Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/01 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Thursday, April 19, 2001 5:30 p.m. MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairman MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. PRESENTATIONS Presentation of service plaques to Commissioners Dhanens and Kemper. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBI' lC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Planning Gommission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any interested person adversely affected by the decision of the Commission. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. The appeal shall include the a~ppellant's interest in or relationship to the subject property, the decision or action appealed amd shall state specific facts and reasons why the aPpellant believes the decision or action of the Cbmmission should not be upheld. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $334 non- refundable filing fee must be ir~cluded with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant orany person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $334 non,refundable filing fee; If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. .If no appeal is received within the specifiedtime period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, Thursday - April 19, 2001 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) 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 h. earing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. 4.1) 4.2) Agenda Item 5) - Approval of Minutes for March 12 & 15, 2001 Agenda Item 7) - General Plan'Consistency Finding for the acquisition of property 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the ~regular meetings held March 12 and 15, 2001. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 6045 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4, ) A proposed subdivision containing 32 lots for single family residential purposes, and 1 lot for awell Site on 13.47 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow for private streets; and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1.; generally located % mile west of Buena Vista Road, north of White Lane (extended), on the northwest corner of Chamber Blvd. (extended) and future Windermere Street. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote 6.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 6046 (Mclntosh & AssociateS) · A proposed subdivisiOn containing 48 lots on 20.83 acres for single family residential purposes, zone R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow maximum block length to exceed 1,000 feet, a reverse corner lot; and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.I.; generally located ½ mile west of Buena Vista Road, north of White Lane (extended), on the southwest corner of Chamber Blvd. (extended) and future Windermere Street. (Negative Declaration on file) (Ward 4) RECOMMENDATION: Group vote Approve Agenda, PC, Thursday- April 19, 2001 Page 3 (Ward 4 WALL AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN P01-0199 - RVTM 5940) (Mclntosh & Associates) 'Wall and landscaping concept plan for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5940 located on the south side of Campus Park Drive, east of Mountain Vista Drive. (Categorically exempt) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group Vote (Ward 1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING for City of Bakersfield acquisition of property for the "Bakersfield Senior Center Housing" construction project and vacation of 5th Street between "R" Street and the Kern Island Canal for that site consisting of 2.77 acres generally'located between the Kern Island Canal, "R" Street, 4th Street and 6th Street. RECOMMENDATION: Make Finding Group Vote PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON ADEQUACY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE P00-0291 (RIVERWALK COMMERCIAL CENTER). This hearing is to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The Riverwalk Commercial Center project is proposing (1) an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by · changing the land use map designation from OC (Office Commercial) to GC (General Commercial), (2) an amendment to the Kern River Plan Element by changing the land use designation from 6.25 (Office Commercial) to 6.2 (General Commercial), and (3) a zone change from'C-0 (Professional and Administrative Office) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 32.89 acres. (Ward 4 ) RECOMMENDATION: ' and Refer to Staff for'Preparation of the Receive Comments Final EIR. 10. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal Agenda, PC, Thursday - April 19, 2001 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees Page 4 12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. 13. ADJOURNMENT April 16, 2001 Held Thursday, April 19, 2001 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE Absent: JEFFREY TIC, AC ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: ANDREW THOMSON, Deputy City Attorney JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: JAMES MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner PATRICIA HOCK, Recording Secretary PRESENTATIONS: Presentation of service plaques to Commissioners Dhanens and Kemper. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Dhanens stated that he has reviewed the tape from the pre-meeting. Commissioner Kemper stated that she has reviewed the tape from the pre-meeting. Minutes, PC, April 19, 2001 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 4.1) Agenda Item 5) - ApProval of Minutes for March 12 & 15, 2001 4.2) Agenda Item 8) - General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of property Motion was made by. Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to approve both consent items. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF-MINUTES, See Consent Agenda. ¸6. PUBLIC HEARINGS -Tentative Parcel Maps 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 6046 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward4) Staff stated that the Commission was given correspondenCe requesting a continuance to the May 3, 2001 meeting. Correspondence from Steam Energy regarding the mineral right issues was given to the Commission as well as a memorandum from ,the Planning Department in response to questions on landscaping in front: of the drill sites. The issues at this time are with regard to the mineral rights and future mineral operations in the area, which is the reason for the request for Continuance. public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against this project. Due to~ the request for continuance by the applicant, :the public portion of the hearing was left open and returned to the Commission for comment and action. Commissioner Brady moved to continue this item until MaY 3, 2001. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Sprague. Motion carried. 6.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 6046 (Mclntosh & Associates)' (Ward 4) Staff stated that there is a memo from Ms. Shaw regarding changing some conditions of approval and a request for continuance was received for this project also. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against this project. Minutes, PC, April 19, 2001 Page 3 Due to the request for continuance by the applicant, the public portion of the hearing was left open and returned to the Commission for Comment and action. Commissioner Sprague moved to continue this item Seconded by Commissioner Kemper. MotiOn carried. WALL AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN P01-0199 -RVTM 5940) (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4) Staff stated that there is an exhibit showing the type of block wall that would be uSed, and indicated that Mr. Paul'Graham, City Urban Forester, is present to answer questions regarding the landscape treatment.. Commissioner Sprague asked if Mr. Graham would discuss alternatives to the Coast Redwood if possible. Mr. Graham stated that the?e appears to be some culture problems with the growth of the Coast Redwood trees planted in the last five years in that there appears to be severe dessication on the South side of the trees which would indicate that there is a physiological problem with water uptake through the root system. He questions whether there is a better tree that would require less maintenance. He stated that these developments have on an average a large percentage of Coast Redwoods and this can be a detriment if there is a pathological problem or environmental problem it decimates that particular species.' Mr. Graham said that until the problems are figured out that he recommends that a different evergreen species be found that is more compatible with the climate in Bakersfield. He does not currently have: a replacement species for the Coast Redwood. His office is working on expanding the tree list to incorporate more native species and some exotics which will grow rapidly and successfully here in Bakersfield. CommissiOner Sprague asked if Mr. Graham could ,provide recommendations to the Planning Commission and Planning Department about the adequacy of the types of ground cover, shrubs and trees backed against the walls, to which Mr. Graham responded that he could make recommendations. Mr. Mclnt°Sh stated that they have used the Coast Redwoods through the southwest in many projects for Castle & Cooke, and it has been their observation and iexperience that once the Coast Redwoods have been planted they do need a lot of water, and oncethey are turned over to the city, there does not seem to be proper maintenance of the trees by the City. If the trees are properly maintained he does not believe that you will see the deprivation that Mr. Graham refers to. Mr. Mclntosh said they want to be able to use and maintain the Coast Redwoods throughout the project. Although they may not be the best tree to use in this climate, he believes that if they are properly maintained they could be successful. He and his client ask the Commission to approve the use of Coast Redwoods, and he would be willing to discuss with Mr. Graham alternative species for Minutes, PC, April 19, 2001 Parle.4 the future, but reminds the .Commission that this isa vesting map and that they want to maintain some continuity with the rest of the project, and requests that the Coast Redwood be allowed in this area. Mr. Mclntosh stated that they want to be able to light the signage at the corners, and clarified that if they do lightlthe signs that those would be owned, operated, and maintained by the homeowner's association and not the city, and that on Conditions 7 and'8, he would like to add!the language "or the school" to both, because there was some discussions with the school as to who would be responsible. _Commissioner Brady inquired of staff if language that the Coast Redwood could remain on the tree list subject to the approval of the Urban Forester in consultation with the applicant to work out this condition, to which staff responded that that would be accep!able, Commissioner Bradyasked if staff had a response to adding "or the schOol" to the end of Conditions 7 and 8, to which staff responded that they would recommend that not be dOne because 'the city has no jurisdiction over the school district, and the city has no ability or mechanism to enforce code against the school district. Mr. Mclntosh responded that they have no agreement currently with the School district, but the school is responsible to build Jamison Street. If they can't get an agreement with the district to maintain lit, then the homeowner's association would take care of it. He believes that the way it is currently written, it limits it to the homeowner's association and they would like that option be left open. An alternative option is that a maintenance district sub area could be setup where the surrounding properties take it into a maintenance district, and the city would then maintain it. This has been done in Haggin Oaks, where the properties owners pay for the maintenance but the work is done by the city. Staff responded that the Parks Department would be able to maintain the street but a remedy to that would be a letter from the school district stating that they accept responsibility to maintain the street. Staff and Mr. Mclntosh stated that it would be acceptable to have language that it will be maintained by the required homeowner's association, unless some other- alternative method of maintenance can be agreed upon to the approval of the Planning Director. Commissioner