Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 14, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2005 - 12:15 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Tragish, Ellison, Blockley, Lomas Absent: Commissioner Gay, Spencer, Tkac Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, Jim Movius, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Marc Gauthier, Martin Ortiz, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items - None 4.2 Public Hearing Items - None 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS —GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments/ Zone Changes: 5.1 a) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 03-0340 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 3) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas stated her concerns are with drainage. Staff responded that the Meyer report's final indication is to leave the drainage open. Staff will provide the presentation map for the Breckenridge drainage study to the Commissioners. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the 6' wall, to which staff responded that according to the noise study the wall is high enough. Commissioner Lomas requested a copy of the noise study. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the topography and the 150' open space, and if there is a straight line cut across the open space what will assure that the drainage Minutes, PC, Monday, March 14, 2005 Page 2 actually follows this line? Staff responded that her recommendation would be to consider the map conceptual only, and the actual physical location of the open space would be determined as a result of the engineering studies that will be required when the area is actually developed. Commissioner Tragish asked if the open space area has been discussed with the developer, to which staff responded that the developer is still exploring opportunities with Public Works staff to put in drainage facilities which would cut down on the width. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the noise study and if it looks at the potential noise from Mesa Marin, or if it is noise analyzed from 184. Staff responded that it will not be close to Mesa Marin. Commissioner Tragish stated that he could hear the noise for at least a mile down the road, and feels that it should be included in the report, and be considered as part of the noise study and analyze whether it has impact, or does not have an impact. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the analysis that the city's interior noise standard of 45 db be met if the doors and windows are closed. Staff responded that they are not particularly concerned as there is about 50,000 people locally that live immediately adjacent to roads like this one and they do not call and complain about the noise. Staff believes as written it is in compliance with the ordinance. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the soil report requirement, and staff responded that it is a post tension slab which is usually used to build a foundation that addresses the problems of swell and potential settlement. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the traffic study being based on 184, and what the impact will be on 178 to which staff responded that they will have to get back to Commissioner Tragish at Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the flow of water being only half of what was anticipated, and in Pinnacle's hydrology report it states that the flow is 950cf per second and compares the Kern River flowing into Lake Isabella at 750cf per second and what the half is. Staff responded that the mitigated flow is approximately half, and that all the planned structures exist upstream. Staff indicated they will provide a map to Commissioner Lomas for her review. This item will be heard on Thursday evening. 5.2) General Plan Amendment 04-1738 (Signal Hill Petroleum, Inc.) (Ward 3) Commissioner Tragish recused himself from this agenda item. Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas inquired about page 1 of the staff report, concerning the background indicating that this was changed to LMR, which staff indicated was a mistake. Actually, it had been changed to HMR. Staff indicated that if the project was okay with more units, it should be okay with these constraints with less units. Commissioner Lomas further inquired about the HMR to the west and south and how those will be developed? Staff responded that they will have an explanation at Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Lomas said she is concerned with removing an Minutes, PC, Monday, March 14, 2005 Page 3 HMR site when it's light in an area, and that she would like to know what the other sites are, and what other HMR sites are around, or any other opportunities for apartment housing to go in in that area. Commissioner Lomas inquired about a gas metering system on page 2 of the report. Staff responded that he believes it is a gage system. Commissioner Lomas inquired about safety and setback requirements, to which staff responded that the setbacks are from the gas pipeline itself, but is unaware of setbacks from the metering station. Commissioner Ellison asked if the Mojave pipeline extends on the diagonal toward Thorner School to which staff responded that it appears that it does, but that he'd have to look at a bigger map to see if it changes its direction. Commissioner Ellison also asked about the trail system in this area, and what type of trails they will be, to which staff responded that they will have a slide showing trail location which is not on the project site. Staff indicated that it is their position that they don't have an issue of what's going on in northeast Bakersfield in the sense of the trails are required by the city like roads are required when someone develops. However, they don't take too much land for roads until development occurs, and that the trails are the same way. Staff stated that he believes that there is a trail on this project, in that this is actually part of a larger tract 6191 that