HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 15, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
0 ` Meeting — June 15, 2006 - 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish
Absent: Commissioner Johnson.
Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Janice Horcasitas
Staff: Marc Gauthier, 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.
Motion made by Commissioner Spencer, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the non-public
hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1377 (Dunmore Communities)
4.2b Approval of Zone change 05-1377 (Dunmore Communities)
4.2c Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1479 (McIntosh &Associates)
4.2d Approval of Zone Change 05-1479 (McIntosh &Associates)
4.2e Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1783 (McIntosh &Associates)
4.2f Approval of Zone Change 05-1783 (McIntosh &Associates)
4.2g Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1917 (Marino &Associates)
4.2h Approval of Zone Change 05-1917 (Marino &Associates)
4.2i Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1918 (Marino &Associates)
4.2j Approval of Zone Change 05-1918 (Marino &Associates)
4.2k Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1932 (SmithTech/USA)
4.21 Approval of Zone Change 05-1932 (SmithTech/USA)
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 2
4.2m Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1947 (Banducci Land, LLC)
4.2n Approval of Zone Change 05-1947 (Banducci Land, LLC)
Roger McIntosh requested removal of item number 4.2c, d, a and f so that he may address these items.
Ana Dezember requested removal of 4.2m and/or 4.2n regarding the Banducci Land, LLC, which is
actually Gosford Road and McCutchin Road.
The public hearing items for consent calendar was closed, except for items 4.2c, 4.2d, 4.2e, 4.2f, 4.2m
and 4.2n.
Motion made by Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley to approve the
public hearing consent calendar with the exception of removing items 4.2c, 4.2d, 4.2e, 4.2f, 4.2m and 4.2n
from the consent calendar.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Lomas.
ABSENT: Commissioners: Johnson, Tkac.
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)
5.1 b General Plan Amendment 05-0519 (McIntosh &Associates)
5.1c Zone Change 05-0519 (McIntosh &Associates)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Bruce Grow with RBF Consulting gave a presentation.
No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Mike Ryder with JM and Santa Barbara Capital
stated that the map presented is the same as the community development project, but from an applicant
position it is what is going on from the ground. He pointed out that the green area is land that is already
committed and basically not available for further subdivision, and pretty much everything north of Taft
Highway is already committed. Mr. Ryder pointed out that the project is uniquely shaped, but that it is not
abnormal for the area south of Taft Highway which is heavily parcelized. He stated that they have tried to
contact everybody in this section. He stated that the Romero and Banducci families are really the only
two families out there. He stated that both of these properties along with the smaller 10-acre seem
logical, and this area is developing and delivering homes over the next one to two year period, and that
Centex's property will probably delivery homes over the next three years. He stated that their homes will
probably be delivering homes in a two year horizon out to four or five years after that. Therefore, he feels
that it is in line and makes sense. He further pointed out that there is a lot of planning energy moving
south with the sphere and the sport's facility and a regional sewer system being planned along with the
beltway. He stated that they tried to get more than the 460 acres, and felt that more was better from the
standpoint of master planning.
Roger McIntosh presented a sphere of influence map to show that this is not a leap frog development. He
further pointed out that there is a major sport's facility planned between Ashe and Gosford which will
bring a lot of people to the area, and require services to be extended to that area, as well as to all of the
other development that is occurring. He also showed the cumulative projects as of June 12th. Mr.
McIntosh pointed out that the piece that is a Centex parcel was recently approved as a subdivision map
within the last month, and gives this project a substantial amount of frontage. The Centex project is
currently going through the annexation process and so there is much more adjacency along that property
than just the little appendage that sticks up to Taft Highway. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that with respect to
the traffic analysis, the darker blue area is the area that was study in their traffic impact study, and was
studied for local impacts, which include those that are impacted by this project within about a five or six
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 3
mile radius. He stated that that area covers 51 square miles, and goes all the way up to Stockdale
Highway.
Commissioner Lomas stated that it has been suggested that a short break be taken to get the overhead
working.
Mr. McIntosh pointed out that the sphere of influence is now all the way to Bear Mountain Boulevard
which is about 3.5 miles south of the project, and pointed out the other projects that have already been
submitted (Horton piece, Borba Dairy, Flying 7, McAllister Ranch, West Ming all the other smaller
projects) that start going into to sphere of influence which is south of Taft Highway.
Mr. McIntosh showed the area that was studied for the traffic study, pointing out the darker blue area
which was studied for local impacts, which covers about 51 sq. miles. He stated that these local impacts
are impacts of facilities that are not on the regional impact fee program, pointing out that those projects
that are on the original impact fee program were also studied as part of the Kern Cog model, which
covers the entire metropolitan area, which covers about 307 sq. miles. He stated that both of those
studies were broken down into mitigation measures and improvements were identified that were needed
to those facilities to keep them either at a level of service C, or to not degrade them any less than the
level of service that they are today, which is the policy of the General Plan. He went on to state that they
then went on to identify the cost or percent share of this project towards those improvements and that
calculation is made and the fee is paid to the Public Works Department at the time of building permit, and
the Public Works goes out and builds the facilities as they are needed.
Mr. McIntosh stated that there was some discussion about ag land conversion, pointing out that the ag
land is all around Bakersfield and the Central Valley, but there is not much ag land in the NE part of
Bakersfield, nor to the west of town because most of this area is water recharge. He said that about the
only way to grow within the sphere of influence is to grow into Ag land because it is unavoidable, and is
an impact that hasn't been identified as significant.
Mr. McIntosh further pointed out a 400 acre area that is currently being studied to provide for sewer
service, which is about 1 mile south of Taft Highway. He pointed out that each property owner will pay
their fair share and they are anticipating a lift station at the treatment plant which will cost in the
neighborhood of 8 million dollars, and then about 2 million dollars for the trunk line itself. He said that this
would constitute a logical extension of facilities to get out to this property and beyond. He stated that
every conversation they've had with the property owners has indicated that they are interested in
participating in it.