Boyle asked if Mr. Brady's suggested language would include both the sub-maintenance district or written agreement or written contract from the city to which he responded in the affirmative. Staff recommends that the.sentence in the last line of Condition 5 be deleted, and delete the last sentence in. Condition 4 and replace it with the folloWing sentence "sign 'lighting shall be installed and maintained by the homeowner's association." Staff requested that wording be added to the effect that a lighting plan should be submitted to the Parks Department with the improvement plans for approval. MinuteS, PC, April 19, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Mclntosh rePlied that these would be private lights in private areas, so it wouldn't necessarily need to be approved by anyone, and is not typically approved in those areas operated by a homeowner's association. He suggested that they not go through that effort. Staff responded that if Mr. Mclntosh is just talking about lighting the entry corners that would be the private portion of the street as you drive in, and not the portions at the edge where the collectors come together, it would be acceptable to staff.~ Commissioner McGinnis asked who would be responsible to determine if the landscaping is being maintained properly and by what standards? Staff responded that in a situation where it is privately maintained, it would be a complaint by the property owner or a staff person would have to notice it driving by. There would be no automatic monitoring of properly maintained private property. Commissioner Boyle moved to approve the master wall and landscapingconcept plan file P01-0199 with findings and conditions set forth attached in Resolution A, with the following modifications: Condition 3 will be modified to read "Coast Redwood trees may. be utilized along with other evergreen species as approved by the Recreation and Parks Department. Condition 4 the last sentence that says "the signs are not lighted" will be deleted, and substituted by "the entry corner may include lighted signs which will be installed and maintained in the same manner as provided under Condition number 7. Condition number 5 will be'.modified to delete the last sentence. Condition numbers 7 and 8 will be modified to read "the Wall and landscaping On Jamison Street shall be maintained by the required'homeowner's association, or other entity as approved by the Planning Director based upon written agreements." Commissioner Brady asked staff if the motion was broad enough to include the option for having the maintenance of the landscaping by a special maintenance district, or subset thereof, to which staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Brady seconded the motion. Motion carried. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING for City of Bakersfield acquisition of property for the "Bakersfield Senior Center Housing" construction project and vacation of 5th Street between "R" Street and the Kern Island Canal for that site consisting of 2.77 acres generally located between the Kern Island Canal, "R" Street, 4th Street and 6th Street. See Consent Agenda Minutes, PC, April 19, 2001 Page 6 PUBLIC-HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON ADEQUACY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE P00-0291 (RIVERWALK COMMERCIAL CENTER). (Ward 4 ) Mr. Gauthier gave a brief statement describing the project stating that the purpose of tonight's meeting is a review of the E.I.R. and not on the project or its de,sign. Mr. Gauthier described the E.I.~R. process and how the Final E.I.R.. will be pUt together from tonight's comments and written responses that are received during the 45-day review- period which ends May 7. The Planning Commission won't make any decisions tonight. The Planning Commission will decide whether or not to certify the E.I.R. On June 21 and if the E.I.R. is certified, they will also make a decision on the project at that time. The consultant Mike Houlihan, representing Michael Brandman and Associates, gave a quick summary of the Draft E.I.R. Mr. Houlihan said that in JUly of 2000 a NOP which included the initial study was sent out and in August a public scoping meeting was held in front of the Planning Commission, Between the two there were 13 letters received, and the letters addressed the following issues: 1) Aesthetics and views; 2)'. light and glare; 3) Kern River Plan Element; 4) Public Access to the river; 5) traffic; 6) bu!lding heights; 7) land use change from office commercial to general commercial; 8) and cultural resources. Owners were also preliminarily identified as a potential issue. However, the issues that are the uses that are permitted in the regional commercial .zoning designation, which is the proposed project, those uses that could cause adverse odor impacts typically are required to obtain a permit from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. These uses include (some of them) dry cleaning, gasoline stations, printing shops. The permit is intended to ensure that the measures are in place to remove adverse odors. The district has an enforcement division tO ad,tress non-compliance with these permits. The Draft E.I.R. was prepared and distributed on March 23 for a 46-day public review period responding to manyof the comments and issues raised in the NOP and scoping session. The Final E.I.R. ir~cludes both the Draft E.I.R. and the responses to comments received duringthe 46-day, review period. It will be completed Prior to.the June 21st Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission will also review the mitigation monitoring plan, as well as the findings and statement of overriding considerations. It is anticipated that the City Council will hold a public hearing on the project in August to determine whether to certify the E.I.R. and determine whether or not to approve the project There are six primary environmental issues addressed in the E.I.R. Mrl Houlihan provided the following summary of their findings: Minutes, PC, April-19, 2001 Parle 7 1) Biological ReSources: They foUnd that the project would result in loss of non-native grass land habitat, with some degraded riparian terrain habitat, which would result in loss of habitat for endangered species, such as kit fox and the Tipton Kangaroo Rat. Typical mitigation measures for that is payment into the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. 