required trails that went through the power line easement along the west side of the project. He indicated that the LMR designation is actually between the two power lines, however the legal parcel for the land runs from the east side of the power line easement on the east of the project to the west side of the power line easement on the west side of the project. He indicated that the trail would be outside the zoning boundary, but within the parcel that is owned by this individual. Therefore, when this person brings in a subdivision on the R-1 to R-2, they will have to cover the area of the power line and the area in the west power line will have a trail running through it. Commissioner Blockley stated that the 30 ft. easement is somewhat different then the gas pipeline easement dealt with before in the southwest where there is a PG&E transmission line where they will typically run a street on top of the pipeline so that the front yard can also be part of the set back. Staff responded that the 50' setback that staff requires is from the pipeline itself, and you can include the front yard setback within that. Staff indicated that the 30' easement referred to may be the easement that the pipeline company has which is different from the city's required setback. Commissioner Lomas asked why they are not dealing with zoning on this application, to which staff responded that the zoning fits the development plans already as R-2. This item will be heard on Thursday evening. 5.3a) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1745 (Cornerstone Engineering)(Ward 5) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas asked what the difference is between R-IA and R-EA? She further Minutes, PC, Monday, March 14, 2005 Page 4 inquired if the surrounding area is currently being farmed to which staff responded in the affirmative. This item will be heard on Thursday evening. 5.4) General Plan Amendment 04-1747 (Hendricks) (Ward 3) Staff report given. No commissioner questions. This item will be heard on Thursday evening. 5.5a) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1768 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 1) Staff report given changing recommendation to denial of the whole thing. Commissioner Tragish asked about the proposed motion, to which staff responded that the motions in the staff report correctly state that they are denying the entire project. Commissioner Blockley asked if there has been any comments or rebuttal from the applicant. Staff responded that they have met with the developer and he is going to attempt to convince the Commission to approve this as he feels that the layouts of these zones is ultra conservative and was actually met to serve a larger runway than Bakersfield Air Park, and that it is safe to put residential in this location. Staff's position is that the Airport Land Use Commission which provided the study had professionals look at these airports throughout the city and provide the zones. If they are conservative that's what they are, but the city has no studies to refute its own conclusions as right now it is a policy document that the city has to go by. If somehow in the future, evidence is provided and gets amended to reduce those zones they will deal with it at that time, but it would not be appropriate to go against the policy and the document at this time. Commissioner Lomas requested the map with the dots from a previous item for Thursday's meeting. Staff responded that they do not believe it's an accurate reflection of this airport's operation, and was previously given as a general overall evidence in the record, but does pertain to this particular situation. Staff wants to deal with the policy document before them. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the developer's argument to which staff responded that the restrictions on this are for a much larger or more intensively used airport. The developer is going to argue and provide information, which may be credible evidence, that the zones used for this airport were in fact meant for larger airports, and not of a runway such as this of 4,000', and that it is meant for like a Meadow's Field Airport, and that this would be ultra conservative for the Bakersfield Airpark. Bakersfield Airpark is a city owned airpark, and it is liable for a lot of land use decisions that would happen around it relating to the airport, so it may very well be that the people who crafted the policy document wanted to be conservative around this airport, and the city would much rather error on the conservative side. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the commission has the discretion to decide whether this is an appropriate policy to apply or not? Staff responded that they would like to answer that question at Thursday's meeting, and that the document does actually give the Commission a slight amount of discretion that says you could probably put something in that B1 zone if you really, really want to, and there's some real good Minutes, PC, Monday, March 14, 2005 Page 5 reasons to do it, but there are all kinds of red flags indicating that it should not be done unless there is a super good reason for it. Staff indicated that the B1 zone in some areas stretches way out to the south of this so that if you're out on the south end you may say it's reasonable, but in another area you're just right next to the runway itself. Commissioner Tragish asked if there were any pages from the policy that could be provided which indicate the Commissions' discretion and potential red flags. Staff responded that there is a table in the document that lays this information out. This item will be heard on Thursday evening. 