Mr. McIntosh pointed out that the reason this is an odd shaped parcel is because there are some canals
that run through a piece of property, and the unfortunately the ownerships are separated from one side of
the canal to the other. He stated that they tried to get several of the property owners to participate in this
planning process, but they either were not interested or wanted to wait and come in later. He stated that
depending on what happens tonight, they may come in tomorrow.
Mr. McIntosh stated that they did receive the June 12th memo and they are in agreement with it. He
further indicated that with respect to the west and south beltway, the model that was used by Kern Cog
that they had to use to analyze the traffic impacts is the 20/30 model which is a projection of what
facilities will be there in the year 20/30. He stated that the system will work without the south beltway
being constructed. He stated that the west beltway if being constructed as part of the trip money.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. McIntosh about the apparent east to west line, and if it would be
the southern beltway. Mr. McIntosh stated that it is the southern beltway alignment as it was adopted by
the County, but since then the City has moved it about a mile south, and now the county is looking at
adopting that as well, however the south beltway does not go through this property.
Commissioner Spencer inquired of Staff as to the role of the sphere of influence, as he did not think it
was to encourage urban growth "per se", but to protect urban development. Staff responded that a
sphere of influence is an area around a city where the city has agreed and has the ability to provide
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 4
urban services, and documents have been provided to LAFCO that show they have the ability to provide
services such as water, sewer, etc. Commissioner Spencer shared his observation that when the sphere
of influence was moved westerly and southerly there has been sudden growth in those areas, and he
questions when they stop going southerly. He further inquired about the southern beltway effecting this
property. Staff responded that with regard to the sphere of influence does not provide for protection of
urbanization, and that because the County has also acknowledged that the southern area would
urbanize, that it would have occurred regardless of the sphere of influence extension. Staff further
responded that they believe Mr. McIntosh is correct in that the south beltway has been moved to south
and does not affect the property.
Commissioner Lomas inquired about the lack of funding of the south beltway. Mr. McIntosh responded
that there is funding available through the Thomason Program, and that there is also money that has
been identified in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program for a portion of that. He stated that
he does not know if it covers all of the funding with the prices going up he does not know. With regard to
the south beltway, there is no funding that he knows of, however there may be some money in the
Thomas Program to do some environmental analysis, but not certainly to build the south beltway. He
further pointed out that the south beltway is not included in the 20/30 model, which was run as if there
was no south beltway, and the results show if the rest of the system will work and what the share of those
improvements are to make that system work. Commissioner Lomas pointed out that the documents state
that "According to the Traffic Engineer, the proposed project's traffic analysis also took into consideration
the future Westside parkway, west beltway and the south beltway alignments." Mr. McIntosh responded
that they use the Kern Cog model for analysis, and if the south beltway is not in the Kern Cog model then
they don't have the information that shows that there will be any traffic on that facility, and what it will
show is that all the traffic that is in this area will go on arterials, collectors and other streets that will be
built. He pointed out that the only thing that was in the model that they used was the west beltway, there
Kern River Expressway, 99 and other facilities, but the south beltway is not in the model, and therefore,
not in their analysis.
Commissioner Lomas inquired whether the Thomas funds cover CEQA requirements. Staff responded
that with an adequate time frame it does, and the city has a time frame for the improvements on those
roadways. Staff commented that the response may need to be reworded.
Break Taken.
Bruce Grove with RBF presented revised language with regard to the funding of the south beltway. "As
indicated on page 14-71, the west beltway is currently being reserved; however, no funding has been set
aside for design or construction." This is inaccurate based upon the comments from Mr. McIntosh. It is
being funded as part of the Thomas Program, and, in fact, right-of-way has been reserved for the project,
and the project will be moving forward into final construction documents this summer, and that phase of
the project will be initiated.
Mr. Grove stated that with respect to the south beltway alignment and it being considered in the model, it
is not being considered in the model, and it's currently in the unfounded circulation improvements, and
therefore if it pleases the Commission and the City Attorney, the revised language shall read as follows:
1) page 14-71, first paragraph, first sentence, remove "and south beltway." 2) second paragraph, last
sentence, "unfounded" should be removed and replaced with "unfounded." 3) page 14-71, last paragraph,
last sentence; "the south beltway" should be stricken. With respect to the west beltway, it should also
read: "The right-of-way for the west beltway is currently being reserved and funding has been set aside
for design and construction." So it should read, "However, funding has been set aside for design and
construction." So the word "no" on the third line there should be stricken, and the word "or" on the fourth
line of the first paragraph between "design or construction" should be changed to "and."
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a Resolution making
CEQA findings per sections 15091 and 159093 of State CEQA Guidelines approving mitigation measures
and mitigation monitoring and reporting, and recommending certification of the final EIR for GPA/Zone
Change 05-0519, to City Council, with the incorporation of the memo from the Planning Department from
Mr. Movius dated June 12, 2006, and with the corrections previously indicated by Mr. Grove.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 5
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Lomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Johnson, Tkac
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution approving
the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designations from R-IA to LR (low
density residential) on 457.06 acres, and from RR (rural residential) to LR on 9.78 acres, incorporating
the memo from the Planning Department from Mr. Movius dated June 12, 2006, and with the corrections
previously indicated by Mr. Grove.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Lomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Johnson, Tkac
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution approving
the requested Zone Change from A (agriculture zone) to R-1 (one family dwelling zone) on 275.25 acres
from A to R-1-PUD (one family dwelling zones/planned unit development zone) on 181.81 acres, and
from R-S-20A (residential suburban) to R-1 on 9.78 acres, incorporating the memo from the Planning
Department from Mr. Movius dated June 12, 2006, and with the corrections previously indicated by Mr.
Grove.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Lomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Johnson, Tkac
5.2a General Plan Amendment 05-1377 (Dunmore Communities)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.2b Zone change 05-1377 (Dunmore Communities)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.3a General Plan Amendment 05-1479 (McIntosh &Associates)
5.3b Zone Change 05-1479 (McIntosh &Associates)
Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation.
