Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/01 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall ROLL CALL STEPHEN BOYLE, Chairman RON SPRAGUE, Vice Chairman MA THEW BRAD Y DA VID GA Y TOM MCGINNIS JEFFREY TKAc MURRAY TRAGISH 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS CONSENT CALENDER 3.1 Non-Public Hearing Items: 3.1a Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held June 25, 2001, June 28, 2001 and July 19, 2001. 3.1b Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on Tentative Tract 5430, Phases B, F & G;-(Mc!ntosh & Associates) Containing 55 lots for single family residential purposes, zoned R-l; located west of Old River Road, north and .' South of White Oak Drive (extended). (Negative Declaration on file) 3.1c Extension of Time for VeSting Rights on Tentative Tract 5293. (Mclntosh & Associates) ~Containing 25 lots for single family residential purposes, zoned R-l; located at the northeastern terminus of Grand Lakes Avenue in the Seven Oaks area. (Negative Declaration on file) Group Vote 3.2 Public Hearing Items DISCUSSION ON CHANGE OF STATUS OF THE KERN RIVER FREEWAY AND ITS' AFFECT ON ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. ~ This pre-meeting agenda may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting, at which time a final agenda may'be obtained from.the Planning Department. Items listed on this agenda will be continued to 5:30-p.m. on the Thursday following the date listed on this agenda. Agenda, PC, Thursday --August 16, 2001-- Council Chamber, City Hall Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS -Tentative Tract Maps 5.1) ReviSed Tentative *Tract 6000 located at the northeast corner of Alfred (Ward 3) Harrell Highway and Highway 178 (Porter-Robertson) (Negative Declaration on file) Containing 316 buildable lots, 5 landscape lots, 3 open space Iots,.one sump 10t and one water well lot on 217.39 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-1 HD (One Family Dwelling - Hillside Development Combining); located at the northeast corner of Alfred Harrell Highway and Highway !78. The optional' design applies to double frontage lots, private streets and reverse corner lots. Land will be reserved for a drilling island in accordance with. BMC 16.20.060 B.3. RECOMMENDATION: Approve · '- ~ Roll call vote- 5.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 6066 located on the southwest corner of Berkshire (Ward ?) Roadand Akers Road (SmithTech USA Inc.) (Negative Declaration on file) · Containing 178 lots on 39.99 acres for purposes of single family development, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and request to waive mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B:I; located on the southwest corner of Berkshire Road and Akers Road. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote 6. PUBLIC HEARING - Public Scoping Meeting for Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Update - This is a joint project between the City and County forthe purpose of amending antiquated portions of the text constituting the 2010 General Plan. (City/County) RECOMMENDATION: Receive Comments and Refer to Staff PRESENTATION OF "COST OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA" BY SRIRAM KHI~, Ph.D. AND ~.BBAS GRAMMY, Ph.D. APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO COMMITTEE TO MEET WITH URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. COMMUNICATIONS A) - Written B) Verbal Agenda, PC, Thursday --August 16, 2001-- Council Chamber, City Hall Page.3 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees 11. ADJOURNMENT Aug[Jst 13, 2001 JAMES D. MOVlUS, Secretary Acting Planning Director ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 TrUxtun Avenue Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish None Advisory Members: Staff: Ginn~; Gennaro, James D. Movius, Steve Walker, Dennis Fidler Jennie Eng, Pam Townsend PUBLIC STATEMENTS Brian Todd, Building Industries Association, stated they have reviewed the study regarding development costs and would like to come back before the Commission in the future with their opposing response: CONSENT CALENDAR: 3.1 Non-Public Hearing Items: 3.1a . Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held June 25, 2001,.June 28, 2001 and July 19, 2001. ~ 3.1b Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on Tentative Tract 5430, Phases B, F & G. (Mclntosh & Associates) Containing 55 lots for single family residential purposes,- zoned R-1; located west of Old River Road, north and south of White Oak Drive (extended). (Negative Declaration on file) : 3.1c ' Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on Tentative Tract 5293. (Mclntosh & Associates) Containing 25 lots for single family residential purposes, zoned R-l; located at-the northeastern terminus of Grand Lakes Avenue in the Seven Oaks area. (Negative Declaration on file) Commissioner Sprague notedan error on page 11 of the June 28th Minutes,. wherein it states that Commissioner Brady made a motion on two items, and it should read that Commissioner Sprague made the motions, seconded by Commissioner Tkac. Commissioner Sprague moved to approve the consent calendar, seconded by Commissioner Gay. Motion carried. 