2) Traffic and Circulation: The project will result in approximately 12,000 additional vehicle trips, whiCh will result in impacts on surrounding intersections and roadways. The typical measure is payment of a fee in accordance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield Traffic Impact Fee Program, which the City has established in order to have some type of organized Way to improve the roadways and intersections. 3) Air quality: There will be an increase in construction and air emissions. Measures are recommended, hOwever, as with similar commercial projects of this size, short term and long term operation impacts would remain significant after implementing the mitigation measures. 4) Cultural Resources: A field survey was conducted. One artifact was found, and due to previOus finds in the vicinity of the project site, monitoring our construCtion activities was recommended, and if Something is found, further measures were identified. 5) AestheticS: They found that due to the allowed structural height within a regional commercial zone of 90' it Was found that the project could substantially alter existing visual characteristics of the area. They recommended that future structUres on the site be limited to 60'. Air quality impaCts were the only issues that were found to be significant and unavoidable. Mr. Houlihan stated that he was available to answer questions. Commission Dhanens thanked Mr. Houlihan and asked if that concluded staff's presentation? Mr. Gauthier said "yes." Public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. Keithly~ with CB Richard Ellis, stated that they have represented Castle & Cooke since the inception of the Marketplace, and continue to do so and that he is also a resident of the neighborhood adjacent to the Marketplace. Mr. Keithly said that he has reviewed the Draft E.I.R. and made a few comments on three specific areas as it relateS to cumulative impacts. The first is land use designations. The former land use designation for this area was as follows: 23 acres of C-2 just north of theriver, 17 acres of C'1 just north of the river, 60 acres of commercial office south of the river, and 15 acres of C-2 south of the river. The land use plan for this area under the current request,, is for a 40 acre regional park, just north of the river, which Mr. Gauthier pointed .out, a 30 acre park shown in green, and 35 acres of commercial retail, and some 70 acres of open space has been created, and 53 less acres of Commercial property. *MinUtes, PC, April 19, 2001 ' Page 8 Mr. ~Keithly pointed.out that the impact of noise and lighting should not be significant as the subject property is comPletely wrapped by manmade and natural barriers. Stockdale Highway with the center median divider to the south and the Kern River to the north completely encapsulate the property from east to west. The final impact Mr. Keithly wanted to discuss was growth. As the E.I.R. points out, · growth is not considered to be a significant impact as a result of this retail development. Office industrial growth and development create jobs and immigration. Retail development occurs as a response to that growth in need for goods and services. And' while there will be some immigration and jobs created due to this proposed retail development the impact will not be significant. Brian Oliver, a resident at 631 Faversham, stated that the E.I.R. talks about 40,000 lumina poles, and wanted to know what exactly is that? Is that the equivalent to the sun in the day time, at night, or,what are we looking at? Does anyone know what that possibly could be? Mr. Gauthier said that they would research the issue and give examPles of what that was compared-to and that t;hey would be available about two weeks prior to the June 21st meeting. Mr. Oliver said that the noise is going to be louder than it is already, with Stockdale Highway and it is sure to affect their lives as far as being able to go out into the backyard and look up and see stars with the City lights, or the River Walk project lights shining at nine, ten, eleven o'clock, like what you find at the Marketplace. That is something that they enjoy dght now and know that it is gone. Jack Hudspeth spoke in favor of the project. He does not see any down side to this project, and knows Castle & Cooke has been a good steward of the property, and the projects that they've put together in the past. He stated that he supports the project and hopes the Commission will vote in favor. Scott White, a resident south of the project, spoke in opposition of the project. His main' concerns are light; noise, traffic, odor, litter, and aesthetics. Mr. White said they have an odor concern if any fast food or restaurants are built and with regard to the aesthetics if a two story building is built it will block out the greenbelt. He thinks that many of the residents would like to be able to see without obstruction. Mr. White said he also has a concern about traffic and if there are restaurants, particularly fast food restaurants, there will be increased litter that would blow directly south. Larry Hogle, Hogle Arvin, Inc., representing Castle & Cooke, spoke in favor of the project and said that when the Commission considers the adequacy of the Final E.I.R., he Will be prepared to make a complete presentation of the General Plan Amendment and zoning request for the 32.9 acre portion of the project. Cheryl ~Scott, a resident at 309 Windsor Park Drive, which is in the neighborhood just South of the proposed project stated that her and her husband have some concerns about items, as they relate to a zoning change from office commercial to, C-2. Ms. Scott said told the CommissiOn that if they ultimately recommend re-zoning the property Minutes, PC, April 19, 2001 Page 9 they believe most of our environmental issues could be addressed by designating the site C-2 with a PCD overlay. As you know, the E.I.R. states that air quality impacts will be significant, even before We know what tenants will be at the site. Although the E.I.R. states that CSUB is the nearest sensitive receptor, Reagan Elementary School, Glenwood Garden's Retirement Community and Mercy Hospital are actually closer