HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 1, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes
Meeting — Thursday, June 1, 2006 — 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL: Present: BARBARA LOMAS, Chairperson
TED BLOCKLEY, Vice Chairperson
RUSSELLJOHNSON
TOM McGINNIS
JOHN S. SPENCER
JEFFREY TKAC
MURRAY TRAGISH
Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns
Staff: Wayne Lawson, Dana Cornelius
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
None.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of May 4, 2006.
4.1 b Approval of Capital Improvement Program for FY 2006-07 determination by the Planning
Commission of consistency with the general plan. (City of Bakersfield — Public Works
Department) (city-wide)
Commissioner Tragish requested removal of 4.1 b from the consent calendar.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the Non-Public
Hearing Items on the Consent Calendar consisting of 4.1 a.
Motion carried by group vote.
Commissioner Tragish stated that according to the staff report received, pursuant to city
ordinance, section 56103, the Planning Commission should annually review the City capital
improvement program for consistency with the general plan, and in this regard he has not had an
explanation or review, and he would like to know why these things were picked. He further stated
that he is not sure how the Rabobank Arena is consistent with the general plan, and further
pointed out that it looks like a lot of the programs are in the northwest and southwest.
Planning Commission — June 1, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 2
Staff stated that Arnold Ramey from Public Works is available to provide information and respond
to questions. Mr. John Stinson stated he is the Assistant City Manager, and he is the lead
person in putting together the City budget. Mr. Stinson responded that the capital improvement
program currently presented is a five year plan of capital improvements throughout the city, and is
put together by the City Manager, and the plan and budget as it is put together is reflective of
Council priorities and goals, as well as the general provisions of the general plan. Mr. Stinson
explained that it is not necessarily driven by the general plan, but rather is suppose to reflect the
general plan, and so in terms of what projects get picked and selected for funding is really more a
function of council priorities and the priorities of the different departments that submit projects. He
stated that typically departments submit individual projects that they feel are either required or
necessary as part of this program. He stated that the projects at Rabobank Arena happen to be
capital projects which may fulfill some general plan requirements from the standpoint of they
provide recreational opportunities for the citizens in the community, which is different than a waste
water treatment plant upgrade or the update of the general plan itself.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if the Capital Improvement Plan is consistent with the general
plan. Mr. Stinson stated that the plan, as prepared, they believe is consistent with the general
plan. He, however, pointed out that state law requires the Planning Commission to make the
same consistency finding. Commissioner Tragish stated that it is difficult to make the same
finding because it's all put together by Staff and he has no way of understanding some of the
things and why they are chosen. Commissioner Tragish stated that he is satisfied with Mr.
Stinson's answer.
Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve agenda
item 4.1 b.
Motion carried by group vote.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approval of Wall and Landscape Plan (File #06-0379) (Mountain View Bravo, LLC)
4.2b Approval of Vesting tentative Parcel Map 11488 (M.S. Walker&Associates)
4.2c Approval of Amending Tract Map 6320 Phases 1 and 3 (Beazer Homes Holding
Corporation)
4.2d Approval of continuance until July 6, 2006 Vesting Tentative Tract 6813 (The
Monarch Affiliates)
4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6569 (Porter-Robertson)
4.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6585 (Hendricks Engineering)
4.2g Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6757 (McIntosh &Associated)
4.2h Approval of Vesting Tract 6758 (McIntosh &Associates)
4.2i Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6759 (McIntosh &Associates)
The public hearing is opened. No one from the public requested removal of any consent
agenda item. Commissioner Tragish stated that with respect to Consent Item 4.2(b) he
recused himself as his daughter works for M.S. Walker&Assoc.
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the public
hearing consent calendar items, excluding 4.2(b).
Motion carried by group vote.
Planning Commission — June 1, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 3
5. WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN (FILE#06-0379) (Mountain View Bravo, LLC)
Heard on consent calendar.
6. PUBLIC HEARING—Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11488 (M.S.Walker&Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
6. PUBLIC HEARING—Amending Tract Map 6320 Phases 1 and 3 (Beazer Homes Holding
Corporation)
Heard on consent calendar.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS—Tentative Tract Maps/ PUD/Zone Change
8.1a Vesting Tentative Tract 6799 (McIntosh &Associates) (Continued from May 18, 2006)
8.1 b PUD/Zone Change 06-0332 (McIntosh &Associates) (Continued from May 18, 2006)
The public hearing has remained opened. Staff report given. Frank Tripiccio, lives at 1404 Caje
Hermosa stated that he is more uninformed then opposed to this project. He stated that he will
be effected by this project and that he would like to know exactly what the memoranda refer to,
and what the contents are before he can make an educated decision as to whether he is
opposed or in favor of this project.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if Mr. Movius could provide copies of the memos.
