Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/11/2004 B A K E R S F I E L D David Couch, Chair Staff: John W. Stinson Sue Benham For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 11, 2004 -1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:04 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; and Sue Benham Councilmember Mike Maggard arrived at 1:06 p.m. 2. ADOPT AUGUST 16, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. (Councilmember Maggard absent this item.) 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding proposed cell phone tower ordinance Development Services Director Jack Hardisty gave an overview of the proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance encourages the use of camouflage towers and details the review process. It provides for construction, which complies with the ordinance standards, using camouflage towers properly spaced will not require a conditional use permit and hearings before the Planning Commission. Staff reviewed the County's ordinance and other cities' ordinances when preparing this ordinance. Committee Member Maggard requested staff look into retrofits of existing towers and report back. Dana Karcher, Tree Foundation, spoke in favor of camouflaging cell towers. Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club, spoke in support of camouflage towers, but questioned the use of camouflage palm trees as palms are not native to Bakersfield. Staff recommended forwarding the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission. The Committee unanimously approved staff's recommendation. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 Page 2 B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding tree manual Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen gave a short overview of the subjects covered in the first draft of the Tree Technical Manual, including policies and operating procedures for tree maintenance, removal, installation, utility clearance and selection of trees. City staff modeled the manual after the City of Palo Alto's tree manual. Dana Karcher, Executive Director, Tree Foundation of Kern, stated the Tree Manual is an outstanding document and offered suggested changes. She explained the Tree Foundation is listed as a reference in the manual to obtain a list of certified arborists; however, they are not making recommendations for arborist at this time due to insurance coverage regarding recommending specific arborists. Committee Chair Couch requested the Tree Foundation be given time to review the manual and present their changes to staff. Committee Member Maggard referred the following items to staff: 1. He would like staff to draft a concept or policy regarding those who have a view and their neighbor's tree grows to the point it blocks their view. Does the person whose view has become blocked have the right to have the neighbor's tree pruned in a responsible way to preserve their view, and who is responsible to pay for the pruning? City Attorney Ginny Gennaro stated this could be covered in a view shed ordinance. 2. At the last Air Pollution Control Board meeting there was discussion regarding trees and which varieties enhance air quality and which varieties degrade air-quality. He requested staff to check with the Air Pollution Control Board for a list of those trees that degrade air quality, so it could be checked against the City's list of recommended trees and share the information with the Committee. 3. A developer recently contacted Councilmember Maggard regarding the developer's northeast Bakersfield project to discuss the faces of the hillsides near the roads and the requirement for clusters of oak trees, boulders, and wild flowers. The developer felt there would be problems with watering the trees. Staff was requested to check if there is going to be a problem with planting trees where the faces of the hillsides are near the road. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding developing a memorial grove (This item heard after 4.A.) Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen reported he, John Stinson and Kevin Barnes had met with Dana Karcher of the Tree Foundation primarily to look at different / AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 11, 2004 Page 3 locations. The location needs to be big enough for future expansion. There would be trees planted and there also should be some type of donated monument associated with each tree. Assistant City Manager John Stinson explained as this was referred by Councilmember Maggard, staff would like Committee direction on the way to proceed. Dana Karcher, Executive Director, Tree Foundation of Kern, showed a map and pictures of different memorial groves in California and types of plaques, and gave an overview of how the Tree Foundation envisions a memorial grove might be developed in a natural setting that could be easily maintained. Solid Waste Director Kevin Barnes explained the City has buffer property, about 100 acres, around the landfill being capped in the northeast. He suggested the capped landfill not be used, just the land serving as a buffer around the landfill. Committee Member Maggard expressed his idea was much like what has been suggested and even to offer the memorial grove as a project to non-profits to do some legwork and fund-raising. There is an organization called Kern County Student Leadership on 14 high school campuses and they are contemplating developing a project similar to the Leadership Bakersfield Class projects. Once the plans for the memorial grove are more detailed, Committee Member Maggard offered to pitch the idea to possible volunteer groups. Committee Member Benham expressed she would be interested in having other locations for the Committee to consider. The Committee requested staff to bring additional photos showing the landfill buffer area, suggestions for other possible sites and a more defined plan back to the Committee. B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding development of program EIR's Planning Director Stan Grady gave a report on the differences between a Program EIR, Project EIR and a Master EIR. The basic differences are: o Level of detail required