeast area. He disagrees with the Sierra Club and what they are doing. They come up every time and go on about the light issue. If they really wanted the light issue to be solved at the soccer park, the Sierra Club could do a community effort to try to help the soccer park to change their lights to lights that would not glare. They need to take a leadership role in the community to try to enhance things and make a better quality rather Minutes, PC, August 21, 2003 Page 7 than opposing it every time they come up here. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Blumer if he has a plan of where his models might be located? Commissioner Gay would not like to see it on Eagle Ridge because of the existing homes across the street. Mr. Blumer said there is a good chance he will not be building that portion. There is a good chance he will be selling those lots to a builder who builds more in line with that size lot and product. At this time that individual has not been determined so Mr. Blumer is not sure where the models will go. It is not a real big tract and in discussion with the individual that wrote the letter he seemed to be receptive so that and the chances of putting the model homes there is 50-50 at best. They might want to go to the street that enters off of Morning Drive where they can have their own product on both sides. Commissioner Gay said what he would like to see is lots 4 to 10 on Eagle Ridge be restricted from a model home. That would give the developer three lots on Morning Drive across from the sump and none across from a homeowner. Mr. Blumer said he would agree to that. Commissioner Gay said his recommendation is for Mr. Blumer to continue to negotiate with the neighbors concerning the view. He would like to see the tract approved and restrictions on lots 4 through 10 for model homes. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6191 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A and with Public Works memorandum dated August 21,2003 adding a condition of approval to adjust lot lines for lots 22 through 26 phase 4 to accommodate the Southern California Edison power line easement and adding another condition to restrict lots 4 through 10 for model homes and to make the correction to condition 9. AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Gay NOES: None ABSENT: None 5.3 5.4 Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6192 (Delmarter & Deifel) (Ward 7) See Consent Agenda Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6199 (Mclntosh and Associates) (Ward 5) See Consent Agenda COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Grady asked the Commission if they would like staff to give them a presentation regarding sprawl and density? What it really means? What are some of the components of it? And that staff would suggest the Commission may want to take that issue up in a committee so they can decide for themselves if they want to do something about it or they just want to respond to individuals when they come through and make allegations that the City is not doing anything about sprawl or that there is something inherently wrong with the way Bakersfield is growing. Staff would be willing to give a presentation and work with the Commission in committee. Minutes, PC, August 21, 2003 Page 8 The Commission said they would be interested in a presentation. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commissioner Gay thanked Commissioner Tragish for filling in for him at the last meeting. 8. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: (Due to Labor Day holiday, this pre-meeting would be held on Tuesday, September 2, 2003) It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on September 2, 2003. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:23 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary September 8, 2003 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director