HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MINUTES OF August 19, 2004- 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Gay, Tragish, Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac
Absent: None
Advisory Members: Allen Shaw, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard
Staff: Marc Gauthier, 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 minutes for Planning Commission meetings of June 14, 16 & 17,
2004.
4.1 b Approval of General Plan Consistency, finding for the selling of the "ballroom"
located between the Convention Center and the Holiday Inn Select. (Exempt
from CEQA) (Ward 2)
Commissioner Tragish asked for an amendment/correction to Minutes of June 14, 2004
on page two, agenda item 5.3(a) and (b), fourth paragraph down which states,
"Commissioner Tragish asked if Public Works has studies regarding the evasiveness of
the sewer treatment plant," and stated he believes the words should be "invasiveness".
He further requested that under agenda item 6.5(a), (b) and (c) on page five, second
paragraph, last sentence, which states, "Commissioner Tragish commented that the
Commission has the authority to implement a policy, or not implement a policy," and
would like to insert the word, "... not to implement a policy." Additionally, he requested
that in the next paragraph, second sentence where the word is "substantially" it should be
"suitability." Lastly, he commented that with respect to the Minutes of June 17, 2004,
agenda items 6.8(a) and (b) on page 14, first paragraph, in which he has circulated with
staff and the other planning commissioners for review and requested revision.
Commissioner Tragish requested that any motion reflect his comments and the handout
given out today on August 19, 2004.
Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve
the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar, noting the corrections made by
Chairman Tragish, and including the June 17, 2004 correction to the Minutes. Motion
Minutes, PC, August 19, 2004 Page 2
carried by group vote.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approve continuance until October 7, 2004 of Extension of Vesting Rights
for Tract 6111 Phases 1-3 (McIntosh and Associates) (Ward 4)
4.2b Approve continuance until October 7, 2004 of Extension of Vesting Rights
for Tract 6127 Phases 1 and 2 (McIntosh and Associates) (Ward 4)
4.2c Approve continuance until October 7, 2004 of Extension of Vesting Rights
for Tract 6128 Phases 1-6 (McIntosh and Associates) (Ward 4)
4.2d Approve continuance until October 7, 2004 of Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map 11112 (Porter-Robertson Eng) (Ward 4)
4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6320 (SmithTech, USA) (Ward 5)
4.2f Approval of Zone Change 04-0710 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 4)
Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke either for or against the projects.
Public portion of the hearing closed on items 4.2e and 4.2f. There were no Commission
comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Blockley,
to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group
vote.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSION OF VESTING RIGHTS
5.1 Extension of Vesting Rights for Tract 6111 Phases 1-3 (McIntosh and Associates)
(Ward 4)
See Consent Agenda
5.2 Extension of Vesting Rights for Tract 6127 Phases 1 and 2 (McIntosh and
Associates) (Ward 4)
See Consent Agenda
5.3 Extension of Vesting Rights for Tract 6128 Phases 1-6 (McIntosh and Associates)
(Ward 4)
See Consent Agenda
6. PUBLIC HEARING — GENERAL PLAN AMEMDMENT — Circulation Element
Amendment 04-0909 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 4)
Public hearing opened. Staff report given including a presentation by Ted Wright concerning
the project. Mike Houlihan is present to provide information regarding CEQA compliance.
Ted Wright, project manager for the freeway projects for the city, stated they are asking for
approval of a specific plan line for a connection between the westside parkway and west beltway.
Minutes, PC, August 19, 2004 Page 3
He stated that the general alignment of the west side parkway was shown in the 2010 General
Plan adopted in 1990, and proceeded with his presentation.
Mike Houlihan, with Michael Brandon Associates, prepared the EIR. He gave an overview of the
project. Mr. Grady referred the Commission to a memorandum dated August 18, 2004 which
has a condition of approval that would be need to be added to any motion to approve the project.
No opposition to staff's recommendation was given. The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Blockley inquired whether the proposed amended specific plan lines for the
interchange affect any tracts that are currently under construction? Staff indicated that there are
some tracts affected, however the developer of that tract has been working with staff in
anticipation of this specific plan line, and actually has developed the tract to include this area
inside this specific plan line. The approval of this would not require the taking of any one house.
Commissioner Gay inquired if the triangular piece which shows ag land between the green line
and the homes will be acquired in its entirety, or just to actual right-of-way, to which Mr. Wright
responded that it is a 40 acre parcel and because the west side parkway project is in need of a
staging area/construction material storage, they had always planned on acquiring the entire
piece. Mr. Wright further stated that an appraisal has been completed and they are currently in
negotiations with the property owner to acquire the entire piece. He further stated that they
would attempt to sell this piece of property to another developer after they are completed with it
for this project.
Motion made by Commissioner Spencer, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the
resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration with
mitigation shown in Exhibit "C", and approving the requested GPA to delete a segment of right-
of-way as shown in Exhibit "B", and adopt a specific plan line for access fronts for the west
beltway and west parkway interchange, shown on Exhibit "A", and make Government Code 6502
findings for acquisition of necessary property and recommend the same to City Council, and to
further include the recommendations set forth in Stan Grady's memorandum dated August 18,
2004. This motion also includes that during construction the developer/contractor applicant of
the interchange will locate, expose, inspect and test for leakage to the satisfaction of DOGGR,
and written confirmation that this condition has been satisfied from DOGGR's is required to be
submitted to the City Public Works Dept.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7. PUBLIC HEARING —Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11112 (Porter-Robertson Eng) (Ward 4)
See Consent Agenda
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS — Tentative Tract Maps
8.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6320 (SmithTech, USA) (Ward 5)
Minutes, PC, August 19, 2004 Page 4
See Consent Agenda
8.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6347 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 3)
Public hearing opened. Staff report given.
Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, stated their issues are standard. Of main
importance on this item is the Bluntnose Leopard Lizard.
Harold Robertson, representing the applicant, stated they have reviewed the conditions
of approval prepared by staff, as well as the memorandum dated August 19, 2004 by
Marian Shaw from the Public Works Dept., and are in agreement with all the conditions
of approval.
Public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Blockley inquired if the hillside designation requires special consideration
for grading on the site, to which staff responded that it is addressed by ordinance.
Commissioner Gay asked if the Kern River will be impacted by storm drainage going into
the river and what the basin situation is, to which staff responded that the City's policy
with regard to drainage in this area is that the natural drainage channels that currently
carry water from this area to the river have to be treated so that the additional drainage
from any one development does not affect the pre-existing flow/condition before
development. Staff indicated that this is usually handled with retention of storm drainage;
the developer has to do some retaining of drainage so the flow remains the same and
does not increase.
Commissioner Gay further commented on the wrought iron fences with masonry
columns, to which staff responded that they are not aware of any standardization of this,
and without an ordinance it cannot be put on this project as a condition to address the
fencing during a subdivision.
Commissioner Tragish asked if the review of these vesting tentative tract maps has to
do with health, welfare and orderly development, to which staff responded that the
standard of review is the policy, rules and ordinances that are in effect at the time the
map is deemed complete. If conditions are added, the Commission can use their police
powers and apply public health safety and welfare, but it cannot be urban design. Staff
stated that a view shed, in his definition, would not have anything to do with the welfare
of the residents. Staff suggested that the Commission speak with the applicant to see if
they are willing to comply with the Commission's recommendation.
Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Robertson if his client would be agreeable to installing a
standard wrought iron fencing with masonry columns for aesthetic standardization, to
which Mr. Robertson responded that there is currently a condition of approval on the
map that a wall and landscape plan must be submitted on all the lots backing up to
Alfred Harrell Highway, and it is the intent of the applicant to request a deviation as they
do not want to put block walls, but rather some type of a view fence.