Lloyd Norton stated he is a member of the church which is immediately east of the subject parcel, and
indicated they are in support of the GPA and zone change. He stated that they were concerned that they
have the ability to access the property through street connections, which would eventually lead to sewer
and water. He stated that they are in support of being annexed. He stated that they would like the street
access on the easterly side of the subject property be approved by the Planning Commission at the
tentative map stage so that input can be made as to how the street connection, sewer and water will
access his property to the east of this subject property.
Roger McIntosh with McIntosh &Associates, representing Centex Homes, stated they would like to work
with Mr. Norton regarding his concerns.
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 6
(The record was reflected to show that Mr. Tkac has arrived.)
Mr. McIntosh further commented that they are in agreement with Staff's memo in that they will work with
the church to provide access and utilities, but they would like to add language that the access points be
determined at the time of tentative map. He stated that the applicant does not want all the church
members to be going through the neighborhood, and are concerned with Taft Highway being a State
Highway and limited access. Mr. McIntosh stated that with regard to the gap parcel and frontage
improvements along the gap, their project comes down and has a little bit of frontage (about 100`) and
about 200' that the developer does not own. He stated that they do not want to be required to do full
improvements in front of the property which is not the applicant's. He suggested language from
"construct full improvements"to read "construct one additional lane."
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Lomas inquired why the language "at the points are determined at tentative map" needs to
be added, as there does not need to be any other choices. Staff responded that it does not need to be
added because that is when it would be determined. She further inquired about the improvements in
front of the small parcel and Mr. McIntosh's comments about improvements to Taft Highway. Staff
responded that Taft Highway is designated as an expressway; however she is not aware of anything from
CalTrans that indicates that they have plans to construct it as an expressway at any time in the
foreseeable future.
Commissioner Lomas pointed out that this Commission has tried to look ahead and attempt to keep the
improvement contiguous. She stated that she still feels the full improvement is needed.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he will not participate in this particular agenda item since he did not hear
it all.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he does not see a reason not to have full improvements on Taft
Highway.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to change the
land use designation from RR to LR on 8.92 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached, and recommend
the same to City Council, and incorporating the memo dated June 12, 2006 from Marian Shaw.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Lomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Johnson, Tkac
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from A to R-1 on 8.92 acres
as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached, and recommend the same to City Council, and incorporating the
memo dated June 12, 2006 from Public Works.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Lomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Johnson, Tkac
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 7
5.4a General Plan Amendment 05-1783 (McIntosh &Associates)
5.4b Zone Change 05-1783 (McIntosh &Associates)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation.
Roger McIntosh with McIntosh & Associates, representing Fairfax Holdings, stated that this application
has the same condition that was placed on it at the pre-meeting. He stated that this is quite different then
the previous application, in that the frontage improvements that are being requested are quite significant
and substantial. He stated that he doesn't call this a gap project, but a cesium project. He stated the
distance from a point to Fairfax Rd. is about 1320 feet, and the distance along the so-call "gap" area is
about 1,000 feet, and this 1,000 feet is not owned by the current developer. He pointed out that the
improvements to the 1,000 feet would cost approximately $250,000, which is like taking $250,000 from
one property owner and giving it to another property owner. He surmised that once this area starts
developing, and there is a high school that is planned and under construction to the west of Fairfax Rd,
the whole area will start developing and the parcels will become very valuable, and anybody that wants to
develop the parcels can come in and put the frontage improvements in. Mr. McIntosh stated that they
have no problem with paying their fair share of the canal crossing on the east end of Redbank, but they
are adamantly opposed to having to put in 1,000 feet of off-site improvements to benefit someone else.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he is sympathetic to Mr. McIntosh. He
inquired of Staff if there is anything they can do in a situation like this. Commissioner Lomas inquired if
the referenced three or four parcels would be required to make full improvements just going to the
Building Department. Staff responded that there are at least three parcels and if they were in the City
and wanted to come in now and get permit for a single family residence, the city ordinance would require
that they bring all off-sites up to standards with the issuance of a building permit.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired where this leaves the applicant's situation, and if the applicant could
receive some sort of tax credit because of the improvements they are being required to make on
someone else's property. Staff stated that they are already required to participate in formation of a major
bridge and thoroughfare district, which is a way to reimburse them for the full improvements upon
development of parcels that benefit from that and that could include the curb, gutter and sidewalk. Staff
indicated that another alternative is the Redbank Rd. is on the transportation impact fee list, and there's
one lane in each direction that would be added to this roadway, and the requirement could be scaled
back to the requirement of an additional lane only that would be an impact fee credit item.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. McIntosh how those presented alternatives sounded to him. Mr.
McIntosh responded that Redbank Rd. is a collector and therefore he does not believe that it is on the
RTIF list, and that if it were then there could be a credit given back. Mr. McIntosh stated that because of
the major bridge and thoroughfare district the canal crossing can be funded within that district He stated
that they are willing to put in the frontage improvements at the east end, and at the west end all the way
back to Fairfax Rd.
