Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/07/97Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL AGENDA EGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD _ Thursday, August 7, 1997 5:30 p.m. MATHEW BRADY, Chairperson JEFFREY TKAC, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MICHAEL DHANENS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN ALTERNATE: BETSY TEETER NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. final agenda may be obtained fro? the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ' A ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC NEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO S',PEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND ,PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. N~OTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any use involv6d in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, c/o Officie of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA · 93301. A $330 nOn-refur~dable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the apphcant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divis: ons w require a $330 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received w~thln the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, 8/7/97 3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) Page 2 These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES o o Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held May 15, June 5, June 16, June 19, and July 14, 1997. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP Tentative Parcel Map 10444 (Porter-Robertson) Located on the northeast corner of VVible Road and Motor Center Drive. Consisting of 3 parcels on 14.4 acres zoned M-1 and a waiver of mineral rights owners' signature in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 B.1. (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions. Group vote PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT Extension of Time - Tentative Tract 5441 (Floyd Hinesley) Located on the northeast corner of Hageman Road and Jewetta Avenue. Consisting of 363 residential lots and one church lot on 109.30 acres zoned R-1 and R-l-CH. (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions. Group vote o Agenda, PC, 8/7/97 Page 3 7. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 1) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5876 (Martin-Mclntosh) Located on the west side of Old River Road at Camino Media. Consisting of 147 lots for single family dwellings and 7 non-buildable lots on property zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and a waiver of mineral rights owners' signature in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 B.1. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions. Group vote 2) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5877 (Martin-Mclntosh) Located on the north side of Ming Avenue between Grand Lakes Boulevard and Old River Road. Consisting of 81 lots for single family dwellings and 8 non- buildable lots on property zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and a waiver of mineral rights owners' signature in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 B.1. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with-conditions. Group vote PUBLIC HEARINGS -- SCOPING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS 1) GRAND CANAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) SCOPINC; MEETING. PROJECT CONSISTS OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO ALLOW 550,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER ON 64 ACRES FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED BETVVEEN THE ARVIN-EDISON CANAL, SOUTH H STREET, BERKSHIRE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive comments and refer to staff. 2) BUENA VISTA PROJECT/KERN RIVER RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) SCOPING MEETING. PROJECT CONSISTS OF A GENERAl PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO PERMIT THE URBANIZATION OF A 973.29 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN THE KERN RIVER, WHITE LANE, BUENA VISTA ROAD AND ALLEN ROAD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive comments and refer to Staff. Agenda, PC, 8/7/97 Page 4 10. 11. 12. Au,qust 4, 1997 COMMUNICATIONR A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A. Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT Planning Directolr' ~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, August 7, 1997, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MATHEW BRADY, ChairPerson STEPHEN BOYLE MICHAEL DHANENS MARTI KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN BETSY TEETER Absent: JEFFREY TKAC, ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: STAFF: Present: PUBLIC STATEMENTS LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary The Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM-~ None. APPROVAL OF MINUTE.~ Minutes of the regular.meetings held May 15, June 5, June 16, June 19, and July 14 were approved with the following notations: Minutes of June 19, 1997, Agenda Item 4. la -- Chairman Brady turned the meeting over to Vice-Chairman Tkac due to a previously announced conflict. Minutes, PC, 8/7/97 Page 2 Minutes of May 15, 1997, Agenda Item 6, Page 4, last paragraph, to read, "Mr. Brady asked if a condition could be added when the tanks were replaced" instead of "moved;" 4th line down change "realign" to "reline." A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by-Commissioner Boyle, to approve the minutes as modified. Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1044 Staff report was given recommending approval with conditions. The public hearing portion of this item was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Randy Bergquist of Porter-Robinson Engineering requested a clarification concerning a request for the deferral of improvements to the sidewalks. Mr. LaRochelle replied that a resolution had been passed some years ago that required sidewalks in that area. Should the Commission approve the deferral, Staff would determine what necessary bonding would need to be done for those improvements as development occurs. Mr. Bergquist indicated that such a deferral would be requested, but that the owner would agree to all other conditions. ' The public hearing portion of this item was closed. Commissioner Tavorn asked Staff if the present auto dealerships on Wible Road north of the railroad tracks have sidewalks. Mr. LaRochelle replied that they did. Commission Dhanens asked Staff when the resolution requiring sidewalks was made, and would those developments be required to put in sidewalks as a result of that resolution. Mr. LaRochelle replied that the original parcel map did not have the requirement-for sidewalks. The resolution was passed at a later date, but those properties already subdivided without sidewalks would not be required to put in sidewalks. Mr. LaRochelle indicated that sidewalks may be required at some time in the future. Commissioner Dhanens asked if the requested deferral would only delay the requirement for sidewalks but not eliminate the requirement at a later date; Mr. Rochelle replied that that was correct, that as the property develops sidewalks would be required at the appropriate point of development. Commissioner Boyle asked if.the sidewalks would be installed on all three roads facing Wible, Motor Center Drive, and Gasoline Alley Drive. Mr. LaRochelle replied that they would. Commissioner Boyle indicated that he would approve the applicant's installation of sidewalks on Wible Road as a matter of safety, since Wible Road is already developed and is a heavily traveled road with pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Boyle indicated that since properties on Motor Center Drive and Gasoline Alley Drive are currently undeveloped, he would support a request for deferring installation of sidewalks to a later date. Minutes, PC, 8/7/97 Page 3 Commissioner Kemper agreed with Commissioner Boyle. She pointed out that 'sidewalks installed on undeveloped property could be damaged by heavy equipment during future development. Chairman Brady asked about a poSsible bonding requirement in the event deferral is granted. Mr. LaRochelle replied that such a requirement was a condition of approval, preferred by Staff, that would ensure installation of the specified improvements at a later date. Mr. Bergquist indicated that the applicant would comply with such a requirement. A motion was made Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to approve Tentative Parcel Map 10444, subject to conditions outlined in the attached resolution (Exhibit D), with the exception that the sidewalks on Motor Center Drive and Gasoline Alley Drive be deferred until further development, and that the applicant will post the required bonds for such improvements. Motion carried. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5441 7,1 Staff report was given recommending approval. The public hearing portion of this item was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Mr. Bergquist of Porter-Robinson indicated that the applicant agreed with the specified conditions. The public hearing portion of this item was closed. Motion was made by COmmissioner Kemper, seconded by CommiSsioner Boyle, to approve a one-year extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract 5441 with findings and conditions as set forth in Resolution Exhibit C. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5876 Staff report was given recommending approval with conditions. The public hearing portion of this item was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Mr. Roger Mclntosh of Martin-Mclntosh Engineering, representing Castle and Cooke, indicated that the applicant had reviewed the staff report and memorandum dated August 1,-1997, and concurred with all the conditions and revisions. The public hearing portion of this item was closed. Minutes, PC, 8/7/97 Page 4 Commissioner Dhanens referred to an item in the staff report regarding certain reverse corner lot situations and potential solutions. He asked Mr. Mclntosh if this had been reviewed, and if so, whether or not some of the lots could be redesigned according' to Staff suggestions. Mr. Mclntosh replied that the reverse corner lot item had been reviewed. He indicated that while Staff discourages reverse corner lots, the lots in question had been turned to accommodate maximization of a.north-south configuration which is encouraged by the Subdivision Map Act for solar design. Mr. Mclntosh also indicated that the corner lot at entrance on Camino Media would be turned north-south as well. . A motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and to approve proposed vesting Tentative Tract 5876 with findings and conditions as outlined in the attached resolution (Exhibit C), including the memorandum to the Planning Commission from Jack LaRochelle dated August 1, 1997. Motion carried. 