than Cai State Bakersfield. One of their main concerns is Reagan Elementary School, which is across Stockdale Highway from the project site. They worry about'construction -~ related pollutionblowing onto the school grounds, and are concerned about the on- going impact of increased air pollution, caused by the yet to be determined stationary sources. Not to mention the 12,000+ extra vehicle trips which are expected daily. More than doubling the number of vehicle trips on that part of Stockdale HighWay now. They would like special mitigation measures required which will specifically address the air pollution impact on Reagan Elementary School. For example, the installation of wind breaks on the windward side of the site during construction. Funding school site improvement such as trees, can help with the long term impact on students, many of whom alreadY suffer from ~illergies and asthma. They ask that the Commission not allow tenants which are more polluting, such as dry cleaners, and please do not allow another movie theater which will attract large numbers of people driving through the area at night and on the weekend. If the project is built, Stockdale HighWay needs to have right turn lanes into the project in order to keep traffic flowing, and preventing it from backing up onto the Highway. It will also need a separate entrance for heavy duty. delivery trucks which will also help alleviate traffic backup. Their other main concern is the aesthetic impact on their neighborhood. They would like to see a single story height limit, with buildings set back from the street, so they are not visible from the neighborhood. Tall pylon signage should not be allowed. We feel strongly that a hotel or motel would' have a significant and negative visual impact on our neighborhood. It would be inconsistent with current and proposed land use in the area, and would most likely give guests 24 hour views of neighboring homes and yards. We ask that you not allow big box retail outlets. If the project is built, we would like to be assured that there will be a water element. We would want mature landscaping, including trees placed throughout, the parking lot. Not just along the perimeter of the property. This would not only make the project cooler and more attractive, but will also help with the amount of reactive organic gasses emitted from hot parked cars. Perimeter landscaping should be at a location and height which will screen the view of the project from the neighborhood, as well as blocking, some of the project sound. They hope the Final Draft of the E.I.R., will address these issues and if they Commission ultimately recommends a zoning change, to please make it With conditions such as a PCD overlay. Terry Rudman, a resident at 10602 Laudon Avenue, south of the proposed River Walk stated that he has two concerns, and they are related. The first is traffic circulation as indicated on pages 2-7, 2-8 and 7.2-2. There will be more cars. On 2-7 the E.I.R. states "The proposed project will result in the generation of 12,021 vehicle trips." This increase in project traffic will result in significant impacts to the intersection of Brimhall and CallowayDrive. The project will also contribute to other intersections and roadways. (That's what itsays in the E.I.R.) The mitigation recommendations talk about installing numerous traffic lights on various intersections there. After watching the downtown area deal with traffic congestion right outside here and down the street, it is not comforting to know that we are next. It is difficult to travel through the downtown area of Bakersfield with all of the new.construction. A mitigating measure that is mentioned here is a Minutes, PC, April 19, 2001 Page10 northbound lane from Brimhall lane onto Calloway; that's not comforting. Long term emissions from this traffic are, according to the report, on 2-11 "significant and unavoidable". The impact of increased traffic will be more pollutants from cars and trucks. Noise will be increased and unavoidable. Cars, trucks, motorcycles, delivery vehicles, carsmaking lunch runs from Stockdale High and Liberty High School, which can contribute 4,000 students. This will lead to increased traffic accidents, more frequent visits by the police, and possibly ambulance personnel. A fire station is slated ' for about a mile south of them on Buena Vista. We will have enough noise. If it goes in as office as it was proposed, that's fine. That is acceptable. If the zone change is made, it's a zoning change It's not a commitment to put in an aesthetically pleasing upscale park. It Will be a zoning change from office commercial to C-2, and that's what we'll have, and then the next phase will be what is put in. Carol Barrell, a resident at 2006 Wedgemont Place, in the vicinity of the project in Seven Oaks, feels that-as a homeowner there is a couple of significant things to know. When you look at the aesthetics Of this project as it blends the southwest, the northwest, the two parks, her personal opinion as a homeowner is it's well thought out; it's well planned. Ms. Barrell said she can appreciate the concerns with air quality regarding fast food. 'She has met with Castle & Cooke on two occasions and she feels they are very straight forward about their, desire to have their standards for this project exceed what the City standards are. She thinks that's a testimony to how they envision what they can do for us. We're a growing community, and she thinks we have to approach these projects as development, and it's going to happen, and we entrust you as the Commissioners to work in conjunction with these developers to ensure the quality of these kinds of developments. Brad Skinfield, a resident at 10601 Dorchester, located in the. same southern area -- or south of the project stated that he doesn't see any need for more retail in the area. He feels that the original plan for commercial with office only as administrative and professional offices makes sense. Ann Oliver, a resident in the area, feels that the Kern River Project - - the Kern River area where this is being built is one of the very few places left in Kern County to preserve this environment. And she feels the same way about this project. We have plenty of places to shop, and you know, Bakersfield is a great place to