5.6b) General Plane Amendment/Zone Change 04-1550 (McIntosh and Associates) (Ward 4) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas asked what will happen to the staging area, to which staff responded that the staging area gets built and gets access along with the 40 acres that are planned for drainage, soccer park, etc. In addition, the access road will come down and cut across and come over to it, and then come out back to Jewetta again, and will be a one-way in and out. Commissioner Lomas requested a drawing that will show the accommodation that is being made for the horse people. Staff responded that they will have it for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Blockley asked about the interchange and if the equestrian trail was part of the overall plan, to which staff responded that they would have to check into this. Commissioner Blockley further inquired if there is a trail west of Allen Road along the slough and what happens to that trail? Staff responded that they have tried to communicate with the County in an attempt to find out if the County has put in any of the trail since 1995, but have not received any answers. Commissioner Tragish asked if staff could provide a map of the existing trails west of Allen Road and the existing trails around the park area and the 40 acres that is going to have the existing trails to service the equestrian? Staff provided an open use trail. Staff further responded that until the developer builds, there are no roads or trails. At this point city engineers have advised that there will not be a trail due to the exchange for Allen Road. Staff responded that they do not know if there are any dedicated trails across Castle & Cooke's property. Commissioner Tragish commented that he does not understand why there would be a staging area if there is nowhere for them to go. Staff responded that down in the Kern River area, on the north side of the Kern River, almost to the mouth of the canyon way out to the west is an equestrian trail that shows up on the Kern River Plan and the city owns it and horses can be ridden there. Staff further indicated a trail that would be eliminated and the access points, parking, loading, access going either direction, all the way out to I-5. Commissioner Tragish requested a copy of the map presented. Commissioner Tragish asked if there are areas in the northwest that allows horse trails through the neighborhoods? Staff responded that in the northwest there is mixture of an area that is city and county that shows trails through it. It is their understanding that the Minutes, PC, Monday, March 14, 2005 Page 6 county was accepting bonds, but they were not putting in the horse trails, which is why they believe they have not been able to get a return phone call from the county. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if there has been any opposition to which staff responded that there is a letter from the Kern Equestrian Preservations of Trails. Staff indicated they will hand deliver a copy of the opposition prior to Thursday's meeting. The opposition indicates that it is a multi-use trail and not just for horses. Commissioner Lomas asked if staff understood about the map she requested? She clarified that she would like to see how there will be access to the river. Commissioner Lomas further commented that the slough is fenced and there is no access, although there is access on the south side of the slough. She indicated that she would like to hear comments from Rio Bravo Water Storage concerning their liability concerns with having a trail through their property. Staff responded that they are not aware of any comments from Rio Bravo Water Storage. Staff responded that they will call RBWS before Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Lomas indicated that the staging area currently used by the horse people is across from Cal State. She stated that if they can demonstrate that there will be access to the Kern River that is what's most important, and she does not believe there will be riders through the slough. Commissioner Blockley asked if the county can acquire the land, to which staff responded in the affirmative, however you have to have development before the trails are developed. If the anticipated trail is fenced then that is their prerogative. Commissioner Blockley asked if this will be a regrettable decision in 30 years? Staff responded that the key to the design of the interchange is the whole thing and that Castle & Cooke does not want to give up any land for something that's not actually going to connect to anything. If there will be no way to get across then there is no reason to have the trail. However, if there is someway to get across then staff would not recommend taking this trail off because there is the possibility that it could connect to something in the future. Commissioner Blockley stated that he believes some technique such as what is used for bicycles under Manor Street would be suitable in this situation. Commissioner Tragish inquired of staff if there would be someone who could address the interchange and whether a trail can go through this area, to which staff responded that they should be able to have a map that shows the proposed interchange layout, but is uncertain if an individual will be able to be present. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the area south of the freeway as the map indicates the trail north of the freeway. Staff responded that the trail system is south of the freeway. Staff can confirm that the trail is on the south side of the canal. Commissioner Tragish commented that Castle & Cooke is a responsible builder, and wonders if they could assist in finding some way if at all possible to continue the trail for further equestrian. He further inquired if the City Council can take up issues with county of taking bonds but not building trails? Staff responded that if the City Council sees fit to address these issues with the County they would do so. Staff responded that the City Council will be made aware of the County's non-response to staff's phone calls and questions. This item will be heard on Thursday night. Minutes, PC, Monday, March 14, 2005 Page 7 6. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 7. (COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. 8. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:48 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director April 27, 2005