Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 3, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 2004 - 5:30 p.......m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Tragish, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Gay Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, Stan Grady, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Louise Palmer, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS - None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of Capital Improvement Program Budget FY 2004-2009 determination by the Planning Commission of consistency with the general and specific plans. (City of Bakersfield — Public Works Department) (City-wide) Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, 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 Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract 5944 (Ward 6) 4.2b Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract 6050 (Ward 4) 4.2c Approval of Development Plan Review—Brimhall & River Ranch Dr. (Ward 4) 4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6295 (Ward 4) 4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6251 (Ward 3) 4.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6307 (Ward 5) 4.2g Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6310 (Ward 3) Public portion of the hearing opened. Minutes, PC, June 3, 2004 Page 2 Ron Randall, requested that item 5.3 regarding Tract Map 6307 be stricken from the Consent Calendar, which Chairman Tragish did. Commissioner Spencer further requested the removal of item 5.3 from the Consent Agenda. Motion made by Commissioner Tkac seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS —Tentative Tract Maps 5.1a Development Plan Review (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda 5.1 b Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6295 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda 5.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6251 (Dawson Engineering) (Ward 3) See Consent Agenda 5.3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6307 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 5) The public hearing is opened. Staff had no additional information. Ron Randall stated that he had a concern that the asphalt plant is diagonal from this location with only an approximate 400 foot separation at the corners of the subject properties. He requested that only single-story homes be built. Mr. Randall stated that they have approximately 70 trucks a week go in, and 50-60 going out per week. He further stated they have 10 to 20 rail cars a week, and with the housing tract they will have a problem with the train blowing its horn. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission can add a condition that any single- family homes built be limited to one-story, to which staff responded that the subdivision map is currently being reviewed, and the Commission can make a condition if there are findings based on Health, Safety and Welfare issues. Staff stated that the staff report already requires an acoustical analysis for second-story plans that would be reviewed by the Building Department. In addition, there has already been an acoustical analysis prepared with regard to the railroad, and mitigation has been applied. John Hunt, works for Vulcan Materials Company, at 8517 Panama Lane. Mr. Hunt stated that they are a ready-mix concrete supplier, and there are two plants on site that are permitted to operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day. He stated that they located in this area because there was no residential development that they could come in conflict with. He stated that on any given day along with the Ready-Mix plant and the asphalt batch plant located on the property, they may have upwards of 400 to 600 truck trips into and out of their property, and the primary route would be along the Panama Lane corridor path past the subject residential tract. They have requested that there be a requirement attached that any homeowner who buys within the subject development Minutes, PC, June 3, 2004 Page 3 understands what their company does, and that they are there. He stated that their property is zoned an M-3, and the City M-3 zoning language notes, "That the purpose of heavy industrial M-3 district is to designate areas suitable for heavy manufacturing and industrial uses, which have the greatest potential for producing undesirable or adverse byproducts, including traffic, noise, odors, dust and vibration. The M-3 district should be located in places substantially removed from residential areas." Mr. Hunt further clarified that the staff report does mention the requirement of a restriction on the development of an 11' wall along the eastern border due to the railroad. However, the staff report on page 3, item 25 states, "Prior to finding a final map on any residential phase adjacent to Sunset Railroad right-of-way the subdivider shall construct a 6' high masonry wall as measured from highest adjacent grade along the eastern tract boundary." Mr. Hunts asked for clarification of any potential conflict with the wall height. Mr. Hunt further commented that they agree with Mr. Randall's comments to limit the housing to single-story. Harold Robertson with Porter Robertson Engineering stated they have reviewed the conditions of approval and find them acceptable. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Spencer inquired as to the height of the wall, and what future plans are in the area? Staff responded that the intent was to comply with the mitigation proposed in the acoustical analysis. Therefore, Condition Number 25 should be changed from 6' to 11', as referenced in the staff report. Commissioner Spencer asked about the zone change, to which staff responded that the zone change was handled through a General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Spencer asked if they are standing on firm ground when it comes to the Negative Declaration and the noise impacts, to which staff responded that the noise has been addressed through an acoustical analysis that led to an 11 ft. wall. The nuisance aspect is addressed in a different condition that requires that a covenant be placed on the property to advise the property owner that they are going to be purchasing homes within close proximity to the batch plant, which does not mean that the noise is going to exceed the requirements of a noise ordinance, but it does mean that the property owner is going to be adjacent to a nuisance. This issue was addressed when the motion to change the commercial to residential was denied by the Commission, and subsequently overturned by the City Council. Commissioner Tkac inquired if all notices were properly made given the change in zoning, etc. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tkac asked when the zone change was recommended to City Council, to which staff responded that it was the end of last year. Commercial Tkac stated that he thinks it would best to be a commercial piece of property, and would want all parties well advised of the surrounding industrial operations. Commissioner Ellison stated that he would like to address the noise issue. He asked if there was an acoustical analysis done for the 17 lots that analyzed the noise from the batch plant, and from the concrete facility, to which staff responded that it was his understanding that the study did not just analyze the tracks as the only source of noise, because if you're going to do a noise study, you're going to look at everything. However, the only thing that rose to the level that required mitigation was the railroad track, because the subject property is within a few feet of the railroad track. Minutes, PC, June 3, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Ellison inquired if the required 11' wall will have an effect of eliminating noise from the batch plant, as well as the railroad track, to which staff responded that it could, however, he is not certain that the area along Panama is going to be 11', but rather be 6'. Staff stated that to a certain extent the noise from the batch plant is south and east of the subdivision so a certain amount of it would be buffered by an 11' wall that is on the east side, with a 6' wall along Panama which is where the trucks will be driving. Commissioner Ellison inquired what the difference is between a single-story and two- story home and how they are impacted by noise generated off-site. Staff responded that the wall would provide protection below the height of the wall, because when the sound hits the wall it disrupts the sound contours. Commissioner Ellison stated that the lots that would be adjacent to the 11' wall should not be required to be limited to single- story as there is a higher wall for buffering. However, Commissioner Ellison would like to limit the nuisance calls from the future residents, and there might be some lots where single story might be more appropriate. Commissioner Ellison asked Mr. Robertson if they would be opposed to the limitation of single-story residential on the lots, to which Mr. Robertson commented that Lot 6159 had a condition placed on it that an 11' block wall be constructed along the railroad. The 11' wall was based on an old acoustical study. They hired a acoustical consultant on the current project which required only a 6' block wall around the perimeter. The other issue is the design of the subdivision to make it fit in with the remaining subdivision. The lots along Panama Lane and the golf course sit below (approx. 2') the level of the road and by putting a 6' wall along Panama Lane and the railroad track, those pads and the finished floor of the home will provide more than a 6' block wall from the yards. Therefore, there will effectively be an 8' block wall around the perimeter. Mr. Robertson stated that he does not believe that McMillan Homes, the developer, would have a problem limiting this project to single-story along those few lots in the southeast corner if the development. Mr. Robertson said that he does not think that it would be warranted to restrict all of the lots in the development to single-story. Commissioner Ellison concurred with Mr. Robertson as to not limiting all of the lots to single-story. He suggested limiting lots 7, 6 and 5 to single-story, and then the remainder can go two-story. Commissioner Tragish state the main concerns seem to be light, traffic and dust. He stated that no matter the height of the wall the light from the adjacent plants is going to reflect into the lots. He also stated that with regard to traffic, the numbers don't reflect the number of trucks going up and down the street posing safety hazards. He further stated that he does not believe that a 6' wall will mitigate the industrial impacts of light