live. It's a nice place to shop. It's not an upscale place to shop. If you want that we probably have to go to Los Angeles. Which is fine with me. I like it that way. It's nice to have a small town feel. Not having a Nordstrom in my backyard. I love Nordstrom's.' I love to shop, but I don't want it in my backyard either. So she hopes that is a matter of concern when the Commission decides to let this project go through or not. Scott White said he had one more comment which is that a commercial Office is simply a much better neighbor than a general commercial. An office generally goes home at 5:00 or shortly thereafter. The traffic's gone. It's quiet. The commercial -- any commercial establishments are opened well into the evening with associated lights, noise, traffic and odors.. Minutes, PC, April 19, 2001 Page Tony Frang! stated that he ~lives in the Haggin Oaks area and walks often in the neighborhood and also over to the Marketplace with his kids for entertainment. His observation is that' the measures taken to mitigate the noise levels are very effective. These measureS consist of, landscaping, to include berming to create a natural buffer to sound. Berming andlands~aping also help block out car lights from shining off site during the night. These mitigation measures will also be applied to the River Walk Commercial center. Based on his review of the E.I.R., he is in agreementwith the findings and mitigation measures regarding noise. He is definitely in favor of the zone change, and the execution :of this project. Richard Schwartz, a.resident of Windsor Park, feels that there is already consideral shopping in the area and doesn't see a need for more. He also is concerned about the. congestion another shopping center would cause. This is already a very heavily traveled road. It has a-lot Of trucks, and certainly will until they figure out what to do with Rosedale. Theresa Lesaca a resident south of the proposed development, has concerns about the increased traffic and the pollution it will cause. Jack Rutledge, a resident Of. the area, said he has concerns about noise and traffic and how another shopping center would impact thousands of people in the area. He feels that-there should be no change in zoning. Commissioner Sprague said that in his opinion the EIR is on the weak side. The issues of traffic circulation and traffic and noise and smell, they say, are not significant after mitigation, but in his opinion they might be. Commissioner Sprague asked staff why if our ordinance states that we cannot have shopping centers within a half mile of each other,, but yet, we have. approved under PCD Plan the shopping center on the corner of Stockdale and Buena Vista~ and we knew then that we had a C-2 zoningacross the street. Now, Castle & Cooke is coming forward and adding a request with this E.I.R. that will come forward June 21 to make additional C-2 adjacent zoning with this, which makes a very ilarge shopping center. So we have an ordinance that says that we can't do it, but we are doing it, and we are being requested to add more. How does that affect our decision in looking at the environmental concerns of this E.I.R. scoping session? Mr. Gauthier said that that is a comment that we will take under advisement and that they will provide a written response to in the Final E.I.R. Commissioner Sprague ~said that without having a site plan, with just having some type of a lay out here to look out, and trying to decide whether the E.I.R. is adequate is a difficult scenario as a Planning Commissioner to make a decision on when we don't know what's going to be built there. In his opinion, it should be a very clean and very nice looking setting coming into the City. Commissioner Sprague said that this may be a good project; upscale something that Bakersfield can be proud of, and look forward to, but we also have to look at what it does to the river corridor, in relation to how it relates to the bike path and the trees and the floor of the river, and what buffer zones may be in place in the site plan, which we haven't looked at. And also, he thinks it would be important to hear from the urban forester and have his input into this scoping Minutes, PC, April 19, 2001 Page 12 session, of what hiS thoughts were about landscaping and shielding with this shopping center for the residents to the south, as well as the river area to the north. Low pylon sign-age is a good idea. Reflecting it back into the center. And I think this E.I.R. should also address Iow pylon signage. We've addressed the lighting saying that it. will be directed back tOward the center and'away from the area to the south. Commissioner Sprague said that he thinks that it needs to address contamination issues from a development of commercial scope into the south neighborhood, even though it's only 300 feet awaY; the extension of the fence down past the school is a very, very good- recommendation of something that should be addressed here. School children will be out playing the school ground. We need to look at what type of contaminates could come over there: I mean, it's true that children do have asthma and emPhysema and things like that', can be affected. We can't solve and mitigate all those emission problems. But we can he p by putting scrubbers on fast food and restaurant areas where you don't have the smoke; you don't have the smell such as the Burger King over -at the MarketPlace was required to do. We can implant those all if we have control. But if:we were to come through the E.I.R. session, have the C-2 come before us, and grant the C-2~ then the shopping center, or whatever is built there could be done on minimum standards. So, iris my belief, and we did through this Planning Commission a couple of months ago, is send to the council an ordinance for approval, which is a PUD/PCD Plan which is an overlay onto C-2 which would allow a site plan to be developed by the developer/owner of the property which would come before the Planning Commission, which could be reviewed and possibly go into Committee, and could be looked at, and reWorked and tweaked, to benefit the whole area north and south. Commissioner Boyle thanked the audience for coming out tonight and speaking. He encouraged them strongly to come back to the next set of hearings when the E.I.R., General