7.2) Public Hearing - Vesting Tentative Tract 5877 Staff report was given recommending approval with conditions. The public hearing portion of this item was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Mr. Roger MClntosh of Martin-Mclntosh Engineering, representing Castle and Cooke, indicated that the applicant had reviewed the staff report and 'memorandum dated August 4, 1997, and concurred with all the conditions and revisions. The public hearing portion of this item was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and to approve proposed vesting Tentative Tract 5877 with findings and conditions as outlined in the attached resolution (Exhibit C), including the memorandum to the Planning Commission from Jack LaRochelledated August 4, 1997. Motion carried. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - SCOPING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS 1) Grand Canal Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Meetinq 'Staff recommended the Commission receive comments and refer to Staff. Mr. Glen LaJoie, Project Manager for the Grand Canal Environmental Impact Report, gave a presentation of the project scope and the issues to be addressed in the EIR, including land use and relevant planning, compatibility of the project with adjacent uses, consistency of the project with City policies and documents; Minutes, PC, 8/7/97 Page 5 agriculture, including farm land conversion issues; public health and safety; aesthetics (light and glare); traffic and circulation; noise and air quality; biological and cultural resources; public service utilities; and growth inducement. The public hearing portion of this item was opened. Mr. Kenneth Hersh stated that unless the proposed project would provide commercial enterprises not already present, it would interfere with local businesses. He felt it was too close to metropolitan Bakersfield, that the economic ramifications have not been addressed such as blight and creating vacant commercial space, and recommended that the EIR cover this item explicitly. Mr. Dick Jennings, representing the Stockdale Fashion Plaza Merchants Association, estimated that the cost of servicing the debt on such a project, which he stated would be around $50 million, would be approximately $7 to $8 a square foot as opposed to current costs borne by other commercial centers of $2 to $3 per square foot. He felt this would translate into a high-cost lease for future tenants, pointing out that several existing centers already have a considerable number of vacancies. Mr. Jennings indicated that the proPosed project would have a considerable negative effect on the downtown commercial enterprises. Chairman Boyle reminded Mr. Jennings that the purpose of discussion on this item at the present time was to give direction to the EIR consultant. He asked Mr. Jennings if he wished to have the EIR include the economic impact of the project. Mr_. Jennings indicated that he did. Mr. Grady indicated that fiscal impact analysis would be included in the EIR, but only as it would pertain to the environment, not whether or not the project would put another retailer out of business. Commissioner Boyle concurred with Mr. Grady's assessment that the EIR should not be used to discuss economic competition, but that it should reflect consideration of environmental impacts, including possible blight. Mr. Boyle stated that he had reviewed the initial study for the draft EIR and did not feel it currently contained sufficient data on fiscal impacts, and required additional information on the economic impacts in terms of environmental issues. He ' expressed concern regarding the conflict with General Plan designation and 'zoning; he felt the information regarding this issue was insufficient. Mr. Boyle also referred to what impact increased traffic would have on a two-lane bridge near the proposed shopping center. While conc. eding that the bridge falls under the jurisdiction of Cal-Trans and not the City, Mr. Boyle indicated that a thorough investigation of this issue should be included in the final document. Commissioner Dhanens referred to certain CEQA guidelines pertaining to -economic impact and asked Staff for comments. Mr. Grady indicated that such fiscal impacts would be considered in the Draft EIR, but only as related to Minutes, PC, 8/7/97 Page 6 environmental, not competitive, issues including blight. He also stated that while the proposed development is labeled as a factory outlet, according to his interpretation of the scope of the project, over half of the retail space is not similarly categorized. He requested a more specific definition of the proposed use of retail space in this project. Mr. Dhanens also expressed concerns over the aesthetics of such a large area of uninterrupted parking, location of a sump, and police service impacts. Commissioner Tavorn requested additional information regarding air quality impacts and asked for clarification of a notation of "no impact" regarding temperature and climate change. He also asked Staff to more clearly define "objectionable odor;" the phrase was subjective and open to many interpretations. Mr. Tavorn indicated a reference to a boat in the canal, asking Staff to describe the vehicle and its purpose. Staff replied that the project included gondola rides on the canal. Commissioner Teeter asked Staff to explain what was meant by fiscal impact. Staff replied that in terms of the EIR, the only fiscal impacts considered would be those that would possibly result in a significant physical change in the environment. The public portion of the hearing was closed; Staff was instructed to take the comments and apply them. Staff indicated that anyone wishing to be kept apprized of the progress of this project should leave their name with Mr. Grady or Mr. LaJoie. 