3.2 Public Hearing Items None. Minutes, PC, August 16, 2001 Page-2 DISCUSSION ON CHANGE OF STATUS OF THE KERN RIVER FREEWAY AND ITS' AFFECT ON ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. Staff member Jack LaRochelle, Assistant Public Works Director, made a presentation. He gave a history regarding the 2010 General Plan and the Circulation Element which contained a major east-west freeway called the Westside Freeway. The 2010 Plan wanted to establish a funding mechanism to.have development pay for that. In 1991 a specific plan.line was adopted by both the City and the County. Since that time'land has been purchased and right-a-ways preserved. At this time 50 acres has already been purchased, and approximately another 50 acres reserved. There. is funding from developers through the traffic impact fee of which a pOrtion of that fee pays for the freeways. Approxir~ately $19 million of the traffic impact fee goes towards the Kern River Freeway project. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 5.1) Revised Tentative Tract 6000 located at the northeast corner of Alfred Harrell Highway and'Highway 178 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 3) Staff had nothing to add since the Monday Pre-Meeting. Commissioner S prague commented that he represents the property owner to the south, adjacent to the property and that he has a conflict of interest. ~ Hearing opened for public comments in opposition to agenda item 5.1. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, stated that they feel that if development occurs it should occur in the northeast where it is not prime agricultural land..He requested in a letter that the developer include some access where they have a hiking club. TheYhave concern with the scenic vista. Would like a viewshed ordinance to protect the bluffs in the future. Developers should plant trees and would like ordinance requiring planting of sufficient trees. Minimize lighting. Developer should assist with road. _development. Would like a specific plan for the northeast to deal with all of the issues in the northeast. Hearing closed for public comments in opposition. Hearing opened for public comments in favor of the recommendation. Harold Robertson, with Porter Robertson Engineering & Surveying representing Kyle Carter Homes, the applicant, stated they are in concurrence with-the Conditions of Approval with the exception of the last Condition (~-40), which states "a block wall 8' in height shall be constructed along the property lines separating all lots from the proposed drillingreservation site." The applicant recommends that Condition ~40 requiring the block wall be deleted.. Mr. Robertson responded to Mr. Nipp's concerns. Hearing closed for public comments in favor. Hearing opened for COmmissioner Comments. Commissioner Brady stated that it was his understanding that the purpose of the 8' block wall with the barbed wire on the inside at 7' was mainly for security reasons to keep people out of the drilling island and out of the equipment, to which staff responded that the block wall.could serve as security and as noise attenuation. Minutes, PC, August 16, 2001 Page 3 Commissioner Brady inquired if the applicant would be required to placethe barbed wire at ~ height of 7' on the interior side of the block wall per the Municipal..Code, to which staff responded it is not a requirement of the developer under the condition as it is written, because staff's main 'purpose was to provide some attenuation. - Commissioner Brady !nquired what staff's position is with'[egard to'the request for an 8' block wall, to which staff responded that they would agree that.it is reasOnable to have it eliminated at. this point, .because originally it was put on with thethought that if it was the Federal government that intends to drill there, there are probably not goiag to go through the use permit process, otherwise it would have been the driller's responsibility as required under the Ordinances. With the evidence before the Commission it appears that .it probably would not do the job, and staff agrees that it could be eliminated. Commissioner Brady asked if any kind of fencing would be required, to Which staff responded that they would not recommend any fencing at this time. : Commissioner Brady inquired if the City can require that the Federal:government go through a Conditional Use Permit before they begin drilling, to which the City Attorney's Office res ponded that they will do everything they can to enforce their local rules and regulations on the Federal government, acknowledging that it would be d!fficult, which is why staff put the 8' block Wall up originally. Mr. Carter stated that,the BLM has a regulation about ddl!ing in residential areas and they disallow it completely, with the exception if they consider to be draining of their minerals from an adjacent proPerty. Therefore, the only way they would allow a lease to be put on the property is if there~ was somebody adjacent.to the prope~j whO drilled, and was draining from a pool that's