Plan and zone change will be heard. He stated that we are notmaking a decision tonight on the project, and more importantly, we do not have a p. roject in front of us to even talk 'about. My understanding of this E.I.R. is it's primary purpose is to provide' those making the decisions with the information on the environmental impacts. That means it's primarily a tool to be utilized by this Commission as well as the City Council in determining the trade offs between development and the environmental impacts. See that's the purpose, I'd like to make some of the comments on those things ~that ! think I need more information on how I think this environmental impact report can be improved so it will be a better tool in helping me assess those trade offs. On traffic and circulation, there has been mention of 12,021 vehicle trips. Now l don't doubt that's a lot of vehicle trips, but for me it would be a more useful tool if I knew how many vehicle trips there would be under the present zoning as a comparison.- I Would also like to know what the road capacity is. I'm sure it's very similar in Mr. Mclntosh's traffic report, but in reading it, I did not come across exactly what the road capacity is. And, also what the total vehicle trips would be. I know that we're increasing it by 12, but it,s 12 plus what? I didn't find that -- I know it'.s in his traffic report, but unfortunately it just wasn't [here in a table where I could really get to it quickly, and understand it. Minutes, PC, April 19, 2001 Page 13 One thing I think this EnvirOnmental Impact Report is completely deficit'in is that it pretendsthat the only circulation that we have in this City is cars. And, primarily that's true, but lying adjacent to this project is the major bike path for the City. There are people out there riding theii- bikes, etc. That is circulation, and it is an important part of circulation, and I didn't findlanything in here that discussed how this' project is going to effect that part 'of the circulation of our City. I don't see that addressed anywhere in the Environmental ImPact Report. On the issue of air quality, and really what I think I'm talking about is odors. There has been a determination made that odors are not significant. If we approve this as requested by the applicant, there is nothing that would stop them from putting a restaurant as close to Stock, dale Highway as the setbacks would allow, and I think that would create an impact from odors, and I know staff or the person that prepared the E.I.R., came to the decision that that was not a significant issue, but I do think it is, and I would like more information on how the determination was made that odors would not be a significant issue. I do :note that they mentioned that odors for certain kinds of commercial activity such as gasoline stations, and dry cleaners would require permits that would possibly control that issue, but restaurants would not. On the issue of aesthetics I didn't see anything here that would discuss the views of how this would aesthetically impact again the park that would be adjacent to the property, and again the bike path that is also adjacent to the property. I know that we have a number of color photographs that were included with our report. The color photographs . as I am understanding them were taken from every position, but the positions of the park, and the position of the bike path. As I'm understanding it, every single photograph was either to the south of the project, or a great deal of distance north of the project. There was no photographs:from the immediately adjacent park Site, and the immediately adjacent bike path, and for :the life of me that to me seemed to be a major aesthetic impact to this project. Again, if we're to approve this as general commercial, my understanding is there is absolutely nothing that would stop some applicant from going out and building an approximately five story building and backing up as near as the set backs would allow to the bike path, or as near as the set backs would allow to our public park. I got to tell you, I think that would look .... I mean it would be a nice view for the people up in the hotel to be able to look out over our public park, but I think it would look like the back side of a horse for the people who are enjoying the park. So I think that's an aesthetic issue. It has not been addressed in the environmental impact report. Finally, and we've talked about this before, and I know staff keeps saying words to me that I think are meant to communicate that I don't understand the issue, but I'm going to say it again. One of the things that I have never yet seen in the Environmental Impact Report is what ! consider to be a reasonable analysis of project alternatives. For example this Environmental Impact Report does not spend any significant time talking about how the impacts could be mitigated or otherwise addressed through the use of a Planned Commercial Development Overlay. I mean, I understand what the No Project alternative is, and I understand what the Project Alternative is, but there is a third step there and that is alternatives to the Projects, and one of those alternatives to the project is a PCD, and I have never seen an Environmental Impact Report that I think gives us a detailed discussion of how those impacts could be better addressed -- well I shouldn't say better addressed 'cause that would be a matter of opinion as to whether it's better Minutes, PC, April 19, 200t Pa~el:4 or not -- but how they could be addressed through the use of alternatives to the plan development. So in my perspective the E.I.R. is insufficient because it does not include that as a tool. I think that the discussion on that took up about half a page, and you gave me two volumes of material. I didn't add it up, but I'm going to guess you probably gave me somewhere between three and 500 pages of materials and I've got a half a page on discussion of the alternatives. So from that perspective I think it is insufficient. Commissioner Kemper asked if there is going to be any access from the project site to the bike ~path and the park? The relationship, access and aesthetics regarding the bike path would be my comments. Commissioner Brady said that he would like to raise all of the issues that are raised in the