Commissioner Lomas inquired about the existing residence to the east on Redbank, and she would like
to take care of that parcel, and take care of the improvements in front of the existing developed parcel,
and the rest will come with the forthcoming development. Staff responded that it would work with them.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he is sympathetic to the applicant's desire to minimize their cost of
improvements, however the property is subject to an annexation into the City, and the frontage property
is still in the County and there has been no talk of it being annexed, and therefore he is not sure that even
if it were to develop that it would come in under the City. He pointed out that the property across Redbank
St is probably going to stay County. He commented that since there is a bulk of the area, in terms of
acreage, between Fairfax and the east boundary of this subject property and the north south boundary,
the street improvements are more or less proportional to what's being developed. He stated that he
feels like even though the benefit may accrue to the people with the frontage on that piece of property,
the distribution of it area wise is fairly equitable, and therefore is inclined to support Staff's
recommendation.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he support Staff's recommendation as evidenced by the June 12, 2006
memo from Marian Shaw regarding the improvement of the entire frontage along Redbank Rd. He stated
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 8
that this is still primarily an agricultural area, and secondly the comments by Commissioner Blockley are
on point, as we are not on an upwardly moving real estate market. He further stated that he sees these
kinds of projects come through and thinks that it has to be factored in that where there are gaps in the
property line bordering a collector, arterial, or local that the developer is going to have to be responsible
to maintain the integrity of that street.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if the parcels were brought in under County jurisdiction if improvements
would be required. Staff responded that the County does not have similar regulations.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to change the
land use designation from RR (rural residential) to SR (suburban residential) and ER (estate residential)
to LR (low density residential) on 89.5 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached, and recommend the
same to City Council, incorporating the June 12, 2006 memo from Marian Shaw, and the conditions
attached thereto.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Johnson
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the Zone Change from R-S-1A (residential
suburban 1 acre minimum)to R-1 (one family dwelling) on 4.65 acres and RS-2.5 A (residential suburban
on 2.5 acre minimum to R-1 on 13.12 acres, and County A-1 (limited agriculture) to R-1 on 67.66 acres,
and County NR-5 (natural resources-five acres) to R-1 on five acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached,
and recommend the same to City Council, incorporating the June 12, 2006 memo from Marian Shaw, and
the conditions attached thereto.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Johnson
5.5a General Plan Amendment 05-1887 (Marino &Associates)
5.5b Zone Change 05-1887 (Marino &Associates)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Teri Bjorn with the Kronick Moskovitz firm, representing
Mel Heinemann who owns the 20 acres on the south portion of this property, with an option on the north
20 acres currently owned by the Haddad's. She stated that their disagreement is not based primarily on
legal issues, but rather on policy and planning issues that they believe can persuasively be argued in
favor of the proposed 40 acre project. Ms. Bjorn gave a presentation of the project. She pointed out
that the only real issue is the appropriate set back distance from the City's waste water treatment plant,
#2, which is located to the northeast of the project. She stated that City Staff is steadfastly sticking to a
policy of '/ mile set back distance relying on several factors, which include: 1) the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan Goal #3, which, "to accommodate new development which is compatible with
and compliments existing land uses." 2) Staff's reliance on recommendation from a waste water
treatment odor expert, and they have not seen a copy of any oral or written report. 3) Staff is relying on
the planning precedent surrounding strict application of a '/ mile setback around its treatment plant#3 in
the southwest. She stated that just as important as the setback distance itself is where the setback is
measured from. She stated that the first policy that they saw from Public Works measure the setback
from the tanks, which is the odor source. She stated that it is their understanding that the current policy
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 9
from Public Works is now measuring the setback from the outside boundary of the area identified for
potential expansion of the plant to the south in the direction of their project. She pointed out that strict
application of this setback policy, and measurement from the potential expansion project boundary, will
devastate this 40 acre project as proposed. She demonstrated where the setback will cut into the 40
acre project, and how it will significantly impact an alternative proposed project that's been set forth for
the south 20 acres only. She further commented that probably more importantly, imposition of this line will
negatively impact the ability to develop the north 20 acres with anything other than heavy industrial uses,
which are not needed, wanted, or appropriate for this area. She stated that they are requesting that the
Planning Commission consider certain alternatives, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals, their
own odor expert testimony and written report, and some alternatives for a set back distance and where it
is measured from, including looking at what is done in other communities, and including asking Staff to
study alternative areas for expansion of its plant, perhaps to the north or east, away from existing and
planned housing. She stated they also request that the Planning Commission recognize that there are
unique and different planning issues to be considered for the languishing southeast area as compared to
the still hotbed of development in the southwest. She pointed out that all of these considerations can
support approval of the project which is needed in this area, and whose residence will not be
unreasonably suffering from the adverse consequences of the nearby plant.
Ms. Bjorn presented some alternative General Plan policies which they believe throws the balance in
favor of project approval. 1) With respect to goal number 3, she requested that they look at goal number
1, and "accommodate new development which captures the economic demands generated by the market
place. 2) Accommodate new development which provides a full mix of uses to support its population. 3)
Under policy — land use, policy number 88, encourage the recycling of dilapidated and economical
depressed residential neighborhoods. 4) Parks, goal, #1, provide parks and recreation facilities to meet
the planning area's diverse needs. This is clearly an under park area. 5) #2 goal, supply neighborhood
parks at a minimum of 2.5 acres per 1000 persons throughout the planned area. She stated that the fact
that this project will provide needed and required affordable housing, and a park in a severely under park
area, speaks for itself. She commented that it is also important to note that this project will eliminate
unnecessary and unwanted industrial uses in an area in favor of much more needed affordable housing.
She pointed out that Staff's report indicates that industrial use has had limited success in this area.
Ms. Bjorn stated that their odor expert, WZI, will show that a '/ mile setback does not necessarily make a
difference to protect the residences from odor, and the City from liability.
(Tape 2)
They requested that the Planning Commission look carefully at the 40-acre parcel versus the 20-acre
project. She stated that you can get a 40-acre project with 290 units and a 6.5 acre park a cohesive well-
planned development. Or, you can get 20 acres with 175 units and no park, and heavy industrial uses
immediately adjacent on the north 20 acres, and what could be put on that 20 acres would be much more
incompatible than odors from the treatment plant.
She further commented on the strictly enforced '/ set back around the treatment plant in the southwest.
She pointed out that just outside that line, which doesn't really protect anyone from odors, there are
numerous residential developments that have been approved, and are pending approval, including
projects on the agenda tonight. She stated that there is a difference between development in the
southwest around the City's treatment plant number 2, and development in the southeast kitty-corner
from a plant at issue tonight. She said developers in the southwest are still lining up to buy and develop
even if properties are close to odor sources like a treatment plant, or visual and noise sources like the
concrete batch plant that is in this vicinity. She stated that in the southeast there are very few developers
who are willing to be the catalyst for development in this area, however Mr. Heinemann is one of those
developers, and he has already bought 20 acres in the southeast, and he's ready to buy another 20 acres
immediately to the north. She pointed out that Mr. Heinemann is committed to remaining the developer of
this property so that he can create affordable housing and a big park.