underneath their property. Otherwise the BLM doesn't allow that in property that is in the City or in a residential area. It is highly unlikely that it will ever be drilled or leased out. There have been three companies attempt to find minerals and. none were found. The mineral rights adjacent to these properties is being acquired currently by them andlthey have the mineral rights t° the*south, and within a month of - acquiring the mineral rights on the 200 acres to the north of this property, Therefore, it is highly unlikely'this drill site will ever, ever be used. Commissior~er Brady stated that in light of the testimOny o{ the applicant and the drawings demonstrating the noise attenuation, he supports the aPplicant's request:to eliminate Condition ~40 requiring a block wall. In response to Mr. Nipp, Commissioner Brady stated that regarding the suggestion for increasing.the* burden, on development on the northeast he believes that it would be counterproductive in that they are trying to do everything they can to encourage develOpment in the northeast, and he doesn't believe that you encourage development by making it more expensive and putting additional conditions. Commissioner Gay stated that'178 does need improvements will all the projected new develoPment, and inquired if 178 would be funded by CalTrans, to which staff responded that it is a'CalTrans facility, and is on the Regional Impact Fee List, and the developer is paying for mitigation which is going through the Regional Fee, so there will be mitigation to 178, that allows .for future expansion of 178 in this area until such time as it goes to a different route. Commissioner Gay stated that in regards to the tree shading for residential, the ordinance was notto apply to residential, but that if that is the direction staff wanted to go, then he ' suggests that it go to the voters to decide if they want to impose upon themselves a 40% shading requii'ement. 'Minutes, PC, August 16; 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Gay stated that with the elimination of item #40 he would'support the motion. - Commissioner McGinnis asked about item number 38 regarding the limitation of seven phaseS, to which staff res ponded that the condition prevents a developer from bringing final maps-with 20 phases in a map and they're just little bits of property.. They are looking at the number of'units being developed and the improvements associated with those phases on the tract map. Mr. R0bertson stated that they have seven phases. Mr. Robertson stated that the grading plan and drainage study has beensubmitted to the staff.for review and' they anticipate a response from staff within the next week. The im provement plans for the streets and the sewers are approximately 80% completed, and they are ready to submit those. They have their wall and landscaping concept plan prepared and it will-be submitted next week and brought before the Commission for approval.. Commissioner Tkac asked Mr. Robertson if item #36, regarding a multi-use trail, if it was in addition to or another path, to which Mr. Robertson responded that' the multi-use trail, orthe trail plan; is an unpaved.equestrian trail that runs along Alfred Harrell Highway on the west border of the property. The bike path would be paved for bicycle use, and .the bike trail runs through the tract. Commissioner Tkac inquired if there was a particular theme planned out' with the tract regarding the lig.hting issues, to which Mr. Robertson stated that Mr. Carter is currently ..' working On different types of treatments for street signs 'and lighting. Commissioner Tragish inquired of staff if the project interferes with any recognizable trails inthe area~ to which staff responded that there are trails all over the property from sheep and cattle. He is not sure what the human trail usage is. Commissioner Tragish supports the project. commissioner Boyle asked staff when 178 will be built to four-lanes from Alfred Harrell to Fairfax, to which staff:responded that when the City in the Hills project was approximately 50% COrn pleted.' The funding is developer participation and payment of.the regional traffic !m pact fee. Commissioner Boyle inquired of 178's capacity in its current condition to which staff respo0ded .that it has a level service C of approximately 12,000 cars a day, and its'actual current load is approximately 6,000 cars a day. CommissiOner Boyle Stated that based upon his recollection of the conditions put on the City in the Hills project and based upon the comments of Mr. Walker, he feels confident that the issues regarding the widening of Highway 178 have already been previously addressed, and noted that with only 300 houses in this project, this project in and of itself. will not cause the roadway to fall below the service level of C. The City in the Hills project has already been conditioned to provide for the widening of the road. Commissioner Boyle noted that at this level of hearing they are limited to what the ordinances require, absence a specific finding that public health and safety will be jeopardized,.towhich Ms. Gennaro concurred. Commissioner Boyle supports the project. Minutes, PC; AugUSt 16, 2001 Page:5 Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the Revised Tentative Tract Map 6000, option and design, with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution A with the deletion of Condition 40. Motion passed with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac,' Tragish,. Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sprague 5.2) vesting Tentative Tract 6066 located on the southwest corner of Berkshire Road and Akers Road (SmithTech USA Inc.) (Negative Declaration on file) (Ward 7) Staff had nothing to add from Monday's pre-meeting. Hearing opened for public comments in opposition to staff's recommendation. No one in opposition. Hearing opened for public comments in favor of staff's recommendation. Trish Harbison, with SmithTech USA, representing the property owners, stated that they have read and are in agreement with theconditions of approval as presented in the staff report.' The public portion of the hearing was closed. Hearing opened for Commissioner comments. Commissioner Tragish asked how the applicant proposes to comply with condition 5.1 in.- view of the fact that the adjoining land around the tract is agricultural and the water is being used by the farmer, to which Ms. Harbison responded that the water runs from the west to the east and the developer will cover in the ditches within his tract, and he will relocate down along the west property line in an open ditch which will go into an existing : east-west pipeline, and then run east and flood the 40 acres south.of the project with irrigation. The western portion of the tract are later units so they are hopeful that by the development stage, that the project to the south will be under development as well. Commissioner Tragish inquired if this was acceptable to Planning to which staff responded that it is acceptable and they believe that it will satisfy the condition. Commissioner Tragish asked what the building is on the corner of Berkshire and Akers, to which.Ms. Harbison explained that it is her understanding that it is like a lift station. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Berkshire was considered a local street or a main artery to which staff responded that Berkshire and Akers is a collector street which is in between an arterial and a local street. Motion made by Commissioner Sprague; seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve Vesting Tentative Trabt 6066 with findings and conditions as set forth in the attached. Resolution Exhibit "A". Motion passed with the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, August 16, 2001 Page 6 AYES:' Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None' ABSENT: Six Minute Recess Taken'i: None PUBLIC HEARING - Public Scopin.q Meetin.q for Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Update- This is a joint project between the City and County for the purpose of amending antiquated portions of the text constituting the 2010 General Plan. (City/County) The following comments were made by Marc Gauthier, staff planner, regarding the update of the plan. There are ways to freshen up ,the plan: 1. Accurately. reflect the existing development environment. There were more than 300 things that they said we needed to do in 1990 to implement ordinances, and over 95% were completed. Freeway alignments, traffic im pact fees, land use dedication for park lands and fees have been adopted. The zoning ordinance has been completely rewritten. The City has adopted a HCP. 2. Need one plan like in 1993. 3. Need to incorporate alternative 15 conceptually into the Circulation Element. 4. For Vision 20/20'there was a lot of public participation and someOf those comments need to go into the 2010 Plan. 5. Schedule:'The EIR review is going to start in November for a 45 day period. Ted James, Planning Director for the County of Kern, stated that they intend to utilize the public's opinion during the 20/20 Vision program. They will be proposing some changes. The implementation prdgrams need to be up-to-date. Commissioner Boyle inquired~if there was any kind of limitation on the kind of questions' that may be presented to which Ms. Gennaro responded in the negative. The public podion of the hearing was opened for comments. Gordon Nipp; representing the Sierra Club, suggested that a new trail's plan include historically used hiking trails, that there be a view shed ordinance to keep houses off the bluffs, that there be an ordinance requiring tree shading for new single family homes, policies for requiring energy panels on new houses be developed, that developers in the east be required to contribute to park land purchase in the bluffs, and that a specific plan for the northeast be created to deal with the many issues there, that Cumulative air quality impacts of development be dealt with in the General Plan update, and that an urban growth boundary be developed in the new General Plan update. Mr. Nipps letter regarding agenda item number 5.1 will be included with this item. Staff stated that the policy and ordinance comments of Mr. Nipp need to be made when the actual policy document is before the Commission and is being formed. Minutes, PC, August 16, 2001 Page 7 'Ferry St011er with Smart Growth Coalition stated that the plan is very often changed and it hurts farmers not having some wayof knowing what is going to happen in their area. She will provide her'comments and brochure to the staff. 'Dennis Fox stated that with regard to alternative 15, Highway 65 is going to be a'freeway because -99 has reached the limit of extension, and Highway 84 could be part of the beltway. Local suppo_rt from local developers or contributors do not get national attention or funding. Transportation south of 1-80 has to go through Bakersfield and therefore it would be appropriate to take Seventh Standard Road and run it throUg.h the oil patch and connect it to Highway 184 out by the truck stops. Regarding the south beltway he believes there are two ways to look at it..One, he suggest the City's flood plan be looked at for Lamont (there's a credibility with the County). The other issue is water, and the he suggests-the City adopt a conservation pricing south of the Tehachapi's. Public portion Of the hearing is closed. Hearing opened for Commissioner comments. CommissionerSprague stated that he is not a firm believer of growth boundaries primarily, because Bakersfield, in a rural Setting which has a lot of land, and a lot of non-productive land, is not really receptive .to growth boundaries, Supports the supply and demand theOry. Commissioner-Tkac stated that regarding Ms. Stoller's comments abOut ag and preservation while 'he is for preserving ag land, reality is that there are willing sellers, and willing buyers where the seller can sell for more than he can farm the land for. Comfnissioner Tkac inquired of Mr. Nipp what the approximate cost for the cells on a 2300 sq. foot home would be, to which Mr. Nipp responded that for his home, for a 2500 watt system, it is approximately $22,000, but the State has a rebate which pays $11,000, so the balance is $11,000, and that will conservatively provide 60 to 70 % of his electric use. Commissioner.Tkac stated that he is not supportive of growth boundaries. He believes' that there is a lot of land out there that is not ag friendly, and he supports the Supply and demand market. ' Commissioner Brady questioned whether the EIR should consider the effects of the restrictive zoning and requirements placed within the 2010 plan will actually increase leapfrog development ~by development in areas on our borders that don't have the same requirements. Commi.ssioner-Tragish inquired if the EIR considers the impact of the source of water as to zoning and all the other various planning, to which staff responded that the EIR will Iook~at the program level, the different sources of water and'compare that with the development demand projected under the 2010, and discuss the impacts on water resources as it relates to the projected growth under the general plan policies. Commissioner Boyle 'inquired-of the current size of metropolitan of Bakersfield, to which staff responded 347,000 to 350,000, and the 2010 projection is approximately 3 to 3 ~ % growth rate,' although that number hasn't been finalized yet. He stated that farm land has theunlimited ability' to be renewed, and he thinks ag land preservation is something that should be looked at in terms of the environmental-issues, and the social and economic issues. Commissioner Boyle inquired :of staff why they aren't extending this process out to 2020 because by the time this process is completed it will be almost through the entire plan, to which staff responded that some of the policies wilrnot be aged, and will not havea deadline of 2010, but will be updated as the decision makers see it coming. The environmental impact issues will iook to a 20 year horizon. Minutes, PC, August 16, 2001 Page 8 ' 7. - PRESENTATION OF "COST'OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA" BY. SRIRAM KHI~, Ph.D. AND .~BBAS GRAMMY, Ph.D. Sriram Khe gave a presentation to the Commission regarding the above. APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO COMMITTEE TO MEET WITH URBAN o 10. 11. DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish and Boyle will head up this cOmmittee with Commissioner McGinnis as'the Chair of said committee. ~ - COMMUNICATIONS None. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Brady stated that the Oil Ordinance Committee met and will meet on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Requested staff to contact the Water Department for'the City to address the statement set forth in the report from Mr. Khe regarding the cost differential for water. 'DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING. 12. There will be a pre-meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 4, 2001. Staff will coordinate a meeting with the Urban Develo pment Committee to meet with the Commission's committee. ADJOURNMENT September 21,2001 There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at" 9:22 p.m. '- Pam .Townsend, Recording Secretary //~JAMES D. MOvlus, Secretary ..... nActi g Planninfl Director