for initial actions ·Level of detail required for future subsequent projects Level of review required - initial action - subsequent projects · Term of use for subsequent actions Pro,qram EIR: From broad general actions to later specific actions; more detailed examination may occur for later projects; subsequent project - mitigated negative AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 11, 2004 Page 4 declaration or project EIR; focus on issues ready for evaluation and exclude those issues "not yet ripe." An example would be the General Plan. Project EIR: This is the most common; focus on a specific development project; and focus on physical changes to the environment caused by the project. An example would be The Market Place. Master EIR: Alternative to a Project or Program EIR; evaluates broader policy and specific project related impacts all in one document; evaluates impacts of any and all identified subsequent projects; and no subsequent environmental review necessary for future projects analyzed and mitigated in the Master EIR. Its limitation is a five-year useful life. Uses include: General Plan; Public or private projects in a redevelopment plan; phased projects; rule or regulation implemented by a later project and others. Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants, made comments regarding Program EIR's and Master EIR's. Committee Member Maggard emphasized one question we are posed with on occasion by the Sierra Club has to do with whether the cumulative effects of all of our non-EIR projects in their sum would exceed a sufficient level that it might be mitigated differently if it were part of a Program EIR. The General Plan document is a Program EIR. Planning Director Grady explained the General Plan analyzes the "bowl of soup," not the ingredients in the soup. When you look at the ingredients, a more precise evaluation is done. This is what happens at the project level and why an air-quality analysis is done with our Negative Declarations because you don't know exactly what the project description is going to be. There is a broad evaluation of air quality in the General Plan and then a more specific evaluation is done at the project level. The Air District evaluation program is applied in a review of the project. If the project falls below a threshold, there is no mitigation required to be applied. If the project is over the threshold, then developers are required to apply mitigation. If the Air District evaluation program is applied to a project and the project is mitigated below the threshold, then a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. If you come up with an impact on a tiered document that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant, then an EIR is required. However, any of the environmental documents can be challenged on the basis of whether or not the conclusions were correct. City Attorney Ginny Gennaro stated there were EIR's done for two recent commercial projects and both had air-impact analysis as part of the EIR and both projects were challenged, even with the EIR's that were performed. So, the EIR is still challengeable on the air quality issue, even if the challenge does not prevail. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 11, 2004 Page 5 ~ Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, spoke regarding concerns of cumulative impacts on air quality, mitigation measures and fees. Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants, commented on the process from an applicant's point of view. Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, stated if Bakersfield comes up with some sort of plan to deal with cumulative impacts, and if you are working on a zero emissions program, probably if that were the only thing that ever happened in the San Joaquin Valley, it would not have a credibly large effect. But, if Bakersfield comes up with something, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District is going to be pretty much compelled to come up with an equivalent plan. Committee Chair Couch commented that almost sounded like an endorsement oi such a plan by the Sierra Club. Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, stated it is something we should be working toward: Of course, the stronger the plan the City of Bakersfield comes up with--the stronger the plan the Air Pollution Control District will be pretty much forced into. The Air Pollution Control District is under regulation to apply the best available control measures. If there are some available control measures already in operation, as for example the $1,200 a house fee that the Sierra Club has come up with in dealing with some of the developers, that clearly becomes a best available control measure. The Air District is pretty much compelled to follow along with that. So, if the City of Bakersfield would come up with a good strong program, I think that would compel the Air District to come up with an equally strong program. Committee Member Maggard commented on the following: · An important issue is if we do an EIR in some different fashion, will it result in cleaning up the air? · If something is done like this and the cost is shared among developers, will it be assisting them and providing a benefit in that their projects will be able to proceed with less burden and hang-ups, while still giving attention to air quality issues so as not to let up on cleaning the air? · If the Sierra Club or others write letters, please e-mail to him so he can forward to Supervisor Patrick and the Air Pollution Control Director. 6. COMMI'I-rEE COMMENTS None. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 11,2004 Page 6 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:06 p.m. Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty;; Planning Director Stan Grady; Solid Waste Director Kevin Barnes; and Urban Forester Paul Graham Attendance-others: Dana Karcher, Executive Director, The Tree Foundation of Kern; Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club; Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club; and Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN\Council Committees\04Planning&Development~p&d04octl 1summary.doc