Katrina Moore stated that she was at the last meeting and lives at 1606 Caje Hermosa, and her
backyard is the corner of Gosford and Ming. She reiterated that her property is the most
vulnerable in all of Stockdale Estates. She stated that she is not opposed to the new housing, but
is opposed to the traffic problems. She inquired if the City would consider putting in a light with a
camera which would solve a lot of the problems at that intersection.
Roger McIntosh inquired if the public hearing was closed at the last meeting. He stated that he
was not aware that it was re-opened for this meeting. Mr. McIntosh stated they did go out and
do a synchronization study to prove that the signal that was considered at the entrance onto
Gosford would work in that corridor, however, the traffic department has concerns about adding
another signal to the corridor.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Walker about accessibility
to the project. Mr. Walker stated that the overall level of service at the intersection is level C.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the right turn stacking lane into the project, to which Mr.
Walker stated they have reviewed the adequacy of the stacking lane, and the minimum of 150'
should be adequate as this is only 217 units which will be split between two drive areas.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired if there would be any problems with lengthening the stacking
lanes to 200 feet, to which Mr. Walker stated that he would not object to it. Commissioner
McGinnis inquired what the length of the stacking lane is at the intersection of Haggin Oaks and
Ming for a left turn, to which Mr. Walker responded it is probably close to 200 feet. Mr. Walker
stated that occasionally they have gone more than 200 feet, such as 220 feet. Mr. Walker
pointed out that this development is pretty low volume.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that while this is a congested area, it meets the standards, and is
a reduction from an initial plan of 400+ apartment units.
Mr. Walker pointed out that with regard to a red light citation camera it is not a public works
program, but rather a program of the police department. He further pointed out that they do not
Planning Commission — June 1, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 4
work on speed, but strictly a red light running camera. He stated they will forward the information
to the police department to consider as a future project for this location.
Commissioner Blockley inquired of Ralph Huey, Director of Fire Prevention, about the partial
residential sprinklers on this project. Mr. Huey responded that it is not a requirement, but is an
agreement, as they were concerned about access and distance between the homes.
Commissioner Blockley inquired if the standard 13R allow partial sprinklers, to which Mr. Huey
stated that if it was a requirement for a condominium the answer is no, but you can install
sprinklers in the kitchen, and therefore, while it is not a requirement per code they have agreed
to put sprinklers in some areas, and would be installed to a residential standard which allows for
a plastic pipe, which is what is being brought in by that 13R code requirement. He stated it also
allows for use of domestic water supply instead of pumping water.
Commissioner Johnson inquired of the applicant about the 200 foot decel lanes on Gosford and
Ming to which Mr. McIntosh responded that they agreed to put in the City's minimum, and that
due to the library on Ming Avenue, they may have difficulty putting in a 200 ft. decel lane on Ming
Avenue.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the applicant's own traffic study to which Mr. McIntosh
replied that it revealed that the synchronization study is based on a model provided by the Traffic
Department, and they added in the additional signal and it reveals whether or not the
synchronization is adequate, and indicated that a signal would work at 6021 feet south of Ming
Avenue, however, there are still some concerns about how it effects the rest of the corridor.
Commissioner Johnson stated that with regard to the public comments regarding noise
concerns, the additional setbacks along the roadway provided by the applicant are adequate to
address the noise with the addition of a block wall. He further stated that he would like to hear
more from Mr. Tripiccio.
Mr. Tripiccio stated the traffic issue is still a concern in his mind. He responded that he still has
not heard that there's been an actual traffic study about this intersection. He stated that 217
additional cars does not seem minimal to him. He stated that while ordinances are good,
common sense is good as well. He stated that he does not know what the solution is, but that
the Planning Commission has the right to require an independent study that addresses the
issues that will develop as a result of this development, and that will probably alleviate
everybody's concerns. He stated that he is looking to the Planning Commission to protect his
interests, and asked that the Planning Commission give it much more consideration than what it
seems to be given.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if he read the memos, to which Mr. Tripiccio responded that he
skimmed them.
Commissioner Lomas stated that Mr. Walker's memo in her mind it is not vague, but rather
specific, and asked Mr. Walker to address Mr. Tripiccio's concerns. Mr. Walker stated that they
did do an analysis and Mr. McIntosh's consultant did an analysis, and their primary concern was
questions about the traffic signal and whether one would fit in with the situation, and they also
reviewed the intersection of Ming and Gosford with and without a traffic signal by the traffic
generated by the development. He stated that there were no significant changes indicated, and
the level of service for the intersection itself remains level of service C. He further stated that the
individual legs of the intersection remain level of service C, with the southbound remaining a
level of service B. He reiterated that this 217 unit project is a very small project for this size
property, for what could be put in there under a R-2. He further pointed out the KernCog model
includes a much higher densification for this area. He stated that from that standpoint he is
satisfied that this is acceptable use for this project and that it will not be an unacceptable impact
to the existing traffic.
