Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 12, 2006 Pre-Mtg PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 0 ` Pre-Meeting — June 12, 2006 - 12:15 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish Absent: Commissioner Johnson, Tkac. Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Marc Gauthier, Jennie Eng, 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 18, 2006. 4.2 Public Hearing Items None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS—GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS/Land Use Element Amendment/Zone Change 5.1a Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for GPA/ZC 05-0519 (McIntosh & Associates) (Ward 6) 5.1 b General Plan Amendment 05-0519 (McIntosh &Associates) 5.1c Zone Change 05-0519 (McIntosh &Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner McGinnis confirmed that mitigation with respect to high power gas lines, ag and the sewer farm. Staff confirmed that they are addressed. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if this is contiguous with what is already there on the north side of Taft Highway, to which Staff responded that there is another item on this agenda that is right across the street from this item, and there is a church across the street. Staff further stated that with some annexations in the next 12 to 18 months it won't be so isolated. Commissioner McGinnis further inquired if the sphere of influence will be pushed further south. Staff responded that it won't because the sphere of influence goes all the way to Interstate 5 and all the way to Bear Mountain. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the basis that a project is not needed beyond the Planning Commission's discretion if all the other parameters are met for a project. Staff responded that the Planning Commission — June 12, 2006 Page 2 General Plan policies basically have a set of criteria that projects are judged by, and Staff tries to supply these. Staff pointed out that other than limitations on concentric growth policies which encourage concentric growth, there is not a lot in the General Plan that talks about premature development. Staff further responded that the Planning Commission can reject a project, and for a General Plan no firm ground is needed as it is totally discretionary. Commissioner Lomas inquired if they can be supplied with a new SOI map, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. She inquired about a table in the EIR and how to get to a level of service C. Staff responded that the goal is level of service C unless it is already worse than that. It's okay as long as it's not worse then D, E and F. They cannot make them go back and fix the level. Staff indicated that they will have the traffic engineer give a more specific response on Thursday night. Commissioner Lomas commented on the Planning Commissioner's job. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the 16.41 acres is still within the Williamson Act and what happens to those. Staff responded that it is still within the Williamson Act, and pointed out that if the application is approved through City Council and application is submitted to Kern County asking to process the Williamson Act Contract Cancellation on it. Staff indicated that to cancel you have to pay a penalty fee, which would waive a waiting period. Commissioner Spencer inquired if it is possible to re-arrange a schedule on the areas predominately around this particular project, and inquired how you can reasonably control a justifiable traffic circulation and health and safety concerns because of the current lay out. He inquired why they don't just block it all off and do a General Plan Amendment all at once, instead of all the "Mickey-Mousing" and piece-mealing. Staff responded that on the north side of this application there is a Centex tract that was approved at the last meeting that was associated with an EIR that went on both sides of Taft Highway. Staff pointed out that in this case there are some large lots, residential suburban between this project and Taft Highway that has no incentive to come into the City because they already have development on their property. The projects shown for development in the County are all large lot stuff. Staff pointed out that there are several projects between this project and Taft Highway that are coming in. Commissioner Spencer stated that he just wanted it on the record that he thinks it should just all be blocked for urbanization. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the map presented showing the lighter colors on Taft Highway are all within the County, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. He inquired if anything is occurring to annex those pieces, to which Staff responded that some are going to come in, and some are being bought out. Staff responded that recently the County has changed their sewer policy to reflect that any lot that does not have sewer has to be six acres in size or more, although that does not cover the existing person out there, specifically the Grimm property. 