8.2) Buena Vista Project/Kern River Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Meeting Staff recommended the Commission receive comments and refer to Staff. Mr. LaJoie gave a presentation of the project scope and the issues to be addressed in the EIR, including amendments and zone change. Mr.. LaJoie indicated that this would be a program EIR in accordance with CEQA guidelines and would cover the same scope as listed in the previous item. The public hearing portion of this item was opened; no one spoke. Commissioner Kemper requested a study on the potential of a green belt maximizing the use of the river-canal way access, adequate parking for recreation, and the use of the property on the north side of Stockdale Highway for parks and recreation. Minutes,. PC, 8/7/97 Page 7 Commissioner Tavorn asked if the current ordinance· regarding':~]r,.:q.uality had been updated to comply with recent changes that occurred in July· staff replied that the study would be in accordance with the current rules of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, which have been updated. Mr. Tavorn asked for a clarification of the definition of a program EIR; Staff replied that a program EIR was another type of environmental impact report. Mr. Tavorn asked Mr. LaRochelle if the impact of the proposed removal of Westbelt Freeway would be included ltd..the final EIR, and what mitigating measures would be taken. Mr. LaRoche'lle'indicated that this particular artery had been relocated, not deleted, and that it woul-~ be so specified. Mr. Tavorn referred to population and housing, asking that the numbers as listed be altered to reflect the most recent trends. ~'~..~ _ ._ · . - Mr. Mike Couchet of Stream Energy reminded the Commissioners that Stream currently operates the Canfield Ranch oil field. The northern boundary of this field is the half-section line of Section 12, which is involved in the proposed project· Stream has a current lease covering all of Section 12, and expressed a · willingness to cooperate with the developer in matters of suitable drill islands that will enable the minerals present at that site to be harvested. Chairman Brady asked if the EIR would include a study of how the proposed development would affect adjacent operations and properties. Staff replied that it would not in a direct sense, only on the effects on the physical environments; that this particular item would be more appropriately relegated to a different phase of the review process, such as General Plan or subdivision. Commissioner Boyle felt that the draft EIR should address compatibility to surrounding farmland as well as residential property. He also disagreed with a "no impact" designation for growth inducement, indicating that a certain amount seemed a likely result of the proposed realignment of the freeway. Mr. BoYle also noted that while a significant impact was anticipated ifor farmland conversion, no mitigation had been made; he requested that alternatives be included in the study. ~ Commissioner Kemper stressed the importance of making certain buffer zones between development and thoroughfares leading into the city as attractive as possible. CommissiOner Boyle felt that the issue of burning nearby i:armland should also be addressed and assurances provided that farmers will be allowed to do what is necessary to raise their crops. The public portion of the hearing was closed; Staff was instructed to take the comments and apply them. Minutes, PC, 8/7/97 Page 8 9. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Grady submitted a memorandum requested from the Building Director regarding fee comparison. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Tavorn asked if traffic impact fee schedules of other towns were included in the memorandum from the Building Director. Staff replied traffic impact fees, while not specifically identified, are usually included within various categories as labeled by the responding jurisdiction. Commissioner Tavorn asked Ms. Marino if any court decision had been made regarding the City of Bakersfield v. Ken Hersh. Ms. Marino replied that the judge took it under submission; there was no ruling. Commissioner Dhanens expressed appreciation to Staff and Mr. LaJoie for including the scoping sessions on the agenda. Referring to the reverse corner lot situation, Mr. Dhanens asked if Staff had ever investigated the possibility of either rewriting certain portions of the pertinent ordinances or eliminating them altogether. Staff replied that they had been directed to do so by Mr. Hardisty. Chairman Brady also extended his appreciation to Staff regarding inclusion of the scoping sessions on the Planning Commission agenda. 11. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF 12. THE NEXT PRE-MEETING The pre-meeting scheduled for August 18, 1997 was not canceled. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary