Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-07 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting – June 7, 2007 – 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish Absent: Commissioner Tkac A dvisory Members: Staff: 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Two speakers stated they will wait for the item to be heard on the regular calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4. 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of May 3, 2007. Commissioner Johnson modified page 1 of the Minutes, where it references “the planning commissioners” on item 3, where it says “Commissioner Tragish moved to appoint Commissioner Russell…” Russell should be replaced with Johnson.” He also modified the last page under Commissioner’s Comments #9, so that the last line reads, “Thanked his colleagues for the vote of confidence,” crossing out “having faith in him to serve as vice-chair.” Commissioner Tkac arrived at 5:34pm. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve the amended Minutes. Motion carried by group vote. 4.1b Approval of Capital Improvement Program for FY 2007-08 determination by the Planning Commission of consistency with the general plan. (City of Bakersfield – Public Works Department) (City Wide) 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6743 (Phased) (McIntosh & Associates) 4.2b Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6746 (Phased) (McIntosh & Associates) 4.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6747 (Phased) (McIntosh & Associates) 4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6749 (Phased) (McIntosh & Associates) 4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6750 (Phased) (McIntosh & Associates) 4.2f Approval of Zone Change 06-1660 (M.S. Walker & Associates, Inc.) Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 2 4.2g Approval of Tentative Tract Map 7066 (Terra Surveying Consultants) The public hearing is opened. Clifford Stroub stated he would like to speak on items 7.1e, 7.1b, which Staff confirmed was already on the regular calendar. Dennis Malidity stated that he would like to remove 4.2g from the consent calendar. No commissioner requested removal of any item on the consent calendar. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the consent calendar with the removal of item 4.2g. Motion carried by group vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS -- DEIR ADEQUACIES: 5.1 PUBLIC HEARING – Receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Gosford Village Shopping Center – File #GPA/ZC 02-0030 (Castle & Cooke Commercial, Ca. Inc.) The public hearing is opened to receive comments on the adequacy of the EIR, staff report given. Mr. Hullahan and Mr. Branman, gave presentations. Renee Nelson stated she has completed her review of the DEIR and therefore she will submit her comments in writing. David Dominguez the cultural resource manager for Chumash Council at Bakersfield stated the prior impact report has a stipulation about the monetary and cultural resources and that there is a very significant impact, and the new report plays it down. He proposed mitigation measures including, studying the area of concern, as it has not been studied. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish referenced the urban decay, page 5-9.7 regarding vacancy rates and stated that he would like the year end for 2006 to be added. He also referenced page 5-9.29 stating that he thought it was thorough and objective. He referenced the language stating, “…club style, bulk discount warehouse stores like Sam’s Club and Costco do not compete directly with neighborhood grocery stores such as Albertson’s, yet because there is some overriding projects offered as testament to the continued competitive viability of this Albertson that has been able to maintain a strong presence…. etc.” Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like to have discussion as to why these particular businesses are not directly competitive with each other, which leads to analyzing the impact of the development that is anticipated from the EIR, and he further commented that it is an issue that comes up and seems to be somewhat in dispute. Commissioner Tragish noted that he likes that the report goes through a lot of the buildings and vacancies in Bakersfield and how they’ve been addressed by the marketplace. Commissioner Johnson stated that his comments, if any, will be made in writing. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to refer comments to Staff for preparation of Final EIR. Roll Call Vote: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: None Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 3 5.2 PUBLIC HEARING – Receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Panama Lane Shopping Center – File #GPA/ZC 02-0193 (Panama 99/Properties, LLC) The public hearing is opened to receive comments on the adequacy of the EIR, staff report given. Mike Hullahan gave his presentation. Richard Crane, who lives about two miles south of the proposed development, stated he saw no study regarding energy consumption and he asked that there be some mitigation measures regarding the air quality. He inquired why this site is not required to develop the property as a green store. He also commented that a solar energy mandate would be appropriate. Mr. Crane also stated that he does not understand why the center cannot close by 10:00 p.m. and have no truck traffic between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and did not see this in the EIR. He also stated that other centers in town have this restriction, pointing out that the residents in this area already deal with freeway noise. He stated that he would like Staff to consider the traffic impacts. He stated that he is the president of the Greenfield Water District and they believe that the basin is over drafted and it is the reason for water banking and for purchasing water from the aqueduct. He stated that he would like Staff to reconsider what is there. Mr. Crane stated that he does not see crime addressed and pointed out that there is a gang problem in this area, as well as tagging issues. He speculated that a Wal-Mart in this location would want a bus terminal. Mr. Crane concluded stating that there is more potential for crime, and that a 24-hour operation will add to the criminal opportunities, including the information he read indicating that everything needed to make methamphetamines can be bought at Wal-Mart. With regard to traffic, Mr. Crane stated that as the president of the water district, they have the territory ½ mile south of the proposed development and their district is home to the now defunct Grand Canal Project, which is still zoned commercial. He stated that there is no mention in this current EIR as to what will be going in on with that other commercially zoned property. He speculated that it will be the future home of a Kaiser Permanente with more growth and those facilities and potential growth are going to be sandwiched in between two enormous shopping centers; one million sq. ft. to the south, and almost ½ million sq. ft. to the north if this project is approved, which will clog the freeway exits and the access road from the north will be colony. Cindi Frebeshis-Longcrier questioned the EIR and inquired if they are allowed to view other communities such as San Diego and Los Angeles and their EIR’s. She questioned if there are mitigating circumstances that have been left out. She referred to the San Diego EIR which stated that Wal-Mart needed 70,000 cars a week to turn a profit and pointed out that our community is not prepared to handle that kind of traffic. She commented that she thinks Wal-Mart just needs new places to gather more money and she does not think that is what Bakersfield needs. She commented that the reason that Costco doesn’t have such an effect on grocery stores is probably not what Commissioner Tragish thinks--- they have a daily impact but during business hours grocery stores are a shop and go so it’s much easier to get in and out of an Albertson’s instead of a Costco and Wal-Mart. She further commented that people drive a long distance to go to Costco and Wal-Mart and therefore that creates more air quality issues. She asked Staff to consider if that company (Wal-Mart) is really giving the community what we need for community growth. Malcolm Lacey stated he is a resident of the area. He stated that he thinks it is an eye-sore the way it is right now. He also stated that being next to the freeway it will cut down traffic because there is a short artery to the freeway. He further stated that a lot of the issues defy common sense and if the commission considers the facts the impact is on the people of Bakersfield and those who purchase here. Renee Nelson mentioned that Wal-Mart has two stories that they are calling their experimental stores (clean and green). She stated that in Colorado they use solar panels on the roof and they save 95,450 lbs per year in retail submissions just by their energy systems and running their own solar which they estimate is enough for six single family homes. Ms. Nelson further requested an analysis that includes reviewing a green store. In addition, she stated the urban decay does not address the re-development efforts, but that it does go hand-in-hand. She stated she wished the urban decay study could address a little bit further how the market fluctuations might affect new grocery stores coming in. She used the Ranch Market in Arvin as an example of how they would Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 4 be affected by those people driving from that area to this project and the impact it will have on that Arvin store. She stated the people of Ranch Market and Green Frog pay taxes and are impacted by Wal-Mart stores. Ms. Nelson stated that the Kit Fox was living on the site at 99 and Panama and they were relocated. She inquired as to the tracking system put on during the relocation and what happened to the fox. She would like to know if it was successful so they can know if it was successful if it’s going to be a mitigation measure. She stated she would like to see further exploration of the current building being torn down because it is zoned park space and she did not see any compensation listed for a mitigation. She further commented that the Lowe’s store hours are 6-10 p.m. M-Sat., and 7-8 p.m. on Sun and she would like to see the hours reduced for the Wal-Mart project. She stated that there are three sumps and they become habitat for the Kit fox and she would like to see further study on what is going on currently and whether the site was examined. Ms. Nelson stated that the traffic is already bad and 10,000 more cars a day will make it worse. Ms. Nelson commented on the burrowing owl which was spotted but apparently not living there. She stated that if they are not staying there they are migrating through. Lee Jamieson, developer of Panama-99 site, stated the thoroughness of the EIR is for a 35-acre site and is one of the most extensive EIR’s that’s ever been done and asked that the Commission keep that in perspective with the comments that are being made. David Dominguez with Chumash Council of Bakersfield stated their concerns are not just cultural resources. He stated that one Kit fox and one burrowing owl on a 35-acre site is important and inquired if the fox and owl were asked what they thought. He stated that the water issue can be looked at as a cumulative effect. He stated that an additional 35 acres sucking water in is going to hinder the migration route for the fox and the owl. He stated the report was done from a hypothetical projection and conjecture. He stated that we are practicing genocide on a people that have no say and have no way to go to a grocery store for their food. Mr. Dominguez stated that his earlier comments on the previous item about cultural resources remain the same and incorporated into the record here. Lori Deleon stated that her concern is the history of the company that is at issue here. She reported on some environmental fines imposed against Wal-Mart. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis referenced policy 3 and 17, regarding his recollection of primary access to the project from Colony which is a local street currently and the eastern access being used for commercial traffic only. Staff indicated they will check on the eastern access restriction. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he would like to possibly see a little more depth on the two accesses. He inquired about a traffic control on the eastern side and feels that it should be visited as far as adequacy of traffic in and out of the project. Commissioner Tragish stated in addition to Mr. McGinnis’ request in a supplement EIR, he would like to see more discussion regarding the safety of these current accesses. He commented that he would like to see what alternatives there are and the safety features, as well as what can be done to mitigate it to make it more safe. He further stated that he would like to see some treatment for traffic mitigation for that access. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like the EIR to take into consideration the competitive commercial space through 2006, as well as the impact regarding the discount club-style warehouse shopping center versus the neighborhood grocery stores. He would like to see the similarities and/or differences in their attendance by the people or the market place. Commissioner Tragish stated that he likes the comments expressed about energy, but he had a hard time finding discussion in the EIR regarding mitigation of the use of energy as it is an issue that is going to be an issue for developments. He stated that he does not want it to be studied to Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 5 death, but would like to have an idea of what some mitigation alternatives are available or are in place. Commissioner Johnson stated his comments, if any, will be in writing. Commissioner Andrews stated he would like a little more clarification on the comparison between the big boxes and the regular supermarkets. He said that in his mind they are talking about a Super Wal-Mart as opposed to a regular Wal-Mart and there may be some difference in terms of what the impacts. Commissioner Tkac stated that he didn’t see much in the EIR with regard to any correlation of crime and/or activity. He stated that he would like to see if there is anything stated in the EIR about a positive economic impact as far as people coming from Welfare to work. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to refer comments to Staff for the preparation of a Final EIR. Roll Call Vote: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: None Break Taken 5.3 PUBLIC HEARING – Receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Bakersfield Sports Village – File #GPA/ZC 06-1002 (City of Bakersfield- Development Services) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Ken Cook with Impact Sciences gave a presentation. David Dominguez, Cultural Resource Manager for Chumash Council of Bakersfield, thanked Impact Science for mitigating the impacts. He stated that he likes to see the open space. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like to see some discussion and mitigation regarding the lake pertaining to any safety factors that are going to be engaged or can be engaged to ensure that it is a safe lake for viewing and/or use by the public. He stated that with regard to the alternatives in the EIR he would like to see an alternative where there is no commercial on this property at all and that the space is originally designated for commercial be utilized as part of the park format in this particular project. Commissioner Johnson stated that he thinks adding more recreational space could be a good thing for the community. He stated that he will submit his comments, if any, in writing. Commissioner Tkac commented that he doesn’t know if gray water was discussed and he would like to see how the water has been treated or how the proposed treatment will be dealt with. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to refer the comments to Staff for preparation of the Final EIR. Roll Call Vote: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: None Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 6 . 6PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Bakersfield Municipal Airport (Jim Marino) The public hearing remains opened from January 4, 2007, staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff’s recommendation. Jim Marino, the applicant, stated that keeping consistent density makes a lot of sense and that everything is R-1 (Low Density Residential). He commented that the canal on the east side goes through the B-2 zone. He stated that the 50 acres remaining along Panama Lane on the NW corner of Panama and Cottonwood will be in front of the Planning Commission at the next Planning Commission meeting. He pointed out that there is an error on the map where the property directly north of that 50-acre parcel has already been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the tentative map was approved and an annexation is pending. Mr. Marino stated the low density will help with police and fire and other urban utilities/facilities. He stated that this particular site will help out in making it more cost effective to cure any deficiencies in necessary urban infrastructure. He also pointed out that there are three different areas where in case of an emergency an aircraft could put down: 1) Central Branch Canal, 2) Subsite on the west side of Sparks Avenue, which will be expanded to the south, 3) Spark Avenue, a 90’ wide collector. He stated that this project has nothing to do with closing the Bakersfield Airpark but has to do with applying the current CalTrans Aviation Land Use Handbook to an existing airport. He also stated that this property is not at the end of the runway and should it be approved there will be a B2 zone that will run 7000 feet (more than a mile) from the end of the runway. He also stated that the existing neighborhood of Rexland Acres will remain in the B2 zone. He stated the FAA does not oppose this project, nor does CalTrans or Bakersfield Airpark Director. He further pointed out that the FAA, CalTrans or the County of Kern has a standard of 10,000 feet for B2 zones. He stated that the 7000 feet requested is the CalTrans standard. Mr. Marino referenced the handbook he distributed regarding other Bakersfield airports and their runway lengths, length of B1 zone and length of B2 zone. He also pointed out that if this runway was shortened by just one foot there would be no requirement for a B2 zone. Mr. Marino also pointed out that even if the B2 zone is shortened it does nothing to the C zone which would remain in effect with all of the restrictions for height, density, etc. and they are not recommended anything be done with the C zone. Trisha Hager stated they submitted a comment letter in support of the Amendment to the Airport Compatibility Plan. She clarified that in the County of Kern the county and the effected cities have adopted the alternative process for the establishment of an airport land use commission, which means that rather than a county-wide airport land use commission, the County and the effected cities have decided not to have a county-wide airport land use commission, and instead have decided who will serve as that airport land use commission per each airport. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish referenced letters dated June 7, 2007 from Ms. Oviatt and Adrienne Sulfreg, as well as a letter from Staff which included a letter from the Aircraft Owners and Policy Association. He stated that his three issues are: 1) whether they have the jurisdiction to hear this; 2) do they need an EIR; and 3) whether there is a health and safety concern when reducing the B2 zone from 10,000 feet to 7000 feet. Commissioner Tragish referenced Ms. Overett’s (County) letter with regard to the alternative process that it “…provides local control and a cooperative streamlined plan as considered by CalTrans Dept. of Aeronaut be fully protective of the airport operation. One jurisdiction that controls and airport can unilaterally change the influence of their airport over land controlled by another jurisdiction without concurrence and was never contemplated by the plan.” He inquired if this needs to be held over to have some review by Staff to determine who has jurisdiction, although he presumes that determination has already been made or it would not be in front of the Planning Commission. Staff responded they have made a determination and “each separate jurisdiction shall be responsible for updating the individual airport policies, compatibility maps, and background data as it pertains to the airports within each separate jurisdiction.” Staff reiterated that this airport is within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction and the City is the owner of the airport and therefore to regulate these designations for compatibility. Staff further pointed out that B2 property is currently in the county, but is in the process of being annexed. Commissioner Tragish inquired if this is how it is handled in other jurisdictions, to which Staff responded they do not know. Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 7 Commissioner Tragish inquired about the higher density of urban development which is to follow if the B2 is changed to a 7000 feet threshold and if it would have a significant impact on existing residential development in the area as such that an EIR is required to access the impacts and traffic, population, housing, utilities and services in the area. He further referenced comments made about how an increase in density of dwelling units from .5 dwelling units per acre to 7.26 units per acre translates into increased risk due to less open space for an aircraft to land during an emergency. He inquired if Staff has determined that an EIR is not necessary why they did so. Staff responded that it is based on: 1) that the State handbook for these B2 zones was amended based on accident data for these types of runways to recommend that 7000 feet was long enough for a B2 zone; 2) there is accident data provided with regard to this specific airport in the response to comments provided by the legal firm that went back several years and talked about the accidents that have occurred from this airport, and this area has not been impacted; 3) the residential densities recommended in the B2 zone in the handbook say that you can allow infill of up to the average of surrounding residential area. Staff commented that there are subdivisions approved on three sides and the area immediately to the north has lots that are 6000 feet to 6500 feet in size (urban size lots). Commissioner Tragish stated he still is not clear on why an EIR would not be required. Staff responded that an EIR is not required because the state agency responsible for airport planning has done the analysis to determine, based on safety factors, that a 7,000 feet B2 zone is adequate for this airport, and therefore, if you studied it for an EIR it would be redundant studying because you already have an agency responsible for that which has already studied that issue. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the EIR would address increased traffic and impacts to the other elements of an EIR. Staff responded that it would and that the analysis on traffic impacts from development of this project out to its ultimate density was considered with the GPA and zoning that occurred previously, but was done with a Negative Declaration. Staff commented that typically a low density residential designation in this area would not be a significant impact. Commissioner Tragish further commented that in reducing the threshold from 10,000 feet to 7,000 feet is still a safety issue and sometimes it is better to error on the side of caution and protection. Commissioner Johnson referenced page 6 of 9 of the Staff report and inquired what the difference is between the layout plan and the master plan that is referenced in comment 1.B. Staff responded that the applicant would be better prepared to respond. Walter Gillfillan, a representative of the applicant, responded the airport master plan is a document that the FAA requires of an airport that is going to receive federal grant and aid money. He stated that they do require that the airport establish it’s existing operations and facilities requirements and to forecast into about a 20 year period what their future requirements would be for that airport. He explained that a byproduct of that master plan is an airport layout plan, and, in fact, is a map that simply shows existing facilities and shows what is planned to be the expansion of the facilities necessary in the future. He commented that it has a great deal of detail about lighting and instrument approaches, etc. Mr. Gillfillan stated that in the State of California in dealing with airport compatibility planning for Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), requires that the ALUC consider the airport master plan or its airport layout plan. He pointed out that the airport layout plan documentation of what is necessary in the future is based on the master plan projection of forecast of future demand and describes the existing operations, the physical plant, and the kinds of aircrafts it intends to serve in the future. Commissioner Johnson commented that the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan was suppose to have been updated in 1999, but the one that is in the current Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan was submitted from 1988 and he inquired if there is a statutory time line to update the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan with an updated master plan. Mr. Gillfillan responded that an existing master plan is the basis for development of the airport layout plan, and the airport layout plant is improved by the airport owner, and submitted to the FAA, and the FAA approves it, and they will not fund any future expansion of the airport projects unless it is on that approved airport layout plan. He explained that the compatibility plan is suppose to look at what is currently going on and if what is proposed would happen in the 20 year time horizon. He pointed out that the 1988 update was still the official adopted master plan that the airport is using. Mr. Gillfillan stated that he did research to see if there were any major changes between 1988 and the present situation and he Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 8 found that there were some rather optimistic views of what the future might be and that the airport has not reached those levels of activity in terms of aircraft and aircraft operations. He continued that the City of Bakersfield, as the owner, does not have any plans to do any significant changes to the existing airport lengths, layout in terms of taxi-ways and runways. He clarified that even though the documents may be somewhat dated, they are still reflective, in perhaps a generous way, of what the future would be and that effects the noise projections, which was based on an optimistic view of what the future might be in terms of operations. Commissioner Johnson inquired what the mechanism is to update the ALUCP if you update a master plan. Mr. Gillfillan responded that it is a FAA requirement that if they’re going to provide grant and aid money to an airport that there be in place an up-to-date master plan. Trisha Hager interjected that the State Aeronautic Act which governs airport land use compatibility plan says that the ALUCP should be updated as necessary as needed to effectuate its purposes. Therefore, if an ALP is updated that might