traffic and dust from the adjacent plants which operate 24/7. He stated that he is not in support of this vesting tentative tract. Commissioner Tragish also commented that he believes a two-story is taller than an 11'wall. Commissioner Spencer inquired of Mr. Robertson as to which part of the project is being phased. Mr. Robertson responded that this particular tract is so small it will not be phased, but will be done in one phase. Mr. Robertson clarified that this vesting tentative tract is the subdivision in its entirety, and consists of 17 lots. Commissioner Lomas stated that Lot 7 does not meet the 100 minimum depth, and that you probably will not be able to fit a single-story on that lot with the setbacks. She stated that they cannot undue the City Council's decision, and that they can only deal with the Minutes, PC, June 3, 2004 Page 5 mitigation issues. Staff confirmed Commissioner Lomas' summary that unless they can make a finding, then all the Commission can do is mitigate. Commissioner Ellison said that he would no longer be in favor of single-story of 5, 6 and 7 based on Commissioner Lomas' comments. He asked that if a motion is made to change condition #25 to require an 11' block wall, if there would be a conflict with a previous condition of approval from the GPA. Mr. Grady stated staff used the acoustical analysis for the subdivision to the north for addressing noise next to the railroad tracks, and the condition provided that there could be a subsequent analysis to show that through design they could get around without doing an 11' wall. Mr. Grady stated that for consistency, since it was done on the tract to the north, you would want to put the same language on the tract to the south. He stated that if the applicant can provide an analysis prior to recordation that shows that a 6' wall would mitigate the noise because of the topographical differences, then that decision could be made. Commissioner Ellison made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to approve vesting tentative tract map 6307 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit "A", including the memorandum from Marian Shaw dated May 27, 2004, and adding language to Condition 25 that states that, "The subdivider shall construct an 11' high masonry wall, unless a noise analysis is provided prior to recordation that shows that a 6'wall would be adequate." The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Lomas, Tkac NOES: Commissioners Spencer, Tragish ABSENT: Commissioners Blockley, Gay Commissioner Spencer stated he voted no because there is sufficient reason to deny based on existing developments in the area that will be severely impacted should the subdivision go on, and at the same time he has not been privileged to environmental or acoustical studies for this project, and he does not want anyone to be unclear as to what the height of the wall will be. Commissioner Tragish summarized that he does not believe that the mitigation is sufficient or substantial enough to address what he believes are substantial and overwhelming health and welfare safety concerns as to the 24/7 presence of two ready- mix plants and one asphalt plant. 5.4 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6310 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 3) See Consent Agenda 5.5 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6318 (Cornerstone Engineering) (Ward 3) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, stated they have a number of issues that need to be dealt with. He stated that the Bluntnosed Leopard Lizard has very special status, in that it is wholly protected by State law, and it cannot be taken. He stated that Minutes, PC, June 3, 2004 Page 6 the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitant Conservation Plan cannot be used to take a Bluntnosed Leopard Lizard. He stated that Bluntnosed Leopard Lizards have been found very close to this project in the past. Mr. Nipp further stated that the Bluntnosed Leopard Study done by Paul Pruitt in the month of August did not follow the current Department of Fish and Game protocol, and the study was not done, "During the adult optimal survey period," between April 15 and July 15. Mr. Nipp further commented on our poor air quality, and he requested incorporation of Dr. Unger's submission of the medical literature on the health hazards of breathing our air regarding tracts 6148 and 6149. Mr. Nipp requested that the developer be required to build photovoltaic panels into the houses. He stated that tract 6193 to the north of this project has agreed to offer at least photovoltaic as an option to the buyers. He further commented that street signs and lights should be designed to minimize light pollution. Additionally, the US topographic map shows an intermittent stream on this property down through the soil, and the Negative Declaration incorrectly states to the contrary. Further, the Negative Declaration asserts that there are no cumulative considerable impacts and the Sierra Club believes that there are large potential cumulative considerable impacts to air quality, traffic, and biological resources. They request that this project be denied until these studies are done, and a complete EIR is done. Jeremy Smith, a resident of the existing neighborhood on Finishline Drive, stated his concern is traffic flow. He stated that as currently planned the traffic