Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-08 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting – March 6, 2008 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: , Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnisStanley, Tragish Absent: Commissioners Andrews, Tkac 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: No public statements were made at this time. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of February 7, 2008. Commissioner Johnson requested amendment to page 3, where it starts, “Commissioner Johnson referenced pages ES-24…,” and the sentence that states, “he inquired as to the timing in expansion of plant number 3…” adding, “and thought it needed additional clarification on how the timing would progress.” Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the February 7, 2008 Minutes as amended. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7094 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) The public hearing is opened, no one from the audience spoke in opposition or in favor of the project. The public hearing is closed. There were no comments from the commissioners. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve agenda item 4.2a. Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Tragish NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Andrews, Tkac 5. PUBLIC HEARING – 5.1 Amendment to Planning Commission Resolution No. 58-92 related to Subdivision Wall Design and Material/Structure (City of Bakersfield) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. William Frenzel stated that he owns property with his son who resides in Bakersfield. He stated that he has been very involved with the City and Minutes of Planning Commission – March 6, 2008 Page 2 community, for the last three years during the process of selecting and constructing a new plant site for manufacturing of concrete masonry units in Bakersfield. He said the plant has been completed and they went into production in November 2007. Mr. Frenzel further pointed out that in this process he was very impressed with the development standards along the streets within the community. Mr. Frenzel stated that the change to use precast wall panels as an alternative along the streets and borders of new tract developments needs further study. He said that he has had a lot of involvement with precast panels in the past and has experience with the difficulties with the precast versus the masonry construction that is typically being used in the community. He stated that the company he previously worked for did installations and manufacturing of similar wall panels that are currently being presented and pointed out that the aesthetics of the walls they are currently building have been improved upon over what they were putting in originally. Mr. Frenzel pointed out that some of the difficulties with precast panels versus masonry construction still has to be answered. He stated that he made many attempts to contact the precast panel company that is doing most of the panels and he was unable to be put in contact with any person. Mr. Frenzel pointed out that the exposure that he had to the precast panels in the past is approximately 15 years with an affiliate firm that did the precast panels and they have since stopped doing that in Southern California and to his knowledge, in the southern part of the state, no one is currently doing much as far as manufacturing and installing these types of panels. Mr. Frenzel further pointed out that there were some liability issues that arose out of installation and the weld plates on foundations of the ends of the walls. He pointed out that there was corrosion to the welds and whole sections of walls fell over. He also stated that there is no regulation involved with the actual manufacturing of the wall panels. He pointed out that in the block industry they manufacture blocks according to ASTM specifications that are relied upon by the engineering and building departments. Mr. Frenzel went on to state that another incident that he is aware of is an instance where a river rock bolder that was embedded in the precast form actually came loose, fell, and killed a two-year old girl. He stated that his previous company got out of the panel industry because it wasn’t something that they could control enough. Mr. Frenzel stated that his other major concern is the item in the Staff report addressing the idea that these walls could be buried three inches below grade, pointing out that current City engineer requirements are six inches below grade. He stated that if you look at the existing Resolution, it calls out specific items with regard to stepping walls. Mr. Frenzel stated that his prior experience with precast wall over a masonry wall is that with a masonry wall there is the ability to step a wall or change the height variation as grade changes with the layout every eight inches. He stated with these precast panels, which look to be approximately 15’ to 20’ in length, there is no ability to make a step for a change in grade. In conclusion, Mr. Frenzel stated that he has seen how the overall precast wall can be eroded with these issues. He stated that an approval of this without further information and research could be a step backwards to aesthetics that have been achieved in Bakersfield. Robert Cisco, President of Design Industries, stated they have been in business for 29 years and their only business is manufacturing and installing precast concrete walls to satisfy municipal requirements. He pointed out that they are a complete supplier and that they manufacture all the modules and provide the engineering, as well as the trained installers. He pointed out that the experience of his people ranges from a low of 10 years to a high of 17 continuous years. Mr. Cisco also pointed out that they are a member of the National Precast Concrete Association and that organization does provide a quality control program which his company subscribes to. Mr. Cisco pointed out that their wall systems are designed according to the 2007 CBC and they comply with every aspect of it. Mr. Cisco stated that he approached the City in July 2007 because they had a Fortune 500 home builder that was using their product in other cities and they wanted to use their product in Bakersfield. He pointed out that he wanted to meet with the City and address any concerns that they had. Mr. Cisco stated that they furnished sound attenuation reports, letters of recommendation from various other cities in California, and Staff also sent a group of department heads to Fresno to tour some of the installations. Minutes of Planning Commission – March 6, 2008 Page 3 Mr. Cisco summarized the points as to why their walls are equal in every respect to masonry walls. With regards to durability, Cal Trans put out a report several years ago on walls and they summarized masonry and precast, pointing out that