E.I.R. for that project at' Buena Vista Road and Stockdale, and those can be looked at, but thinks all of them need to be addressed. While lighting standards and heights have been addressed, Commissioner Brady thinks it appropriate to note that the lighting standards will illuminate the project but as they get closer to the edge of the project they are lower to the ground and don't shine off the project as much. Shielding is not talked about in this E.I.R. and he thinks that it does need to be addressed. There needs to be shielding so that the light that is there appropriately for safety and other reasons at night stays on the project, and doesn't go · off the project. I'm going to assume that some of these items are going to be built 60' tall, and they're going to be built as close to the effected residences as possible. How do we mitigate the impacts of those uses that close to the residences?. I think the first thing that we need to addi:ess is to ensure that there are appropriate set backs on the project with appropriate berming and landscaping. I want to see conditions in this E.I.R. that address where the trash is going to be picked up, how far away it's going to be, and how it's going to be shielded from view. This is an interesting project, because we're going ' to have, as Commissioner Boyle indicated, we're going to have people viewing the project from the bike path, and from an aesthetic point of view, that's very important. One of the reasons why we're trying to develop that bike path, and the River area is to make it the jewel of the community, and you don't do that by putting all the trash bins out there unprotected and unsightly. I think there has to be conditions on the project that the trash areas are appropriately shielded and placed so that they prevent the least amount of impact outside as possible. One of the other areas that we're always concerned about are the delivery vehicles and where the loading docks are, especially if you have a big box. I know-- I've seen some plan where there was at least one big box.-I want to see conditions in the E.I.R. to deal with the noise from those operations of loading and unloading. I believe we dealt with that in the Grand Canal; whatever that Gateway where we had -- was it a block wall and it was going to be high'enough so that when the truck was down in the loading ramp that the exhaust pipe and all that would be concealed behind it, so there would not be a-- direct impact from the truck idling in the loading dock and presenting noise. Minutes~ PC, April19, 2001 Pa~e15 One of the issues, also, I don't believe it's been addressed is the squawk box from the fast food locations. We want to have appropriate shielding~ and put those areas in the least provocative locations ~so that noise is not transmitted to the residences to the south. I know that 300, 400 sounds like a lot when you see it on paper, but when it comes to those types of noises it can never be far enough away, but we have used effective means of limiting those. sound generating activities, and those conditions need to be addressed in that E.I.R. I think that as with the Marketplace, and some of the other developments that we've had here, this can be a very wonderful site that all of us can be proud of, inclUding the residences to the south. I think we can, with appropriate mitigation measures, resolve the concerns of the nearby:residents and make this a win-win situation for the community. Commissioner McGinnis said that he I shares some of the concerns of the other Commissioners and concurs with Commissioner Brady and Commissioner Kemper. His primary concern is the effect of the traffic that will be generated both by the projected zone change and the C-2 on the northeast corner of Buena Vista and Stockdale. In conjunction with the recently rezoned commercial property that'Coleman is developing on the southwest corner and also the impact of the proposed park. The park will generate a-lot of traffic in itself. It's going to be a nice park with a few lakes and so forth. Commissioner McGinnis had a question about what impact the proposed Kern River Freeway' Plan, 'if that were to ever come to fruition, would have in addition to this project? I think that we have the opportunity now to take a look at the critical traffic issue in regard to this particular area of town, and we.should address that while we have the opportunity to do so. COmmissioner McGinnis said he would like to see more emphasis placed on the traffic issue as we come closer to looking at the final Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Sprague said that he had one more comment regarding lighting on the rear of the project as it relates to the rive~ corridor. If lighting could be pointed back at the project, away from the river corridor, there would not be a 24-hour lighted corridor for habitat that lives along the river. Commissioner Sprague thinks it would be important to include it in the site plan and EIR as to how it could be mitigated. Commissioner Dhanens thanked the audience for their comments and said that Mr. Houlihan, the consultant, would be addressing them in the Final EIR. Castle & Cooke representatives have also been taking notes and, hopefully they will be included in . some form or fashion in the final plan that Mr. Hogue has indicated that they will share with the public at the June 21st meeting. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to refer the comments made tonight to staff for preparation of the Final E.I.R. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, April 19;2001 Page 16 10. 12. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Gauthier stated there will be two new Commissioners at the next meeting and suggested that a pre-meeting be held. He also thanked Commissioners Kemper and Dhanens for all they have done in the past. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Brady thanked Commissioners Kemper and Chairman Dhanens for the time they haVe spent on the Commission, Commissioner Sprague wished Commissioners Kemper and Chairman Dhanens well. CommisSioner Boyle echoed previous comments. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Commissioners agreed to have pre-meeting: 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary ~Planning Directo~~ May 24, 2001