be a good time to update your ALUCP, but there is nothing in the statue that requires you update your ALUCP if an ALP or master plan is updated. Commissioner Johnson referenced page 5 of 9 of the Negative Declaration initial study, items C and D state, “There will be no permanent increase in ambient noise levels as a result of the proposal, and no impact has been identified…. There will be no temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels as a result of the proposal, and no impact has been identified.” He inquired how the decrease from 10,000 feet to 7,000 feet would impact the homes in that area where they are shortening the B2 zone. Staff responded that the homes are not constructed and once they are in built they will be exposed to noise, but it will not be an increase to something that doesn’t exist now. Staff pointed out that the noise will begin when somebody occupies the home and the projections for noise done for that very optimistic study overstate the noise impacts to those homes, but they are still within general plan guidelines. Commissioner Johnson commented that the current open space provides more of a safety net for those planes that need an emergency landing and shorting the B2 zone seems to diminish the public safety. He stated that with the public health, safety and welfare issues involved at this point he cannot support this project. Commissioner Stanley inquired about the handbook and if it is the handbook that defines the zones. Mr. Gillfillan responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Stanley further inquired if in defining these zones their primary concern is the safety statistics, the mitigation of safety issues. Mr. Gillfillan responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Stanley inquired that if there are houses up to the 7,000 feet mark if there has to be a larger B2 zone. Mr. Gillfillan responded that they look at the operation of the airport in terms of its runway length and those zones are adjusted based on the runway length because that was the correlation between they found between the accident patterns and length of runway. Commissioner Stanley further inquired if the runway were one foot shorter then the 3500 feet B1 would it be the total necessitated protective zone. Mr. Gillfillan responded in the affirmative. Mr. Gillfillan commented that those zones/lines are not absolute hard fact that an accident will not be outside of that line but could occur outside as well as inside. He further stated that the line is not a defining line between safe and unsafe. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the handbook presumes that under the 7,000 feet there is no residential in that area. Mr. Gillfillan responded it does not presumes the 7,000 feet would be vacant and further pointed out that the probability of an accident does not change whether the land is vacant or developed, but rather the consequence of an accident is what changes. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if the handbook presumes that the 7,000 feet would be built out with an R1 development, to which Mr. Gillfillan responded no. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the area that is built out in the B2 zone (Rexland) is R1 or R2 development, from the map it looks like RS and R1. Exhibit A-2, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Proposed Change, Final Version, shows the zoning that would remain underneath the 7,000 sq. ft., and some of it is R1 and some is RS. Staff responded that the zoning on the map is accurate for Rexland Acres and it shows it being R1 and RS. Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 9 Commissioner Tragish referenced Business and Professions Code Section 66474 which discusses that a legislative body, such as Bakersfield and the Planning Commission, can deny an approval of a tentative map or parcel map, and he thinks when you approve an area you want to make sure that it is compatible with the area and the health and safety factors. He inquired of Staff if there is a different standard. Staff responded that the stated criteria for land use zoning, not necessarily land use compatibility zones, allows for an extensive amount of flexibility with the Airport Land Use zones. Commissioner Tragish inquired what the standard would be of review, staff responded that there aren’t any specific standards and that in this specific instance you look at the operations of the airport and if you feel there’s been adequate study by the guidelines for the 7,000 feet you can deny or approve. The commission has the discretion in the end. Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees with Commissioner Johnson that if you reduce the 10,000 feet to 7,000 feet you will have a B2 approach zone that is over existing residential development (R1 and RS) and the applicant wants to build in that additional 3,000 feet area, which does not allow for open space on approach to the runway. He further stated that it is a substantial safety and health factor for the public to reduce this zone and to allow aggressive development with no open space in which to land a plane on this particular approach. He further stated that he cannot in good conscience support this. Commissioner Andrews inquired if statistically in accident occurrence if they are looking at things happening closer to the end of the runway versus further out. Mr. Gillfillan responded that the pattern of accidents closest to the end of the runway is the highest incident and it extends outward and goes smaller and smaller in incidents along the extended center line. He clarified that the ALUC function is focused only on vacant land, and does not in any way address the fact that you have an extensive residential area between the end of the runway and the are you are talking about already in existence, including a school. Commissioner Blockley pointed out that the County has repeatedly opposed this project. He commented that the statistics show that there are some airports that have no B2 zones, and some that have 5,000 feet. He also commented that the remaining B2 zones are all 10,000 feet or more. He stated that he is hesitant to support this project. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a Resolution making findings disapproving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the amendment to the airport land use compatibility plan for the Bakersfield Municipal airport changing zone B2 as shown on Exhibit A-2 and recommend the same to City Council. Roll Call Vote: Motion carried by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Johnson, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: Commissioner Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews Commissioner McGinnis commented that his no vote is based on the research that’s gone into the project both by the applicant and his hired experts, as well as Staff’s endeavor into the background of this and the project is justified. Commissioner Stanley stated that he believes that the safety concerns raised were adequately addressed by the California Airport Land Use Planning handbook’s definitions of B2 and that the intention of this was to bring it in line with the recommendations of that handbook. Commissioner Andrews echoed the same concern of the other comments. He commented that there is a growing economic development perspective in that particular area that includes residential development as well. He also commented that he felt that it would have been a compatible use for what is being developed in that particular area. Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 10 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS – Tentative Tract Maps/Vesting Tentative Tract Maps/Zone Changes 7.1a Zone Change 07-0768 (Porter-Robertson Engineering & Surveying) 7.1b Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6098 (Porter-Robertson Engineering & Surveying) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Clifford Straw stated there are a lot of families living in this area and there already is commercial less than 1 mile from this project on Brimhall and Allen road. He stated they need to look at what is going to happen to the neighborhood, the streets and the kids that cross that area to go to school. He requested it be left as family dwellings. Lori Buller stated her concerns are the traffic on Brimhall, which adding commercial is just going to add to the congestion. She asked if there will be a light or stop sign. She stated she was concerned with the easement on Goodman. Roland Vandervault, with Porter, Robertson Surveying and Engineering, representing the applicant, stated they agree with Staff’s recommendation on the zone change and tentative tract map. He pointed out that the property has been under the current owner since 1972 and have been a long-time good neighbor and were there before a lot of the other people in the area. He also stated that in 2003 they sought and obtained commercial zoning on this property and subsequent to that they had a tract map approved in the County of Kern. In about 2005-2006 they City approached the applicant to come into an annexation and the applicant agreed to do that, which provided for sewer service, and extension of Brimhall. He commented that every property owner that came into that annexation enjoyed the continuation of the zoning that they currently had at the time of that annexation, except for this current property. Mr. Vandervault also pointed out that the General Plan provides for commercial about every one mile so that services can be made available and therefore this project falls into the General Plan’s goal. He stated that the closest zoned property for commercial is one mile. He also pointed out that if the residents were living in the area prior to 2003 they had an opportunity to voice their concerns at a hearing previously and if they have moved into the area after 2003 it was already zoned commercial so they should have known and further that it’s only been since February 2007 that this piece has not been zoned commercial. Ron Froehlich, owner and applicant, stated they have owned this property since 1972 and was re-zoned from agriculture to E-1/4 estate with three acres of commercial zoning on the NW corner of Brimhall and Renfro in 1989-1990. He further explained that a revised tentative map with the additional two acres of commercial zoning on the SW corner of Brimhall and Renfro was approved by the County Planning Commission in 2003. On November 13, 2003, the Board of Supervisors held another public hearing and passed resolutions to approve the zoning. In 2006 they got a three-year extension on a tentative tract map because they had not completely been through the annexation process. He stated they were approached by the City to annex this property in the spring of 2004, at which time they discussed extending the sewer. In May 2006, he stated they requested annexation from the City and in July the City responded and stated, “the City of Bakersfield is very eager to annex this property, although the property is not contiguous with the City.” Therefore, the residents from Jenkins Road to Renfro Road had to agree to the annexation. In addition they had to approach the County to have a county sump annexed into the City of Bakersfield to make the annexation work. In October 2004, he stated they obtained LAFCO’s approval and the property was annexed into the City. He stated they are now going through the process again to re-zone to commercial, which was already done in the City. Mr. Froehlich stated that there is not an easement on the north property between the neighbors on Goodwin and where they presently have an orchard and that they are enjoying the use of a dirt road, but the dirt road is not an easement that runs with their land. Roland Vandervault further commented on the tract map and stated that it is basically the tract map that was approved in 2003 and by condition the arterial roads, Brimhall and Renfro, will have to be improved to arterial standards in an orderly fashion. He also stated that the tract map Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 11 is conditioned for each phase to take care of a proportionate share of those major street improvements. He also pointed out that the conditions handle traffic appropriately and require that the developer will put in median islands, traffic interconnect with pull rope. He also stated that it is a good design to be compatible with the neighborhood and that there is limited amounts of exits and entrances onto the major streets. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac stated that he does not see anything wrong with this request. Commissioner Tkac inquired why they had to do this a second time. Staff responded that they made a mistake and that an inexperienced planner looked at a prezoning map that predated the latest County decision on this property and gave them the entitlement for the NW corner and didn’t double check to see that the SW corner had changed in the County and therefore it ended up coming into the City with an Estate zoning on the SW corner and the only way they can legally rectify it because they are official maps, they could not undo it without a public hearing. Staff pointed out that the City picked up the costs and that it is the right thing to do to reinstate those entitlements. Commissioner Tkac stated that he does not want to hold this developer up and he does not think that it is an unreasonable request. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Staff what is a good distance away from commercial or commercial next to commercial. Staff responded that typically there is commercial on half-mile increments and in this particular area the surrounding commercial are at one-mile increments. Staff also pointed out this area is extremely low density residential development with a good grid system and future expressway to handle traffic. Commissioner Johnson commented that the widening of Renfro will be an added benefit to the neighbors. He also pointed out that there is a condition that requires traffic lights at arterials and collectors and Staff confirmed that eventually there will be a light at Renfro and Brimhall. Commissioner McGinnis commented that both of these commercial corners have a PCD overlay, which provides for monitoring by the commission. Commissioner Blockley that a benefit is the widening of Renfro and sidewalks which will help with children crossing to go to school. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve and adopt a Negative Declaration and to approve zone change 07-0768 to C-1 PCD with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit A, and recommend the same to City Council. Roll Call Vote: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: None Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve and adopt a Negative Declaration and to approve the vesting tentative tract map 6098 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit A, and recommend the same to City Council. Roll Call Vote: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: None Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 12 7.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6743 (Phased) (McIntosh & Associates) located between Stine Road and Eberle Road, on the south side of Taft Highway. (Environmental Impact Report on file) Heard on consent calendar. 7.3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6746 (Phased) (McIntosh & Associates) located between Stine Road and Eberle Road, on the south side of Taft Highway. (Environmental Impact Report on file) Heard on consent calendar. 7.4 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6747 (Phased) (McIntosh & Associates) located between Stine Road and Eberle Road, on the south side of Taft Highway. (Environmental Impact Report on file) Heard on consent calendar. 7.5 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6749 (Phased) (McIntosh & Associates) located between Stine Road and Eberle Road, on the south side of Taft Highway. (Environmental Impact Report on file) Heard on consent calendar. 7.6 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6750 (Phased) (McIntosh & Associates) located between Stine Road and Eberle Road, on the south side of Taft Highway. (Environmental Impact Report on file) Heard on consent calendar. 7.7 Zone Change 06-1660 (M.S. Walker & Associates, Inc.) located on the southeast corner of Calloway Drive and Brimhall Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Heard on consent calendar. 7.8 Tentative Tract Map 6459 (Danco Development) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff’s recommendation. Mike Nelson, representing Danco Development, stated they agree with Staff’s recommendations, except for condition 5.4.1.1 which asks them to construct Brentwood Drive for the full extent of the street line within the tract boundary. He stated that the city is already obligated for the improvement and connection from Brentwood Drive from East Niles up to their property boundary. He also pointed out that the adjacent tract to the east was conditioned on their approval to make the improvements from Brentwood Drive to the centerline of that drive. He stated they are being asked to do full width improvements that have already been conditioned and requested by the adjacent map and therefore he is requesting that either they go to the centerline of Brentwood Drive, or that if their tract is developed prior to the adjacent tract and they do the full width improvement that they have an opportunity for reimbursement from the adjacent tract that has already been conditioned with that requirement. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the improvement of Brentwood, to which Staff responded that they would ask the applicant to build the entire width because it lies entirely within his boundary. Staff responded that the adjacent tract, if it went first, has to build Brentwood to the north and this was basically through traffic flow through his tract and then down to Nile and since this applicant may go first, staff would expect this applicant to build everything within his boundary. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the Planning Commission has the authority to allow for reimbursement, to which Staff responded that the other tract has already been conditioned and there was never any mention that there would be any reimbursement. Commissioner Tragish stated that he doesn’t know any way around it and it sounds reasonable. Staff commented that they will pay for the connection between Brentwood to Niles to the project. Staff also commented that the adjacent developer is theoretically ahead of this developer in development and if the other developer builds out first they will have to build Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 13 out half width, but if this developer decides to go first then they will have to build out full width. Staff commented that the other developer is probably at least six months ahead of this developer, but they have not seen improvement plans on it yet. Commissioner Johnson inquired of the City’s building Niles and Brentwood and the previous agreement. Staff responded that they have a condition that the applicant will be reimbursed by the City for those improvements through credits, etc. Commissioner Tkac inquired where the other tract is located. Staff responded that it is NE of this subdivision, but has not be constructed yet. Commissioner Tkac inquired as to the street alignments. Staff responded that the plan is for Azalea to cul-de-sac, with an elevation difference that makes that connection not feasible, so Franklin will come across to intersect the tract and jog up to become Willis. Therefore, it would provide an east-west connection from the one neighborhood over to the school. Commissioner Tkac inquired about the Minetti’s previous concerns. Staff responded that their recollection is that the Minetti’s concerns dealt with drainage and the sump to the south will address those issues. Staff commented they feel that those issues have been resolved. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve and adopt the addendum to the Negative Declaration and to approve the vesting tentative tract map 6459 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit A, and incorporating the memorandum from the Planning Director dated June 7, 2007, and memorandum from Marian Shaw dated June 6, 2007. Roll Call Vote: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NAYS: None 7.9 Tentative Tract Map 7066 (Terra Surveying Consultants) The public hearing is opened. Commissioner Tragish recused himself because he represents a client who resides at this location, staff report given. Dennis Melini, a member of the DBRA, stated that while they are not actually opposed to the actual bringing in of residents, they are concerned with noise issues and the unique environment of where this project will be. They would like to have a disclosure in the paper work so that the buyers understand what is around their neighborhood. He stated that he is concerned with parking. Brian Myron, owner of Syndicate Lounge, which is directly adjacent to this development reiterated Mr. Melini’s comments and added that a large majority of his business, about 80%, occurs between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. He stated that these homeowners should be aware that there are anywhere from several hundred to over 1000 people walking around downtown. He stated that his business has a dance floor and the adjacent owners need to be aware of this. th Eric Jenks, with 19 and Eye Investment Group, a co-owner, stated they looked at the existing zoning of the surrounding property and what the City’s future vision was. He stated they are aware of the zoning and their prospective buyers want to live in this kind of surrounding environment. He further pointed out that they feel this is nothing but a benefit to the surrounding establishments. He also commented that with regard to parking there is a parking agreement waiting to be executed which provides for parking for their residential units. Don Martin, a tenant in the building, (Metro Gallery), stated he moved to this location about six months ago because of this current project and what is going on downtown. He said there is a lot th of new neat shops on 19 Street, and that he plans to buy one of these units. Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 14 Matthew Flanagan stated he works at the boutique directly across from the building and he plans to buy one of these units. He stated that he thinks it will be a better place for people downtown, and encouraged the Planning Commission to vote in favor of this project. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Johnson stated that he sees that downtown is really in a transition phase. He stated that it would even be better if there was a covenant that advised that there are existing businesses with night life, bars and nightclubs. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he is in favor of this project. He commented that his concerns are with regard to parking. Eric Jenks responded that they have reached an agreement on the deal, but there was some language that was being adjusted as there was an incorrect insurance requirement that’s currently being corrected by the redevelopment department and they are waiting to get those comments back so that it can be executed. Commissioner McGinnis suggested perhaps a loading zone, but he does not want to see parking on the street by the tenants. Staff responded they could provide for this. Commissioner Tkac commented that the one problem with downtown is sometimes the nightlife, and he hopes that perhaps this project would be a calming effect on downtown. He stated that his concern is the restrictions and if it is possible to require this project be strictly owner occupied. Staff responded that the Department of Real Estate would probably control this which is where all condominium projects have to go through, which would include the CC&R’s. Commissioner Tkac commented that he would hope that this would be a calming effect on the area as the police are already overworked. He also inquired if there is parking underneath the Hay building. Eric Jenks responded that there is not and currently there is just storage for the retail tenants. Commissioner Tkac stated that perhaps the tenant’s downtown could work towards getting it to be a more walkable downtown. Commissioner Blockley stated he is in favor of the renovation of downtown. Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve tentative tract 7066 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution with a covenant concurrently with recordation of a final map the subdivider shall record a covenant disclosing potential nuisance activities related to business hours of operation, noise, entertainment and related issues in the downtown area. The covenant shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to recordation. Roll Call Vote: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tkac NAYS: None ABSENT: Tragish 8. AD HOC COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS: Staff advised that Vintage Production has requested that the Planning Commission appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to look at the city ordinance dealing with mineral rights and extraction with regard to notice requirements, drill island densities and size, and permitting and zoning. Staff indicated they have reviewed the request and some issues the Planning Commission might be looking at and agree that an Ad Hoc committee would be appropriate way to address the concerns. Commissioners McGinnis, Johnson and Andrews expressed an interest in being on the Ad Hoc Committee. Commissioner Blockley appointed these three commissioners and appointed Commissioner Johnson to be head of the Committee. Planning Commission – June 7, 2007 Page 15 9. COMMUNICATIONS: st Staff advised that there is a general plan cycle coming up for the next two meetings; one on June 21, ththnd and the other on July 5 and further advised that there will be pre-meetings on June 18 and July 2. Staff also advised that a quorum is necessary at the pre-meeting. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Johnson inquired if the Commission has the ability to form Ad Hoc committees of its own and if now is the time to address these parking issues through an Ad Hoc committee. Staff responded that they are currently reviewing several ordinances regarding mixed use and how to incentivize it in the downtown area, as well as parking in the downtown area. He stated any specific concern may be appropriate for a committee, but Staff is also working with the economic development group in trying to figure out ways to accommodate these types of uses. Staff suggested that they could provide updates in this process as it continues and if the Commission wants to jump in and form a committee it may be more appropriate then. Commissioner Tragish asked if they can leave the draft EIR’s and when the final drafts come out they can be provided another book. Staff responded they can leave the books. Commissioner Stanley stated that he attended the final general plan community meeting and there was a lot of good community interest there with a lot of good comments. Staff commented that they will be producing a document in the fall that has all of the information from the community meetings, plus the e-mails and surveys will be put in a public outreach document. Commissioner Andrews stated that he attended the community meeting at the Martin Luther King Park and it was well organized and directed by Staff. 11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was concluded at 9:58 pm. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director June 27, 2007