they do use precast in some counties. According to Cal Trans chart they rated masonry and precast as being totally equal in durability, giving each of them a minimum life expectancy of 30 years. Mr. Cisco pointed out that the wall should last longer than 30 years. With regards to maintenance, he gathers from the comments that maintenance is not a problem. With regard to replacement cost the only time the wall has to be replaced is in the event of a collision, which happens to all types of walls. Mr. Cisco pointed out that when that happens there are two options: 1) sell the precast modules to the City for the City to install; 2) contract with their company to provide material and installation. Mr. Cisco pointed out that with regard to product availability they are one of four precast companies. He stated that after 29 years of business his company probably wont be going anywhere, but in the event it should there are other manufacturers that are equipped to take over and provide material for repairs. Mr. Cisco stated that the structural specifications are based on the most recent calculations. He also stated that with regard to steps or slopes, they are plotted at the pilasters and they do have the ability to handle steps much the same as masonry walls and pointed out that sometimes the steps will be handled in 4” increments, or in 8” increments depending on what is required. He further stated that in those cases were there is a steep slope, they decrease the length of the panel to accommodate the slope so that there is no gap under the wall. Mr. Cisco also pointed out that with regard to earth retention, they take into account that sometimes homeowners will landscape behind the walls and will pile up earth that the developer did not intend for, so they automatically include a calculation that shows that it’s capable of retaining up to 12” of earth without special design. He further pointed out that if there is a need to retain more than 12” of earth, they have the ability to build walls up to 16’ tall and to retain up to 5’ of earth. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if this revision would be a replacement of the old code section. Staff responded that this would be another option to select from. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the minimum depth that the wall would be is 6” below grade, to which Staff responded it would be 3” below grade. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the height of the wall would have a bearing on the 3”. Staff responded that the walls would still be 6’ high above grade, and clarified that if it was a 8’ wall that there would be 2’ of retaining and they would have to review the calculations that stand with the wall. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Cisco as to the east Bakersfield area and if it would be easier to blend the precast with a masonry in that type of situation. Mr. Cisco stated that it would not work because they are not compatible, as the masonry walls are built from the footing up, where the precast walls do not rely on anything below grade except the piers. He pointed out that the piers are very deep, explaining that under every column even for a 6’ wall, the piers are about 5’ deep. Therefore, with concrete weighing 4,000 pounds per yard, which means that there’s 2000 pounds of concrete even under a 6’ concrete column, the portion that protrudes into the ground is not for any structural reason, but is just there so that they ensure that there will be no gaps under the wall. Mr. Cisco further clarified that when need be they would custom fabricate a panel for a section that needed a grade change so that the spacing is appropriate for the amount of slope or grade there. He also stated that they do have the ability to make a panel that is two heights in one panel. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Cisco as to the integrity of the wall as height is increased. Mr. Cisco responded that their engineer is integral in designing every height, and it’s not one design fitting everything. He also pointed out that the reinforcing steel inside the panel is welded and this comes into play when the walls get hit. Commissioner Johnson inquired at what intervals the welded cages are in the wall. Mr. Cisco responded that the vertical and horizontal steel Minutes of Planning Commission – March 6, 2008 Page 4 members that are welded are criss-crossed and therefore, typically there is a 24” vertical steel member, and the horizontal steel member varies according to whether it’s retaining earth or not. He stated that worse case scenario would be 24” with no earth retaining. Commissioner Johnson inquired why there weren’t any recommendation letters from Building Departments or Cal Trans. Mr. Cisco responded that the Cal Trans report is old (from the 80’s). He also responded that one of the letters is from the City of Fresno, which is not from the Planning Department, but rather the Building Department. He pointed out that their walls have been approved in Fresno since 1978 and they’ve been an acceptable alternative since 1978. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that the letter is from a Plan’s Examiner and not necessarily the person that would be going out and doing the inspection. Mr. Cisco responded that the Plan’s Examiner probably referred whoever the staff member it was that called to someone else. He further explained that in every case they have to submit calculations and it has to go through the Building Department and the Plan Checkers. Commissioner Johnson inquired if Mr. Cisco can give an explanation as to how the precast industry has changed given Mr. Frenzel’s comments. Mr. Cisco responded that the reason Cal Trans report wasn’t submitted is because he was not able to locate it, however he pointed out that Cal Trans used monolithic precast walls, meaning it is all one piece, versus the only type of precast walls in the 70s which were post and panel walls, which were very different as they were not one piece and did not have vertical and horizontal steel and ranged in thickness from 1” to 2”. He further pointed out that there’s a huge difference of those walls in the 70s to the walls of today. Mr. Cisco further pointed out that they do widening projects for cities where the walls are actually for the city and they would not have approval for those if the walls did not meet their requirements. Mr. Cisco also commented that the only reason he mentioned Cal Trans is because it’s the only source that he has seen that has compared precast and masonry with regard to longevity. Commissioner Johnson inquired how the Building Department currently determines if the rebar is in the correct place for a typical masonry wall. Staff responded they will do an inspection prior to the footing being poured to make sure that the steel is in the footing, as well as inspect the first couple courses to see