Commissioner Lomas inquired about the traffic concerns of having traffic stacked up from Ming
to Gosford. Mr. Walker stated that he cannot guarantee that it will never happen, however, the
Planning Commission — June 1, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 5
model shows that the progression and coordination of the signals is the most efficient use in
serving the public traffic for both Gosford and Ming.
Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Walker to describe the different levels of service, which he did.
Commissioner Tkac inquired about the southbound turn lane from Ming Avenue into Haggin
Oaks, and inquired if they are getting ready to change it from 1 to 2 turning lanes. Mr. Walker
responded that there are some improvements being considered, but they are not ready to do any
stripping on the lane designations yet.
Commissioner Tkac inquired if there is a possibility of taking two lanes into Haggin Oaks, to
which Mr. Walker responded that the intersection was originally set up to allow a double turn
lane.
Commissioner Tkac inquired of Mr. Movius where the power lines are that go through this
project, and if they go anywhere over this PUD. Mr. Movius responded that they go north south
on the west side of the project, and there will be a parking lot and a drainage basin in another
part of it. He stated that it is a possibility that a person and an automobile could be under the
power lines. He inquired what is allowable in power line areas. Mr. Movius responded that
PG&E is fairly liberal as far as allowing parking and trees up to a certain height under their
transmission lines, as oppose to Southern California Edison. No homes are allowed, but parking
areas, trees and landscaping are allowed, and even parks in some cases.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he does not like the congestion factor. (end of Side A, tape 1) ---
attempts are being made to synchronize and/or calm more traffic problems. He stated that he
thinks this is a good project for this area and is sensible.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is a tract map in place right now, to which Staff
responded that what was approved was a 484 unit apartment project with no tentative tract in
place which has now expired.
Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the required stacking for this project, to which Mr.Walker
responded that 150 ft. is the standard, and is shown in the conditions of approval, and indicated
that he would have no problem with expanding it. He pointed out that with a 90'taper; there
overall is 225'which would be adequate. He further indicated that the stacking is required to be
within the property before the gate.
Commissioner Tragish further inquired of Mr. McIntosh about the rise and fall of Ming Avenue
and the entrance to the project in consideration of a 200 ft. stacking lane. Mr. McIntosh
responded that they are decel lanes, and that the intersection of Ming and Gosford going east is
a tapered intersection with probably about 150 to 200 feet of deceleration, plus the taper. Mr.
McIntosh stated that he does not think that 200 feet of decel lane is needed, and the minimum
standard of 150 feet is appropriate as it is a decel lane, and not a stacking lane. He stated that
the stacking is actually taking place inside the tract as they have to set the gates back far enough
to allow for a certain amount of stacking inside the tract. Mr. McIntosh stated that with regard to
the rise of Ming over the canal, there was a question with the original proposal of the apartment
complex, and a line of sight showed that there is no problem based on the traffic speed on Ming
Avenue.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired if there will be a key card entry into the project, to which Mr.
McIntosh responded that it may be, or it may be a code, clicker or transmitter in the dash of the
vehicle. He inquired if it would be possible to stack into the decel lanes going into the project, to
which Mr. McIntosh responded that it is possible, but the stacking is actually inside the tract, and
is a standard stacking design. Mr. McIntosh stated that there is a minimum of 20' setback, which
is about one car, and then it is another 20'for every 50 units approximately. He further pointed
out that if there are two entrances, you split the two to meet the requirements.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. McIntosh if they would be able to put a 200 ft. decel lane
on the Ming access into the project. Mr. McIntosh responded that he cannot answer that
Planning Commission — June 1, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 6
question because it is not just the 200 ft, but also a taper which are typically 90 ft, and therefore
you end up being about 300 ft.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he likes the project and likes the density. He stated he does
not feel that it needs a traffic light and that he likes the access points. He further pointed out that
he does not think that it needs a 200' decel lane. He stated that he would support the project.
Commissioner Johnson stated that with respect to the traffic concerns, they are all concerned
about traffic and the impacts, however with the potential for R2 zoning there could be more traffic
impacts, and this current infill development is probably the best efficient use and taking traffic
into consideration.
Commissioner Lomas inquired of Mr. McIntosh if the synchronization study was for this current
project or the apartment project, to which he responded that they have done one study for the
apartment complex, and a second study for this project. Mr. McIntosh stated that they are fine
with or without a signal light.