would be going right by his house, and there is ongoing construction currently, which puts it over the 200 houses for the access off the Kern Canyon Roadway, and he does not think that his regular residence needs to be the thoroughfare for the entire development. He further commented that these lots sizes and houses are smaller than what he bought which pushes the value of the area down, which is not to the best interest of the existing homeowners. He is additionally concerned with the public park which is privately leased, and inquired if a leased park counts as a park within the two miles. Kristine Rickel, a resident off of Earnhardt Drive on Renard, and Neal Towery expressed the same concerns as Mr. Smith. Pete Pedroza, Cornerstone Engineering, representing the owners and developer for this project, stated that originally they had a higher build-out with an older zone and GP designation. The owners have endeavored to provide a lower density development proposal for this land. Mr. Pedroza stated that the northern most Phase 1 will be developed first, and that traffic will go north to Earnhardt, but as the tract develops south they are required to provide a secondary access over to 184 along the south line. Mr. Pedroza stated that most of the lots are larger than the developments immediately to the north; the lots are 8000 all the way up to 12,000 or 13,000 sq. feet. Mr. Pedroza said that with regard to the Bluntnosed Leopard Lizard, it is their understanding that Mr. Pruitt used the proper protocol and was in conformance with the California Dept. of Fish & Game requirements, and in conformance with the letter referred to by Mr. Grady. Mr. Pedroza stated that with regard to Mr. Nipp's water concerns they are required to have a water surveyor, Cal Water, provide a will-serve letter, which was provided by Cal Water. Therefore, there is adequate water. He stated they will comply with any City requirements for street lighting. Mr. Pedroza stated that with regard to providing solar panels that if it is economically feasible the developers will offer them as an option, but he does not know if it is economically feasible at this point. He believes making it a requirement is unreasonable. Mr. Pedroza stated that the stream mentioned is there, but they don't consider it an intermittent stream, as it is more of a wash because it is only wet and has water when it rains. It does not have a natural source of water that is ongoing. Minutes, PC, June 3, 2004 Page 7 Dave Weirather with the Fire Department, stated they are in favor of the project, but they would like to add a condition for emergency secondary access at the southern border. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Fire Department is requiring access where the southern phase comes in to which staff responded that the location and the connection has not been determined. Staff stated the best way to write the condition would be to have it require "prior to recordation of any phase subject to approval of the fire department" which would give the subdivider and the fire department an opportunity to sit down and actually determine what would be an appropriate alignment and location, and at what point in time based on the number a lots that a secondary emergency access would be required. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Ellison acknowledges the opposition presented. He asked Mr. Grady if there is a map where the Commission might be shown where the secondary access might be, to which Mr. Grady was able to do. Ms. Shaw clarified that they are only talking about an emergency secondary access. Commissioner Tragish asked what RH means? Staff responded that houses may be built on it at some point in the future, but there still has to be a zone change. Somebody does own this RH property to the west. Mr. Pedroza commented that he was speaking to emergency secondary access, but they would also provide for a secondary access for regular traffic. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is a condition that provides that the applicant has to put in a secondary access at a certain point and time of development of the project, to which staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Tragish asked if the applicant is willing to put in the secondary access at some point in the development of the project? Mr. Pedroza responded that it is probably mandatory to have another access. Mr. Pedroza stated that he has been reminded that the surrounding developer, Rex Martin, had been approached prior to the layout of the tract and street system, and was not open to providing other access ways for this tract. Commissioner Tragish stated he has reviewed Dr. Nipp's reports. He inquired if it would be appropriate under the review that the Commission has on this vesting map to require the solar panels as a condition, to which staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Tragish stated that he is concerned about the traffic issues. Commissioner Ellison asked if the density is consistent with the existing neighborhood to the north, to which staff responded that a comparison study has not been done so he cannot answer. Commissioner Ellison inquired about the park, and staff responded that the report indicates that there is a park within two miles, recommending that this applicant pay the in-lieu fee rather than provide a park. Staff stated that as this area develops there will be additional parkland provided. Staff indicated that the Commission can recommend that a park site be made available as part of this current subdivision. Commissioner Ellison stated that he does not disagree with staff's recommendation, as there appears to be adequate open land around the perimeter to establish a park site in the future. Commissioner Ellison stated that he would be in favor of a continuance and directing staff and the developer to work out an adequate plan for secondary access. Minutes, PC, June 3, 2004 Page 8 Commissioner Tkac commented that he does not like the fact that there is no secondary access. He stated he would be leaning towards a continuance. Concerning the lighting issues, Mr. Pedroza stated that the lights provide for downward casting of the light. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Martin about the north street that stops at his site, to which Mr. Martin responded that he has only been asked to tie his cul-de-sac to the property to the east to it, and he told his engineer at the time that would be okay, but that they would lose a lot, but if they wanted to reimburse him for the lot he would do it. He stated that conversation was months ago. He stated that no one has talked to him about any access since that time. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Mr. Martin would be willing to meet with the applicant and see if there was a way or basis that he could assist the applicant in obtaining a secondary access if a motion for continuance is made, to which Mr. Martin said he absolutely would. Commissioner Spencer stated that he would support a continuance to allow for discussion to be had for secondary access. Commissioner Tragish asked what date that this could be continued to, to which staff responded it would be the July 1St meeting. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if consent from the applicant is required to make a motion for continuance, to which staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Tragish made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to continue Agenda Item 5.5 vesting tentative tract map 6318 to July 1, 2004 for the purposes of having the applicant meet and confer with the adjacent property owner Mr. Martin to hopefully resolve and work out a secondary access. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 5.6 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6256 (Porter-Robertson Eng.) (Ward 3) Public hearing is closed because the continuance was just to provide staff with an opportunity to write the conditions being presented. Commissioner Tragish recused himself and Vice-Chair Ellison took over the chair. Staff stated there is a Memoranda dated June 2, 2004 which transmits the conditions based on the last meeting in which this case was discussed. Staff further stated that the memo contains the motion that should be made for this particular project. Staff stated that on Public Works Condition 1.2, the recommendation should be, "Approve the request." Not "deny" the request, and everything after the word "request" would be stricken from that condition. Minutes, PC, June 3, 2004 Page 9 Commissioner Ellison stated he is satisfied with the rewrite of the conditions. Commissioner Spencer stated that he would second the motion for approval. Commissioner Tkac made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve and adopt Negative Declaration and to approve vesting tentative tract map 6256 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the Planning Department Memorandum dated June 2, 2004 with the modification to 1.2 to change the language to read "Approve the request", and striking the remaining words following the word "request." The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish 6. COMMUNICATIONS: The commission will be receiving case updates. Staff reminded that a General Plan cycle is coming up where there will be a dual thing with a pre-meeting. The pre-meeting will be on June 14tH 7. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Tragish stated that when they have the General Plan cycle one thing that concerns him is the disc and the availability of having the documents. He inquired the best way of handling the voluminous documents. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like full books for the general plan cycle which would include all the air quality reports, and all the paraphernalia documents that are on a disc right now, or provide a full set for the Commission so it can be referenced. Staff responded that they can provide a set of the documents on the table so the Commission would have access to those during the course of the meeting. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff has approached anyone in upper management about either getting rid of the disc and giving the documents back, or giving the Commission the disc that has interaccess so it can be written on. Staff responded that they have not done this. Staff responded that he does not see it as being real fruitful so it would save him time. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the condition on 5.5 for emergency access to which staff responded that as written it addresses the issue more specifically as to where the connection should be. 8. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director Minutes, PC, June 3, 2004 Page 10 July 2, 2004