Russ Thompson the civil engineer on this project gave a presentation on the history of the project, stating
that they've had Phase I and Phase II environmental studies done on this site, showing that the site is
clean with some very minor issue to take care of. He emphasized the need for affordable housing and the
support from Councilwoman Erma Carson, City Staff, County Staff and the Housing Authority. He pointed
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 10
out that in some beach communities there are some setbacks as little as 400 feet from residential
housing units. He presented an aerial view of the City of Modesto treatment plant indicating set backs
and showing a set back of 625 feet which area of homes have a value of $350,000 - $400,000 range.
He stated that the 1/4 mile set back is an arbitrary number, and that the initial set back line (tract 6503
Tabitha House line) has been used before and used during that project, and the expansion of treatment
plant #2 does not have to be expanded to the southwest towards their project, and this project is
reasonable.
Mr. Thompson stated that they do have an alternative depending on how the discussion goes, as they do
feel that the 290 lot subdivision is reasonable, and for discussion sake they would like to enter into the
record a map that is similar to 290 lots and pulls back the residential development even further to more
closely align with the Tabitha House line, and reduces the number of developable lots to 250 and it ends
of generating a park that is 10.15 acres instead of 6.5 acres. He stated they are here to gain some
compromise.
Fred Woody with WZI presented their study. Mr. Woody stated that their odor analysis concludes that the
impact to the proposed project from the nearby waste water treatment plant is considered less than
significant based on complaint documents. Mr. Woody explained how the study was done. He pointed
out that odor nuisance is subjective, which is why the district uses a complaint based threshold.
Jim Marino, the applicant for the two property owners on this project, said this whole Cottonwood corridor
is in transition. He stated that in the 1980's they tried to bring in industrial businesses to provide job, but
it didn't work too well. Mr. Marino pointed out that when the Tabitha House project was approved there
weren't any real concern about its proximity to the treatment plant. He stated that he thinks it makes
sense to get rid of the heavy industrial in this location. He pointed out that condition 11 regarding
notification would also include a waiver that would be a recordable document.
Raul Rodriguez with Mary Cruz Realty stated they are in favor of this project because it will achieve
people the American dream. He stated that this project will bring a lot of good to this area.
The public hearing is closed.
Break taken.
Commissioner Tkac inquired if the sewer farm is going to be there forever, or if there's anything they can
do to lower the stink down. Staff responded that plant 2 will be there for awhile, indicating that there is
over 6 million gallon of capacity at that plant right now that has not been committed, and it is going to take
a number of years to fill it up. Staff indicated that there are no plans to expand for a while, but it will be
expanded in the future. With regard to odor control, Staff responded that there are some measures that
can be taken at some considerable expense
Commissioner Tkac inquired if it is appropriate to look at other communities for a fair comparison. Staff
responded that they can't answer that question tonight, but advised that they can't be relied on as
credible evidence to determine that there's no odor with this plant, as those cities probably all have
different boundaries from each other and may be different from ours.
Commissioner Tkac inquired how they respond to this issue in light of some of things that have been
done in the past, and inquired if precedent has been set. Staff responded that the memo from the
attorney's office indicates that the Planning Commission has some flexibility, and the Planning
Commission wouldn't be deviating from formal adopted City policy should the Planning Commission
decide to approve something within the buffer. Staff indicated that there was not a case presented that
they have deviated from the policy, and pointed out that the Tabitha House had residential over to an
area that is '/ mile away from the property line and the treatment plant.
Commissioner Blockley stated it appears the applicant is asking for a different set of entitlements and that
in and of itself as a GPA gives them some flexibility in terms of what the Planning Commission approves.
He stated that in considering that you have to take into account the nature of the changes being
proposed which is going from heavy industrial to affordable housing. He stated that he cannot see
supporting this type of nice enough affordable housing project at this location.
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 11
Commissioner McGinnis agreed with Staff's comment that it's not necessarily right for the southeast
residents to have to live within the buffer of a treatment plant, when it is not done in the southwest and
other parts of the City. He does question what they are going to do with the sand pit. Commissioner
McGinnis stated that there is no ordinance, resolution or formal policy adopted as far as a '/ mile within a
sewer treatment plant, and the only thing mentioned in regard to this is all the policy exceptions that have
been made to that unspoken policy, and he does not see that to be a reason why the Planning
Commission should continue giving examples as to why there is no policy. He stated that he thinks the
project is a good project, but it's too close to the sewer treatment plant, and he cannot support it.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he is in favor of affordable housing, and agrees with the fact that the
City has not been successful in getting industrial in the current industrial zone, although he recognizes
that some projects have been converted to residential. Commissioner Tragish commented that it boils
down to a health and welfare issue, and that the memo from Mr. Sherfy indicating that it is an informal
policy or rule of thumb that the Planning Department has used is helpful in situations. He stated that
given Mr. Sherfy's memo consistency becomes an issue. He further indicated that one of the options he
sees open for the applicant is to continue this to allow him sufficient time to read the odor analysis so he
can intelligently decide what has been presented.
Commissioner Tragish stated that since it is just a rule of thumb that perhaps it is time to formulate a
policy. He inquired if the way the '/ is measured has been changed. Staff responded that the '/ mile
buffer within this current area was, according to Staff's understanding, originally presented to be from the
area of the tanks. However, they realized it was to be taken from the property which does drop the line
farther down into this property. Staff pointed out that over the last year it has been clarified to Staff that
the intent is to take it from the property line.
Commissioner Tragish stated there is some ambiguity as to how it was measured in the past.
Commissioner Tragish stated that it boils down to it is a wonderful project, but he is not comfortable with
the odor measurement and would like to have an opportunity to have sufficient time to read the report, or
just put it up for vote up or down.
Commissioner Spencer stated that he's in support of the way Jim indicated the uses that are preferred
and not preferred in this area, and to take the line from the property line as the buffer zone is appropriate.
He referenced Ms. Bjorn's statements about the land use ordinance pertaining to housing, but indicated
she failed to indicate public facility policies in that they are bound to protect existing facilities and the way
to encourage their future expansion and with all of the development occurring in the northeast, east and
south, there will need to be an expansion of the existing plant. He stated that WZI's report did not
provide sufficient credibility to convince him, nor were answers to the signed petition responded to. He
stated that he sees no way that he can support this document or proposal as presented.