the steel coming through the block. Commissioner Johnson inquired if they foresee any problems with implementing an inspection procedure with precast concrete since you cannot see inside to see the steel cage referred to. Staff responded that it would have to be verified that the steel is in the panel. Commissioner Johnson inquired what kind of control there is to ensure the safety, health and welfare of the community. Staff responded that they would have to obtain a certification from the manufactures stating the wall is constructed as given to the Building Department with the plans. Commissioner Johnson commented that he wants to make sure there are enough precautions to ensure that the integrity of the walls are going to be maintained. Staff responded that it would be possible to use a third party inspector, such as an outside source to be onsite when they are casting the panels to verify that the walls are being constructed per the design. Commissioner Johnson commented that not all of the implementation is in place, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson inquired if there are any local examples of precast concrete walls currently in place. Staff responded that the older ones are the ones Staff had a problem with because they would break when the panels slipped in between the pilasters and were poor looking and of poor structure. Staff stated that they are not familiar with any newer ones along streets, although pointed out that on the back side of the new Costco building on the back wall is a new precast. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Cisco how precast holds up against graffiti in relationship to current block walls and specifically the style with texturing with the rock. Mr. Cisco responded that it is very similar to the way it would work with masonry, pointing out that you would have to keep the right colors and the graffiti abatement would have to keep track of the wall colors. Mr. Cisco stated that they use standard Kelly-Moore paint colors that are easy to find. Mr. Cisco responded Minutes of Planning Commission – March 6, 2008 Page 5 that with regard to the texturizing with rock, they are planning on addressing the graffiti issues, explaining that it is a new product and they will not be using many different colors on it. Mr. Cisco stated that with regard to verification, they have an engineer who is not an employee that provides reports for cities that ask for them. He explained that this engineer does not tell him when he is going out to do an inspection and he will inspect the reinforcing cage placement. Mr. Cisco said his company, as well as this engineer, can provide certification that reinforcement is placed as per approved plans. Commissioner Tragish inquired why they haven’t allowed precast concrete walls before today. Staff responded that they haven’t used them because their last experience was poor construction, durability, and was not a good product. Staff pointed out that this, in recent history, is the only precast manufacturing that has come forward and met with Staff and gone through the process to justify why their product is acceptable and meets engineering standards. Commissioner Tragish commented that they have improved the product over the last 20 years, to which Staff concurred. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there are precast tilt up walls that are also being used in the County, to which Staff responded that there are a number of different forms of precast and that the tilt ups are usually manufactured on site, where these are manufactured in a plant with a lot more controls. Staff also stated that quite a few bridges are composed of precast segments that are constructed at plants under assumed similar types of controls. Commissioner Tragish commented that it is his understanding that the precast concrete industry has been used more and more in construction. He also stated that with regard to the graffiti issue it is worth addressing and that it might be a non-issue as it appears to have the same problems and afflictions and perhaps benefits that walls may have that are not precast concrete. Commissioner Tragish stated that he hasn’t seen anything presented that somehow the precast concrete is some type of deterrent or way to remove graffiti. Commissioner McGinnis stated Mr. Cisco answered one of his questions regarding quality control. He asked if Staff has had an opportunity to view some of the most recent precast product. Staff responded that they have and it meets their quality satisfaction. Commissioner McGinnis stated that with regard to below grade in the section under “Other Alternatives to Design,” where it says the panel manufacturer states concrete panels may be 3” below grade, however, the city engineer requires the panel to be a minimum of 6” below grade. He inquired if 6” would be the standard, to which Staff responded that is the current standard. Commissioner Blockley inquired as to Mr. Cisco’s sheet 1 showing the thickness of the design which are 3” thick, pointing out that it’s going to take extreme quality control to keep the minimum concrete cover on these. Mr. Cisco responded that they have used chairs to keep the level of the reinforcing consistent and they don’t just meet the minimum standards because they do have additional rebar cover over and above what the code requires. He explained that the chairs are placed a few inches apart on the rebar cage to hold them out a certain distance from the bottom of the form. Mr. Cisco further pointed out that a solid wall doesn’t need to be as thick to be as effective as a hallow wall. Commissioner Blockley inquired if there has been any discussion on plant inspections. Staff responded that it has not yet been discussed. Commissioner Blockley commented that if the City is going to require burial of the panel 6” below grade that somehow that thickness versus concrete coverage is going to have to be addressed because it varies with contact with the ground. Staff responded in the affirmative, commenting that they do have some of the panels designed to retain earth. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Stanley, to approve the Amendment to Section 4.a of Planning Commissioner Resolution number 58-92 with findings set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit “A”. Minutes of Planning Commission – March 6, 2008 Page 6 Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Tragish NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Andrews, Tkac 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS – VESTING TRACT MAP 6.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7094 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) Heard on Consent Calendar. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. 9. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:28 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director March 28, 2008