Commissioner Lomas stated that with respect to a camera light and the speed in the area the
memo provided shows that speed has actually decreased in the area. She stated that with
regard to safety and red light cameras, there was an article in last month's issue of Popular
Mechanics regarding that fact that a lot of communities are doing away with red light cameras
because it is actually causing more accidents.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he supports this project.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt a
Negative Declaration, and to approve vesting tentative tract 6799 with the findings and conditions
set forth in the attached Resolution including memos dated May 18, 2006 from the Bakersfield
Public Parks, Construction and Facilities Planner, dated May 17, 2006 from Jim Movius,
Planning Director, and the memo dated May 16, 2006 from Marian Shaw.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
NOES:None
Commissioner Johnson moved , seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt a
Negative Declaration, and to approve zone change 06-0332 with findings and conditions set forth
in the attached Resolution including memos dated May 17, 2006 from Jim Movius, Planning
Director, dated June 1, 2006 from Ralph Hewey, and dated June 1, 2006 from the Fire
Department.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
NOES: None
8.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6813 (The Monarch Affiliates) (Continued from May 18, 2006)
Heard on consent calendar.
8.3 Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6569 (Porter-Robertson)
Heard on consent calendar.
Planning Commission — June 1, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 7
8.4 Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6585 (Hendricks Engineering)
Heard on consent calendar.
8.5 Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6757 (McIntosh &Associated)
Heard on consent calendar.
8.6 Approval of Vesting Tract 6758 (McIntosh &Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
8.6 Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6759 (McIntosh &Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
9. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE
Presentation given by staff.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired about Tuscany and the primary view shed applied to this project. Staff
responded that this was done before there was an ordinance regarding a primary view shed. Staff pointed
out that it would now be considered a primary view shed, and they now have designated in a view shed
protection area for the steep slopes below these areas to try to protect it.
Commissioner Tkac inquired what the single biggest change has been, and if that change has come
about just because of this latest controversy. Staff responded that the biggest change was that the
original document had a blanket statement stating you had to setback 150'from 30% slopes, and through
the area that is mapped in the hillside there are all kinds of small 30% slope areas and greater, and it was
extremely difficult to implement that type of a policy, and for the engineers to really understand exactly
what it means when they grade a site.
Commissioner Tkac further inquired if there is an overview picture of all of the area that is destined to be
developed in the hills. Staff responded that the Hillside Ordinance boundary and the sensitivity to grading
would occur to all projects in the area, and then as areas are annexed it would also apply to those if there
are slope areas. Staff pointed out another area where there are slope protection areas.
Commissioner Tragish inquired what a view fence is. Staff explained that the city does not require fences
for boundary lines; however they cannot be any higher than 6' high without going through a special
hearing. A view fence is something that can be seen through as opposed to a solid brick or wood fence.
Commissioner Tragish further inquired if staff could e-mail him the slope chart. He inquired what the
procedure is for coming back and if there will be a period where citizens can make comments. Staff
responded that on July 6th there will be a hearing on this ordinance, and if it is approved it will go on to
City Council.
Commissioner Tragish asked if the changes made in the current ordinance are really significant, to which
Staff replied in the affirmative. He inquired if there is any retroactive application to the new ordinance, if
approved. Staff responded that it could be applied to projects that are in process at this time, but cannot
be applied to projects that have already been approved.
Commissioner Tragish inquired about enforcement issues with the new ordinance, to which Staff
responded that it will require more man power to enforce.
Planning Commission — June 1, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 8
Commissioner Johnson requested a copy of the transcript from the workshop from last year. He also
inquired if other communities were looked at to come up with the ideas incorporated into the ordinance.
Staff responded that they looked at many ordinances on hillsides, and looked at other studies that looked
at compilation ordinances. Staff further stated that they have been to seminars that deal with hillside
ordinances, indicating that this ordinance is unique.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the potential for the open space provision to be maintained by a
homeowner's association, and inquired if there would be a park credit applied. Staff responded in the
negative.
Commissioner Blockley stated he is happy to see the white fences being banished. He further inquired
about the analysis that is done on some of the areas that aren't indicated, such as south of the Rio Bravo
Country Club there is some hilly stuff in the city, and property to the east of Rio Bravo with some steep
slopes. Staff responded appropriately. Commissioner Blockley inquired if these proposed plan lines be
revisited and examined for proper application. Staff responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Blockley inquired about local slope problems. Staff responded appropriately.
Commissioner Lomas inquired about safety and drainage issues being one of the reasons for the new
proposed ordinance. Staff responded in the affirmative.
10. COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Tragish inquired if it is possible when a commissioner misses a meeting if the meetings
could be put on CD instead of tape for listening back to. Staff responded that they will check into this.
Commissioner McGinnis commended Commissioner Lomas for attempting to solve their problems.
Commissioner Johnson commented on the home for humanity.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
June 27, 2006