Mr. Gaskill responded that he has had discussion with regard to this, and that with regard
to Tuscany they considered wrought iron, but it was rejected because of a maintenance
issue in that the owners may not maintain it. He indicated that he committed to Mr.
Maggard that they would have some kind of a masonry column structure at the property
Minutes, PC, August 19, 2004 Page 5
lines, similar to what is at Seven Oaks, omitting the brick. He indicated that his intention
would be to do a vinyl in more of an earth tone cool, which will be maintenance free and
stay there for a long time without having to depend on individual homeowners
maintaining it. Mr. Gaskill indicated that he would agree to work something out with
staff with the consideration that the masonry needs to be something in character with the
development, and that the intervening fence needs to be viewable and long-lasting.
Commissioner Tkac inquired about the road grade in consideration of emergency
vehicles, to which staff responded that it is part of the Hillside Development Ordinance
and will be adhere to those requirements. Commissioner Tkac inquired if the City is in
compliance with the required number of days to watch for the Bluntnose Leopard Lizard,
to which the City responded that they believe they are.
Commissioner Blockley inquired about the portion of the property that is labeled as "Not
a part" as it backs up against a number of the lots, and how it will be treated, to which
staff responded that the property owner would be responsible for the maintenance of that
portion. That portion is not indicated whether it is a part of the subdivision or to be
included in the HOA, so the subdivider still owns it, and would be responsible for the
maintenance.
Commissioner Tragish suggested that Mr. Gaskill may be able to answer Commissioner
Blockley's concerns. Mr. Gaskill responded that they have not done much of a study of
the concerned area, and they have no intention of developing it as it is pretty
undevelopable. He stated that there is quite a bit of ground in that area that is adjacent
to the future freeway alignment, and there's been some discussion that perhaps the City
would want those lands for preservation.
Ms. Shaw interjected that it could be considered a question of orderly development and it
would be within the Commission's power to ask that the "Not a part" be included as a
lettered lot, since it has been indicated that it is not developable. Subsequently, it would
be able to be maintained by the homeowner's association. Commissioner Blockley
stated that he would be in favor of this suggestion by Ms. Shaw. Mr. Gaskill responded
that he didn't believe that he would have a problem with it, but it has not been studied.
Short break taken.
Mr. Gaskill stated that the "Not a Part" could be included in the homeowner's association.
Commissioner Tragish commented that if Mr. Nipp has any future comments from the
prior appearances that he provide them as he doesn't remember all of his past
comments. Commissioner Tragish noted that with regard to the requirement that the
developer shall be required to pay an air quality mitigation fee, that at the present time it
is not a requirement and he does not believe that the Planning Commission has the
power to require this at this time, and is not even sure that if it was required that the fee
would actually be applied sufficiently to address air quality. He further commented that
he does not believe the Planning Commisison has the power to require planting of trees
to at least 40% canopy, unless there is an ordinance change. With regard to Mr. Nipp's
request that the developer be required to build photo votec panels into the homes, and
according to his conversations with developers, the developers say that if the buyer
wants the photo votec panels they will provide it, as it is really an issue of the market's
needs and demands. Commissioner Tragish commented that with regard to streets and
signs, he believes there is an aggressive effort to minimize light pollution, and a lot of
the ordinances do set standards that reach a lot of those goals. He further stated that
he believes that there has been tremendous efforts to create open space in the bluffs,
Minutes, PC, August 19, 2004 Page 6
including the trail plan. Commissioner Tragish also commented that this development is
not a high density project, and indicated that he did not believe that they want a lot of
commercial development in this area for mixed uses, or high density, because of the
environment. Therefore, he does not see any logic in Mr. Nipp's mixed use comment,
especially as to this project, given the low density development.
Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and
adopt the Negative Declaration and approve vesting tentative tract map 6347 with
findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution, Exhibit "A", also incorporating
the memorandum dated August 19, 2004 from Marian Shaw, and incorporating the
modification to condition number 35 with reference to the view fence be either wrought
iron or vinyl with masonry columns at the property corners with a design and color
acceptable to staff with fire resistance being preferred, and modifying that the "Not a
Part" lot shall be included as a letter lot, and maintained by the homeowner's
association, which would include the hillside and drill island as letter lots.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8.3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6351 (Maurice Etchechury). (Ward 6)
Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club,
spoke against the project stating they have issues in particular with ag land conversion,
cumulative impacts to air quality, biological resources, and traffic.
Maurice Etchechury, representing the applicant, stated they have read staff's
recommendations and conditions and are in agreement.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Blockley commented that according to the National Farm Land
Preservation Trust, the definition they use for prime ag land includes several conditions,
including that it is not in immediate proximity to existing developments. Therefore,
existing urbanized land precludes the adjoining land from being, under their definition,
prime farm land, and therefore just because of its location it does not fall within their
definition of prime ag land.
Commissioner Ellison inquired about the estimated ag emissions and whether this
subject project used estimated ag emission which was then deducted from the
developments emissions, to which Staff responded that this was done in this particular
air quality analysis. APCD never said that you couldn't do it because credits are a
normal part of the emissions reduction equation. Commissioner Ellison said that
SJAPCD has a guide to mitigate air quality impacts, and inquired if the GMAQI was
used, to which Staff responded that GMAQI is not a mitigation model, but rather an
emissions model and only tells you what is coming out of the project. Commissioner
Minutes, PC, August 19, 2004 Page 7
Ellison stated that Mr. Nipp's question is whether or not the computer model already
gave credits for existing air emissions on a project, and he feels that is something that
needs to be looked at for the model itself.
Commissioner Gay inquired if to Staff's knowledge if WZI, in performing the air quality
study, has conformed with the standards of the SJVAPD, to which Staff responded that
WZI has conformed.
Commissioner Tkac inquired if the alleged 88% deficiency by Mr. Nipp is accurate, or if it
is a model that is not working. Staff responded that you have to look at the entire
document, and looking at page 16, table 11 discusses households projected, and under
2010 there are 31 households, and the proposal is 257. Staff stated that the area will
hold 967 households, but once 257 are built, it will always be 257.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees with Commissioner Ellison to the extent that
he finds Mr. Nipp's comments intriguing. However, he stated, that he believes the
project is in compliance with the air quality requirements. Commissioner Tragish stated
that he would support this project as he does believe it meets the air quality
requirements.
Commissioner Gay stated that he disagrees with Mr. Nipp on it being a bad precedent.
Commissioner Ellison commented that one of the reasons he strongly believes in air
quality and obtaining adequate mitigation is because we do have such a dismal air
quality and we need to move forward in cleaning our air. He further commented that
after reviewing Jenny Engs, August 13th letter, and Heather Ellison's letter dated August
4, he wants to make sure that the appropriate entity, that being the SJVAPCD, is the
one actually setting air quality standards, and hopefully the city is not trying to dictate
such policy that should be done by the experts at SJVAPCD. He requested that Staff
keep the Commission posted on changes and if there is a change in SJVAPCD's policy,
or changes to GMAQI.
Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to approve
and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve vesting tentative tract map 6351 with
findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution, Exhibit "A".
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. PUBLIC HEARING —Zone Change 04-0710 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 4)
See Consent Agenda
10. COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Grady called the Commission's attention to a memorandum from Jack Hardisty,
Development Services Director, giving a summary of the actions the Council took on cases that
were in front of them after the PC had taken action.
Minutes, PC, August 19, 2004 Page 8
11. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Spencer noted a correction that needs to be made to 8.1 in the resolution of
Exhibit A so that it reflects 6320 in-lieu of 6230.
12. ADJOURNMEMT:
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
7:29 p.m.
Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary
STANLEY GRADY, Secretary
Planning Director
September 28, 2004