Commissioner Lomas responded to some of the points raised in the applicant's presentation. She
inquired what other zonings are required in the 1/ buffer. Staff responded there could be commercial,
light industrial, service industrial, or offices, and pretty much anything except residential. She commented
that the southeast is developing well. She inquired of Mr. Rodriguez what the projected price is, to which
Mr. Rodriguez responded that with the assistance programs they have in place, a person can get into a
1400 sq. ft house for$180,000. She further inquired about his statement that farm workers can afford to
buy this type of home. Mr. Rodriguez responded that farm workers are buying $250,000 houses in the
same area right now on fixed and variable rate loans.
Commissioner Lomas inquired about the lines to which Staff responded that there are three, which has
one that is nearest to the treatment plant showing as proposed and they did not know what that means,
as that line came from the applicant. Mr. Marino put up a map to help explain the lines. Mr. Marino
confirmed that the middle line is the line that he knew about from the very beginning, and that he then
drew a line that he would like, and in both of those lines he drew house after discussion with staff.
Commissioner Lomas pointed out that it appears the lines were drawn after discussion with staff which
led one to believe that there was some room in this '/ mile. Staff responded that the applicant met with
Public Works several months ago and were told that the Public Works lines, the worse case line for their
development, was the one they were going to use. Mr. Marino then put up his Monday drawing.
Commissioner Lomas stated that she does not have this drawing, and she inquired of Staff if it was
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 12
correct that for several months the applicant has been aware that Staff was working on the outside line,
to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Lomas commented that the inner most line
which is the Tabitha House line which still has properties within the setback, although not buildings it
looks like yard or grounds. She inquired of Staff as to the Monday's drawing, to which Staff responded
that their interpretation has been that the home cannot be located within the area, so a part of the yard
could be in there. Commissioner Lomas stated the question now is what line does the Commission work
with; the Tabitha House line or the Public Works line. Staff responded that it would be their opinion that
it's the Public Works line. She inquired if they have to deal with M3 setback, even with the Tabitha line, to
which Staff responded in the affirmative, and indicated that Staff provided some conditions for that
alternative that required setbacks on the M3 portion of the property, and further indicated that one
alternative that hasn't been discussed is that the developer could theoretically go back and come back
with M1 on the northern portion to rezone it to M1 or something, which allows a lot of uses as well.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if the setbacks would apply to the southern parcel, to which Staff
responded that it would apply to the north because the plan shows a road intervening, and Staff's
conditions of approval, since they are within the project boundary, would apply to the M3 portion on the
north with a setback and a wall. Commissioner Lomas stated that her understanding is that the applicant
only owns outright property to the south, and is in escrow with the property on the north, and inquired
how that condition can be put on when the applicant doesn't own it. Staff responded that it was within his
project boundary that is before the Planning Commission tonight.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not agree with Staff to the extent that there are other uses that
can be done in this buffer, because he does not believe this neighborhood lends itself to those uses
mentioned. He stated that with regard to the line he sees no substantiation as to where the line should
go, and he is still unclear as to Staff's reason for putting the line where it is. He stated that he cannot
support this application.
Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a Resolution making
findings denying the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LI and HI to
HMR on 39.29 acres as shown on Exhibit A-1 and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas
NOES: None.
ABSTAINED: Commissioner: Tragish
ABSENT: Commissioner: Johnson
Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a Resolution making
findings denying the Zone Change from M1 and M3 to PUD (planned unit development) on 39.29 acres
as shown on Exhibit A-1 and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas
NOES: None.
ABSTAINED: Commissioner: Tragish
ABSENT: Commissioner: Johnson
Commissioner Tragish stated that he abstained from both motions because he does not believe that
they've had adequate time to review the report that's been presented by the applicant and further that
there's been no substantiating testimony one way or the other where the line should go.
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 13
5.6a General Plan Amendment 05-1917 (Marino &Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.6b Zone Change 05-1917 (Marino &Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.7a General Plan Amendment 05-1918 (Marino &Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.7b Zone Change 05-1918 (Marino &Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.8a General Plan Amendment 05-1928 (Porter-Robertson)
5.8b Zone Change 05-1928 (Porter-Robertson)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Dennis McClain and family stated that they are opposed
to the commercial rezoning at the corner of Snow Road and Jewetta Avenue as they feel that it is not
compatible with their rural residential properties which are directly on the west boundary of this project.
He stated they are upset to know that a 7-Eleven type store can go in on the corner, and it would not be
smart planning next to horses with flies and dust. He stated that the zone change will make their property
values go down and disrupt their rural way of life. He stated that they enjoy the piece and quiet and do
not want the added noise, lighting, trash, crime and traffic that come with commercial zoning or public
stores. He stated that many of the other long-term neighbors are against the zone change. He pointed
out that there is another commercial zone site 'h mile down Jewetta that will have a shopping center, and
therefore there is no need to have another one so close. He stated he thinks they should leave the
property zoned ER and build a house or two on it. He requested denial of the zone change as this piece
of land is just too small for this type of zoning. He pointed out that the map does not show the future
Jewetta Avenue or the actual width for the Calloway canal which would make this land even smaller.
Roland Vandevall with Porter Robertson Engineering and Surveying stated they are the applicant on this
project. He stated they have reviewed the staff reports, conditions of approval and the memos dated June
15, 2006 and June 12, 2006, and are in full support of those, with the exceptions of the improvements
along the off-site property that is not subject to this project.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Staff if it is possible with the way this
project has been presented to approve the complete project being rezoned for residential purposes. Staff
responded in the affirmative. Commissioner McGinnis pointed out two alternatives: 1) Rezone the entire
thing for residential and let the applicant come back in after the canal has been realigned to get a five
acre parcel out there, which is probably the minimum for commercial zoning. 2).Cover the canal of
approximately 300' width, and end up with a 6.79 acres and put a decent size commercial in that area.