5.2a General Plan Amendment 05-1377 (Dunmore Communities) 5.2b Zone change 05-1377 (Dunmore Communities) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas inquired if the changes of the road if there is any more that might not line up. Staff responded that there are no roads to their knowledge that would change the name. 5.3a General Plan Amendment 05-1479 (McIntosh &Associates) 5.3b Zone Change 05-1479 (McIntosh &Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the little piece of property off of Taft Highway between the applicant's property and the property to the west, and the condition language regarding improvements being done for the full frontage of the area. He pointed out that the other properties to the east and the west apparently have a rezoning to General Plan being rezoned to R1, and the property to the east of the subject property is still agriculture property. He stated that he thought the applicant would have to improve the frontage and if he couldn't get the right-of-way from the next door neighbor that he Planning Commission — June 12, 2006 Page 3 would pay into a fund for eminent domain. Staff responded that in this particular case, the condition states that the applicant provides an additional lane across the frontage, but does not say full improvement, and that this was probably done because that was the right-of-way that they had at the time. Staff confirmed that the applicant does have right-of-way in front of the property. Commissioner Lomas commented that they would like to see full improvement included in the condition. Commissioner Blockley inquired if the full improvement language could be added at the tract map stage. Staff responded that it is best that it be done with the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Lomas inquired if the property to the east is a church, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. She further inquired about the condition that says that this parcel needs to have access to the parcel to the west, and her concern about how the church parcel is going to get out. Staff responded that the church representative has come out and have asked to make sure to put a stub street out. Staff stated they will add this by memo for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Lomas commented about the Cultural Resource Study and how it indicates that the buildings aren't worth anything, and then in the recommendations it states that one resource was identified, building M1. She inquired if it is or is not a resource. Staff indicated that it is unclear; however it does say that no further work is required. Staff stated that they will revisit this issue. 5.4a General Plan Amendment 05-1783 (McIntosh &Associates) 5.4b Zone Change 05-1783 (McIntosh &Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if there will be any strain financially or otherwise to provide services given the smorgasbord of the parcel. Staff responded they are in the process of providing a sewer line that will be going along Redbank Road, and that it will be going in whether or not this property goes in. Commissioner McGinnis further inquired if the SP line is the one that goes out to Taft once a day, to which Staff responded they did not know, but will try to find something out by Thursday. Commissioner McGinnis stated that it looks like all the mitigating measures have been taken care of as far as the setback and the block wall. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the gap of the applicant's property off of Redbank Road, and specifically the language in the condition reading "the rightfully executed dedication for Redbank Road to collective standards at South Fairfax Road to arterial standards for full frontage of the area within the General Plan Amendment." Commissioner Tragish pointed out that the frontage of the General Plan Amendment area does not include that piece. Staff reported that in this particular case they did not include that because it would almost double their frontage, as it was a little further than Public Works generally goes when they start requiring additional improvements in front of"gap" properties. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the applicant has the right-of-way in front of that property, to which Staff responded they believe that all they have in front of that property is 30' half width, which may not be enough room for an additional lane. Staff commented that they believe that there exists County right-of- way across that piece of property. Commissioner Tragish requested that Staff advise on Thursday if they know for a fact about the right-of-way concern. Commissioner Tragish stated that the language does not specifically encompass that particular piece, and he would like to see some language to make it real clear that it is included with the frontage of the General Plan Amendment. Staff responded that it was not Public Work's original intent to include the frontage, as it seemed to be a little long. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff could have language prepared in the event he is able to get the applicant to commit to including the frontage, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Spencer inquired if there is a problem with excluding that area along Redbank for additional setbacks from A zone versus what is being proposed. Staff responded that there are the Planning Commission — June 12, 2006 Page 4 standard setbacks in the City if you have property zoned A or zoning which permits the keeping of animals. Therefore, if the zone is there you have to setback further. Commissioner Spencer inquired if all of this will be corrected and connected to the subdivision map when it is filed. Staff responded that it will all be addressed as a matter of course by virtue of ordinance. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is a way for them to contribute towards and find another pool of money to complete it. Staff responded that they could require that they cooperate with formation of another major bridge and thoroughfare district. Commissioner Lomas stated that they have got to do something about these parcels when they are left like this, and they need to come up with some solution. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the canal going through the northeast corner of the property, and if the applicant owns the canal. Staff responded that it may be an easement, and that it will be a challenge to put a road over all that stuff. Commissioner Tragish inquired if when the applicant puts in their side of Redbank road if there will be a little bridge that will go over the canal. Staff responded that a bridge will be necessary. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the applicant will be paying for its per ratio share, to which Staff responded that is where they are headed with the major bridge and thoroughfare district, to culvert the canal with a road over the top. Staff pointed out that the conditions will address this issue on Thursday. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there will be a new condition asking for improvements at Thursday's meeting, to which Staff responded that the improvements are usually with the tract, however they will check the language to make sure that it is consistent with what they've done in the past. 5.5a General Plan Amendment 05-1887 (Marino &Associates) 5.5b Zone Change 05-1887 (Marino &Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the lower line and if it's the actual line within the zone. Staff responded that from the corner of the property that the facility is on versus a quarter of a mile from the actual facility itself it is. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if they were to approve any portion of this project to stay within compliance would be anything south of that line. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the lines, and Staff responded that it is measured from the corner of the property that the facility is on. Commissioner Tragish inquired when these lines have come through previously; the measurement that they have used is from the corner of the property line from the facility. Staff responded in the affirmative. He further inquired if they have ever waived that requirement in any other application, of if City Council has, to which Staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Spencer inquired about the quarter mile buffer from the sewer farm and if it is identical to proposal that eliminated development in the SW two or three weeks ago, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Spencer further inquired if this policy is now a confirmed policy that is applied throughout the City, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is any justification that would provide a basis to accept the first line (from the waste treatment facility), instead of the second line that Public Works used. Staff responded that with respect to odor, the top line is a quarter of a mile from the facility. He stated that it is not consistent with the policy. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff knows why the applicant is requesting using the first line. Staff stated that they do not know, but the applicant will try a good argument on Thursday night. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there was any type of survey or report done justifying the shorter line rather than the longer line. Staff responded they would have to look at the air quality report where it would typically show up. Staff pointed out that this quarter of a mile is not coming out of the air quality, as Planning Commission — June 12, 2006 Page 5 it is Public Works policy, and based on past events where the City was sued, and the case referenced was settled. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is any type of report that he can look at that addresses any kind of analysis of the odors in this area. Staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Blockley stated that it appears that there are three dash lines; two on screen, one extending to Brook Street, one to what is label B Street, or almost half way to B Street, and the third one, not shown on screen, but occurs in the Staff report indicating a dash line showing much the same odor distance going to C Street, which has a different line with a different geometry. He inquired about identifying the third line. Staff responded that the third line was believed to have been drawn by the applicant as to whether they would like to see the distance be counted from, which is in the center of the area where the facility is. Staff pointed out that there is distance from the boundary of the facility, the corner of the lot that the facility is on, and the third one which was moved from the center of the whole facility itself, and moving it closer. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Sherfy if they choose the line that incorporates the quarter of mile from the facility currently being operated, and if sometime in the near future the City wanted to expand the operation to handle the added growth in that area, and a closer line to the project itself is utilized, what kind of position would it put the City in. Mr. Sherfy responded that his recollection of the lawsuit is that the radius issue was not an issue, and that the properties were scattered. Mr. Sherfy stated that in terms of protecting the City, the more conservative you can draw the arch from an odor perspective, the better. Commissioner McGinnis commented that he can see that by accepting the higher of the two lines that they would almost be committing themselves to a non-growth of the sewer treatment plant. Staff commented that it is more of a matter of trying to predict the future. Mr. Sherfy stated that currently there is no formal policy and that could be a defense for the City, however, their policy pattern would set precedent. Commissioner Lomas stated that in any other instance they would ask for a memo from the appropriate department. She inquired if it would be appropriate to ask the City Attorney to weigh in on this concern. Mr. Sherfy responded that between now and Thursday he could do some research and see if he comes across anything like this. He stated that he could provide a memo. Commissioner Lomas stated that he did meet with Mr. Moreno and feels that she has a level of understanding with this. She further requested a better overhead of the lines with regard to this project. Commissioner Lomas stated that she has taken a look at the petitions which looked suspicious to her in that a lot of the signatures matched. She pointed that on the first page she came up with two out of 10 that might be real in that names were misspelled wrong, and streets were spelled wrong. She also stated that some people live 11, 20, 26 miles, and the vast majority of these names weren't even anywhere near the neighborhood, and some were in Shafter. She further stated that some of the addresses are legible, but none of the signatures are legible. She stated that Staff can generate a memo addressing these concerns, and she requested the name of the originator of the petition. Commissioner Tragish commented about a letter from Russell Thompson to Alan Tandy and Stan Grady referencing a WZI study of the odor issue, and inquired if a copy of the report is available. Staff responded that it probably comes out of air quality and they will check into this. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff is going to be able to ascertain or whether they just do not know at this point whether the treatment plant has any plans for expansion now or in the foreseeable future. He further inquired if there is enough property to do an expansion. Staff responded that the City of Bakersfield is looking at this already, and when they say expansion they don't always mean it gets geographically more expensive, because sometimes you go from secondary treatment to tertiary, which means you can put the houses right next door. Staff pointed out that Public Works knows what they are going to do out there for expansion, but they still want a quarter of a mile. Staff pointed out that expansion doesn't just mean there will be a bigger problem in the future, but could mean there will be less of a problem in the future depending on the amount of money spent. Planning Commission — June 12, 2006 Page 6 5.6a General Plan Amendment 05-1917 (Marino &Associates) 5.6b Zone Change 05-1917 (Marino &Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is an aerial available. She further inquired what is to the west, to which Staff responded that it is scattered houses. Commissioner McGinnis inquired (inaudible). Staff responded that there is no proposed usage and it is just a straight zone change to R2 right now, and therefore, it could be small lot subdivision or it might be an apartment complex or condos. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the Planning Commission's guidance on the two previous agenda items where one seemed to be isolated and created a city pocket within the county. Staff responded that it is a LAFCO issue, and they have tried to contact the people by registered mail asking them if they would like to join the City of Bakersfield. Staff indicated that they've created a couple of county islands like with Old River Ranch, and maybe with the last project there might be an island created as well. Staff indicated that with Centex LAFCO approved it 7-0 with at least two county islands in it, and maybe even three. Staff pointed out that SW Bakersfield is broken up all over the place, but that it makes more sense that they provide urban services for the area, and it seems that most folks will slowly find their way in and sell out. Commissioner Blockley stated that it creates confusion as to who provides services and there are people that take advantage of the fact that the Police Department and Sheriff have different levels of service, and there are issues throughout the city. He commented that he wants to make sure that these things are kept under control and the effects are minimized. Staff responded that they are doing everything that they can to minimize it, because the City Manager feels strongly about the County islands. Commissioner Tragish stated he would like some input with respect to two intersecting arterials with high density in the corner, considering the issues that have been raised with the recent Ming and Gosford application. Staff responded that they would have this input for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Lomas stated that with regard to the parcels to the west, she would like assurance that they have been notified since they have not heard anything. Staff responded that they will check the property owner list to see who got notice. Break taken. 5.7a General Plan Amendment 05-1918 (Marino &Associates) 5.7b Zone Change 05-1918 (Marino &Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas inquired about condition 10 regarding contributing to a major bridge and thoroughfare district. Staff confirmed that this is appropriate language. 5.8a General Plan Amendment 05-1928 (Porter-Robertson) 5.8b Zone Change 05-1928 (Porter-Robertson) Staff report given. Commissioner McGinnis inquired about property south of this project, to which Staff responded that 'h mile south of this project there is a vacant commercial. Commissioner Spencer inquired if they just approved 30-40 acres just to the immediate east on the corner of Calloway and Snow, to which Staff responded in the affirmative, pointing out that all through this area, there is a lot going on. Commissioner Spencer commented that with regard to the larger Calloway and Snow Road project a PCD was not recommended, and on this current smaller project a PCD is recommended. Staff responded that this project has residential either subdivisions or houses on three sides of it, where the other referenced project had residential maybe on one side of it, and it was a 10- acre piece, and staff at that time did not want to impose a PCD on that applicant. At this time Staff is not recommending imposing a PCD on this current project, but the applicant is requesting it. Staff's position is that if there is a lot of controversy on this project then a PCD would be appropriate. Staff's does not Planning Commission — June 12, 2006 Page 7 look at the size of the project, but rather at the surrounding property owners and the issues they bring to light. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the mitigation measure for air pollution, where under Condition Item 3f they are not allowing cutback or emulsified asphalt due to air quality. Staff responded that they are unfamiliar with that condition and they will have to check into this. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the canal and if it would really lend itself to potential apartments. Staff apologized for their facetious comment regarding apartments, stating that it is a great project for commercial because you might underground the canal and that would be okay with Staff. Staff pointed out that it does not seem appropriate for single family dwellings. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the conditions for canals in conditions 10 which says the canal is covered under the TIF. Staff responded that the canal could just be fenced like it is at Gosford and White Lane in the Albertson center and that would be okay. It is Staff's understanding that at the very least the canal will be straightened out. Commissioner Lomas inquired why there is no condition for that. Staff responded that a condition is not really needed because the canal is not under the jurisdiction, and if they want to straighten it out that would be between the applicant and the canal company since it is all on private property. Staff responded that they will check for Thursday as to how accurate the line is for the canal. Commissioner Lomas stated that she is concerned as to what will happen from a planning standpoint if the canal is not straightened. Staff responded that as long as the land use is divided by the canal; estate on one side and commercial on the other on the south side it is okay with Staff. Commissioner Lomas referred back to the aerial, pointing out that as it currently is drawn, on the north side of the canal there could be commercial backing up to residential if the canal is not moved. Staff responded that perhaps the presentation map is not accurate. (Inaudible discussion by staff.) Commissioner Lomas inquired about the parcel to the east with the road improvements and the frontage, and further inquired how much would be covered on improvements to the canal crossing. Staff will respond on Thursday. Commissioner Lomas inquired what is on the east parcel, to which Staff responded they did not know. She inquired if there is a condition that they can provide access. Staff responded they will have that for Thursday. Commissioner Lomas also commented that it would be helpful if Staff brought a GP map showing the commercial in the area, or lack thereof. Commercial Lomas commented that no buffers would be required, because Jewetta is an arterial and then there are single family to the east, and that she would this to be clearer. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if Jewetta is going to end at Snow Road or if it will go through, to which Staff responded that Jewetta will go north to Seventh Standard. Commissioner Tragish asked for clarification regarding whether they know for a fact that the canal is going to be realigned. Staff responded in the negative. He further inquired about the Staff report which states that "a commercial use to provide a superior means of financing canal and required street improvements on Jewetta and Snow," and "a commercial development also facilitates the burial of the canal." He inquired if it is better and more appropriate use for orderly development as a commercial use or residential use based on these comments. Staff responded that a commercial use is more orderly development because the worth of the corner of what could go in there is such that it will make under grounding the canal or straightening of the canal, and the street improvements necessary, because it's the corner of two arterials, more likely to be done. Commissioner Lomas commented that the map showing what commercial is out there within a one mile radius will be helpful to show what is needed in that area. Planning Commission — June 12, 2006 Page 8 5.9a General Plan Amendment 05-1932 (SmithTech/USA) 5.9b Zone Change 05-1932 (SmithTech/USA) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the small SR parcel, and if it can get down to the south. Staff responded in the affirmative. 5.10a General Plan Amendment 05-1947 (Banducci Land, LLC) 5.10b Zone Change 05-1947 (Banducci Land, LLC) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the location of the concrete plant, and what properties around the concrete plant on the map entered into the agreement with the concrete plant. Staff responded Judkins, Global Investments, and the Petrini Brothers. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the letter received from Golden Empire and if all of the conditions from the other project are the same in this application, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Staff pointed out there is a missing condition that had them pay for any retrofitting that the batch plant has to do, but is on the other three, because Staff felt that that was to the point of paying the adjacent property owner funds in order to not object to your project. Staff stated that the others agreed to it, and were agreeable to put it in as conditions of approval, but this one is not. Staff further pointed out that in the progression of development in this area, if a retrofit is needed it will already have been done in connection with one of the other three projects to the north of this. Commissioner Tragish also stated that the letter also indicated that Golden Empire met with the applicant and an agreement could not be reached. He inquired what is left out that should be in that the applicant wanted, or that Golden Empire wanted, and didn't get. Staff responded that they were not in the meeting so they do not know. Commissioner Lomas inquired how they are going to get curb and gutter on McCutchin and Gosford around the batch plant. Staff responded that they will have to look into this issue. Staff confirmed that McCutchin is an arterial. 6. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 7. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None. 8. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 2:16 p.m. Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director July 12, 2006