He pointed out that the applicant meets the criteria as far as the distance between other commercial
shopping area. He further stated that he cannot see rezoning 2.7 acres and making it a viable piece. He
stated that he would be in favor of going with straight residential on the complete parcel, but not as it's
written right now.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he sees some real value in Commissioner McGinnis' suggestion, and
noted that in the SW part of town there have been several cases where they've seen canals relocated to
the corners of the property to simply allow more residential development of the same kind as proposed in
the rest of the tract.
Commissioner Lomas read the GP and the requirement for commercial designation. She stated that if
the canal is relocated to the northern boundary over 2.5 acres, however if the canal is covered then they
just barely get a five acre parcel. Therefore, she stated that the most logical solution to what they are
dealing with currently is what Commissioner McGinnis suggested.
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 14
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration approving a General Plan Amendment to change the land
use designation from R-1A (resource intensive agriculture) to ER (estate residential) to SR on the entire
parcel, and recommend the same to City Council, incorporating Public Works memo dated June 15, 2006
and the Planning Department memo of June 14, 2006,with the exception of deleting condition 21.
Commissioner Tragish asked for clarification with respect to deleting the commercial portion of the
motion. Staff responded that they are including the commercial piece of property as zoned SR, so the
commercial is still with the project description, but it's going to be zoned the same as everything else (the
residential).
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas
NOES: Tragish
ABSENT: Commissioner: Johnson
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the entire parcel of Negative Declaration approving a Zone Change A (agriculture) to
E (estate) for the entire parcel of land presented, and recommend the same to City Council, incorporating
Public Works memo dated June 15, 2006 and the Planning Department memo of June 14, 2006, with the
exception of deleting condition 21.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas
NOES: Tragish
ABSENT: Commissioner: Johnson
Commissioner Tragish commented that his No votes is because he agrees with the original analysis and
does not see any sense in putting a canal down the middle of a residential neighborhood, and that it does
lend itself to a commercial development because of the shape and because of the interference of the
canal through the project.
5.9a General Plan Amendment 05-1932 (SmithTech/USA)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.9b Zone Change 05-1932 (SmithTech/USA)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.10a General Plan Amendment 05-1947 (Banducci Land, LLC)
5.10b Zone Change 05-1947 (Banducci Land, LLC)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given.
Commissioner Lomas noted that Councilman David Couch was present to hear item number 5.8.
Ana Dezember stated that they own Structure Cast which is the free cast concrete company
manufacturing facility referred to. She stated that for clarification they are located on McCutchin Road,
just off of Gosford. She stated that that she wanted to bring to public record a document that was sent to
all of the Commissioners and City. She stated that they are not opposed to the General Plan
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 15
Amendment, but their concern is more that they've been operating at this location and it is the Planning
Commission's obligation to protect existing facilities and their uses, as stated by one of the
Commissioners previously. She stated their company has early hours with heavy equipment and lots of
major trucking in and out of their location. She stated that they did meet with the applicant in December of
2005 in a County application, but have had not contact with the applicant until they received a letter two
days ago. She stated that the letter that they received was addressed to Golden Empire Concrete, who
was listed as their partner. She stated that Structure Cast has no partnership or shared ownership with
Golden Empire Concrete at all, and therefore the letter that was sent really has nothing to do with
Structure Cast. Consequently, there is nothing to protect and mitigate some of the negative impacts that
this proposed development will have on their company, Structure Cast. She stated that they want to
make sure that there is compatible use and that the negative impacts are truly mitigated.
Tim Kleir stated he is present as an applicant and an owner, along with his partner Brian Banducci; He
gave some background on the project. He stated that they recognize the concerns of the neighbors to
the north. Mr. Kleir stated that from the beginning he and Mr. Dezember spoke, and it wasn't until six
days before the County Planning Meeting that he received a letter from Mr. Dezember, stating that on
behalf of himself and Golden Empire they were not going to stand in the way of the project. He indicated
that Mr. Dezember's conditions were the same as Mr. Ravoni and Mr. Judkins'. Mr. Kleir said the County
Board of Supervisors rejected the project because they thought it was premature, and that there might be
problems with the sewer treatment plant. He further indicated that he met with Golden Empire's attorney
and it was explained to him that there is a symbiotic relationship. He also indicated that in his further
attempts to contact Mr. Dezember, none of his phone calls were returned. He stated thereafter he went
to Golden Empire's attorney, and at that point Golden Empire advised that Brent Dezember does not talk
for them. Mr. Kleir stated that they cut a deal with Golden Empire that was the same as Mr. Ravoni and
Mr. Judkins cut with them, and that deal has the same conditions that the city asking in their conditions.
Mr. Kleir stated that he has a signed agreement with Golden Empire
Mr. Kleir stated that in reference to an agreement referred to by Mrs. Dezember, what happened was
they sent the agreement that was reached with Golden Empire to Mr. Dezember because Mr. Dezember
has asked what was going on.
Mr. Kleir stated that they have done everything that they can possibly do to be good neighbors.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Ms. Dezember about the correspondence relating to Golden Empire,
and she confirmed that there is no relationship between the two companies. He requested an
explanation of the sentence, "Golden Empire Concrete Products, Inc., doing business as Structure Cast,"
in Mr. Dezember's letter to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Dezember explained that that the corporate
name is Golden Empire Concrete Products, Inc., and they do business as Structure Cast. She explained
that they use to own Golden Empire Concrete, but they sold it, and currently have no ownership in the
company. Mr. McGinnis inquired if she is aware of the conditions eluded to by Mr. Kleir with respect to
Golden Empire. She stated that they just received it on the 12th and referred it to their legal counsel. She
stated that in their cursory review the conditions are similar, but in the other project what they are offering
and what they will do is not have any backyard frontage up to the property line, which they consider living
space. She stated that their agreement is limited to single story homes with 100' set back, as well as
frontage on the front door to the street and then to the property line. She stated that she did not see this
issue addressed in their proposal. She stated that this is definitely one of the concerns that they would
like addressed. She further added that Golden Empire Concrete has a different frontage on their property
line then they do on their's as they have a PG&E easement. Mr. McGinnis inquired if the applicant
agreed to their frontage issues, if they would be in agreement with the application, to which Mrs.
Dezember stated they would.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Kleir stated that in response to Mrs. Dezember's above
comments, they have not even submitted a tentative map. He pointed out that they have the same set
back. He said the other agreements that have been entered into do not include an agreement as to how
lots are to be turned, or how the houses are to be faced. He stated part of how they configure the houses
will depend on what the neighbors do. He stated that they want to do what makes sense for the general
planning mode for that area.
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 16
Commissioner McGinnis pointed out that with the setbacks and a wall he doesn't know how that has a
great deal of bearing on how the houses face once those requirements are completed. Mr. Kleir stated
that he does not know how the houses will face, and pointed out that it would be impossible to put any
trees there because there's a street that abuts the wall. He stated they would like to have trees there for
aesthetics, coverage and sound barrier. Commissioner McGinnis stated that trees area a good mitigation
measure in these situations.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Staff if the conditions being applied to this applicant are any different
then the previous ones. Staff responded that they are pretty much the same. Staff did point out that
some of the previous ones are in different circumstances, put overall they are the same. Commissioner
McGinnis inquired about the setback and any stipulations as to planning in the boundary line. Staff
responded that there were no stipulations, but it could be in somebody's backyard, and would like to
know about the strip of trees mentioned by Mr. Kleir. Mr. Kleir clarified that he wasn't talking just about a
strip of trees, because the engineer explained to them that you don't want to create anything the city or
county has to maintain, and hopefully it would be the backyard of a house rather than a strip, and that
can certainly be a condition. Staff responded that they are not concerned if the trees are in the backyard,
and the 100 buffer to the structure gives them plenty to do whatever type of landscape they wish to do in
the rear yard. Staff further indicated that they would not be interested in anything that would have to be
policed.
Commissioner Tkac inquired of Mr. Kleir what they need to do to get this to come together to move both
parties forward. Mr. Kleir responded that he believes Mrs. Dezember is referring to a map in the Ravoni
agreement, but believes their proposal, which is a little different, is better. Mrs. Dezember responded that
there is still going to be another 20' of crane exposed over the 10' wall. She stated that they have
McCutchin to separate from a development. She pointed out that on other development there is no
backyard living space.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he is okay with the agreement between Golden Empire Concrete and
Structure Cast. He stated that there are a few underlying currents that need to get taken care of, and
doesn't know if a continuance would be helpful.
Commissioner Blockley commented that he is intrigued by a 100 buffer as the backyard because that
would be a deep backyard. He further stated that he is familiar with the operations of Structure Cast. He
requested Mr. Kleir to address the visuals on the yards. Mr. Kleir explained that the yard will be 100 ft.
deep with a 10' block wall covered with vines and have trees. He further explained behind the wall is a
20 ft. PG&E easement, which is 20 ft. before Structure Cast begins. He further explained that when you
have a barrier in front of you, the closer to the barrier that's taller than you, the less you can see. The
farther you go the more you can see above the barrier. Mr. Kleir stated that in that 100 ft. yard, the angle
will provide zero visibility even without the trees because of the angle. He said if you do what's on that
drawing and put houses back farther, the houses that are back farter are going to be able to see over the
wall. He said that it is not going to be an unpleasant experience. He said with respect to noise he has to
leave that to the experts. He also pointed out that most of the activity is located on the other end towards
Mr. Ravoni's property that's already been approved.
Commissioner Blockley stated that some of the other aspects of the operation have to do with the nature
of the site where products are made to order, and inquired about the dust issues. Mrs. Dezember stated
that their plant site is not paved. She indicated that they do large architectural structures, precast wall
panels, and well as storm water, waste water treatment systems, which are all custom items, but they
manufacture those continuously on a daily basis. She stated that they do have ongoing items that are
coming in and out with quick turn around on a daily basis, in addition to larger type projects of wall
panels.
Commissioner Blockley inquired about any sandblasting operation that would produce dust, as well as
noise. Mrs. Dezember stated that depending on what the custom treatment is on the wall panel, they
may do sand blasting, or acid etching with high powered machinery.
Commissioner Lomas inquired how the uses have been addressed in the previous projects and the
hardship it might cause to the neighbors. Staff stated they don't have an answer to the acid etching
referenced, and would have to see if the EIR for the property to the north addressed acid etching.
Planning Commission — June 15, 2006 Page 17
Commissioner Lomas inquired if a continuance is needed to look at these issues. Staff responded that it
could be continued for two weeks.
Commissioner Lomas inquired about the Agenda referencing McKee rather than McCutchin and any
noticing problems. Staff responded that it does not as the advertisement is correct as McKee is the
southern boundary of the project area before the Planning Commission, and McCutchin is the boundary
for the batch plant, but the batch plant is not the project.
Commissioner Lomas stated that it was her understanding that the agreement reached was almost the
same given what each site had to deal with. Now, Mrs. Dezember indicates that she did get this but
three days ago. She inquired about the backyard issue on the property to the west and the city was
going to maintain a row of trees. Staff responded that there was a conceptual layout that showed a street
separation as a possible way to solve the 100' buffer, but there was never a discussion regarding
maintenance, or that there was a requirement that a street be there.
Commissioner Lomas commented that a 100' set back is big, along with the 20' setback on the other side
of the wall, with a 10'wall, makes a good improvement, and does not think having the front yards face the
batch plant makes any sense. She further inquired if there are adequate disclosures to the new
homeowners in this subdivision to disclose the batch plant. Staff responded that condition 17 provides for
a disclosure provision for everybody within the subdivision.
Commissioner Lomas stated that they have already approved three subdivisions, and this current one is
probably the closest in conditions to the parcel to the west. She stated that there should be consistency
with the previous applicants.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to continue this agenda item to the
July 6, 2006 hearing for consideration and review of the material presented.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner: Johnson
6. COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Commissioner McGinnis stated that with regard to road improvements if there can be some committee to
resolve these issues. Ms. Shaw stated they will address this.
8. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:34
p.m.
Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
July 12, 2006