Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-08 MINUTES PLANNING CO MINUTES Regular Meeting -- August 21, 2008 — 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Johnson, Stanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac Absent: Commissioner McGinnis 2.: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Chairman Johnson pointed out that a court reporter was present for the hearing. No speaker cards were presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission Meetings of July 17, 2008 & August 7, 2008. Commissioner Andrews moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley to approve the Non- Public Hearing Items. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval to Refer Back to Staff Revised Vesting-Tentative Tract Ma 6776 (Dewalt Corporation) 4.2b LkRproval of Amendment to the Plannin Commission's Wail and Landscape Policy related to Residential Subdivision Wall and Landscape Design Standard. 4.2c Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan Revised No. 08-1055 The public hearing is opened. No one from the public requested removal of any item from the Consent Calendar. No Commissioner requested removal of any item from the Consent Calendar. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Stanley to approve the Consent Calendar, Public Hearing Items. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, Stanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis 5. PUBLIC HEARING—DEIR ADEQUACY HEARINGS 5.1 Bakersfield Gateway Commercial Project GPAIZC 07-0655 (Dave Dmohowski, Premier Planning Group, LLC.) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. The City's consultant gave a presentation. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission — August 21, 2008 Page 2 Alexa Delwyche, who works with the United Farm Workers, commented that the project will require a major interchange at Hosking and Highway 99, and to her knowledge the interchange has not been approved, nor completely funded at this point. She stated that until this happens, the project should not be permitted as the traffic analysis would be inaccurate and need to be re- evaluated. Ms. Delwyche further commented that the EIR does not take into account the future development that will be facilitated by the development of the interchange. She also pointed out that the analysis presented only finds minor cumulative impacts because it does not take the whole project's impact into account. Julio Gonzales Rosales, a resident of Bakersfield, stated, "Why waste three million dollars in this crisis that we are in right now." Sheheryar Kaoosji, stated he is a representative from The Change to Win Federation, which is an organization of over 5 million workers across the country, including thousands of farm workers, grocery workers and carpenters in Bakersfield. Mr. Kaoosji commented that the previous speaker was speaking to the money the city has already spent on the interchange for this project. Mr. Kaoosji spoke about the project's air quality impacts. He commented that this is on the edge of the city where everyone is going to have to drive long distances to get to this project to shop. He also stated that they believe the trips will be longer, and have a larger impact than the average vehicle trip. Mr. Kaoosji stated that this area is already significantly out of compliance with the law for air quality, and as a result, any additional emissions only puts Bakersfield further out of compliance. He stated making the air worse is unacceptable. With respect to the applicant's voluntary air quality mitigation, he pointed out that there is no guarantee that there will be significant mitigation possible. He requested that the Air Quality District and the developer come to the city and the public and make clear what they will do to make this project emission neutral. Hector Arana inquired why State money should be used on this project since there are so many other issues that need to be taken care of in the City. He stated that since the developer is going to make so much money from this they should handle it on their own. Keely Estep stated she is representing Paul owhadi, who is the owner of approximately 15 acres of land immediately next to the subject project, which is part of a larger 54 acre commercial development immediately north of the project. She delivered a letter to the secretary, and asked that it be included as part of the administrative record for this project EIR. Ms. Estep summarized the key points of the letter, including that the Hosking interchange should be completed before initiation of the project. Caroline Farrell, an attorney for The center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, in Delano, stated she has three main comments on the project. 1) The Draft EIR states in the beginning that it is not including an assessment of agriculture or population in housing impacts because they did not receive public comments or agency comment on those aspects during the initial study. She pointed out that the City still needs to review this, because historically the site has been used for agriculture and there may be some need to discuss what it means to convert formerly ag land into more retail development. 2) Population, housing and growth inducing impacts should be tied together in the EIR. She pointed out that the Draft EIR finds that there is no growth inducing impacts from the project. She commented that based on the previous comments with the interchange and the ability to develop that land once those transportation improvements happen, there might be a possibility of growth inducing impacts that need to be reviewed in the EIR. 3) Further, in looking at the alternatives, the Draft EIR looked at 3 alternatives. She stated that she did not understand the language in the Executive Summary which includes a disclaimer saying that the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR are not to be taken as alternatives that are found to be feasible, or will eliminate impacts compared to the proposed project. She pointed out that CEQA requires that the alternatives in the Draft EIR be potentially feasible and potentially reduce the impacts. Ms. Farrell went on to state that the analysis in the alternative section concluded that the proposed project is the environmentally superior alternative, and pointed out that this does not make sense because the rational for that is that the proposed project, other than the other 3 alternatives discussed, would achieve all of the project's proponents objectives. Ms. Farrell commented that in terms of air quality impacts, there are two main sources of air quality impacts associated with the project: 1)the facility itself; and 2) vehicles coming to the facility. She Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -- August 21, 2008 Page 3 stated that they are going to be controlled by project design features, on site mitigation, and volunteer emission reduction agreement with the air district, which was not included as part of the environmental document for public review. She urged the City to require as much on site mitigation as possible, because with the voluntary emission reduction agreements, it may help the regional air pollution problems, but there is no assurance that it will help with the local problems associated near the facility. She pointed out that there are numerous schools and residential developments, and a potential Kaiser facility, and therefore local emissions are going to be important, and there is no assurance that the voluntary emission reduction agreement will affect those emissions. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club submitted a preliminary letter to the secretary. He pointed out his concerns for light pollution. He also stated that this project should not be approved until the air quality mitigation agreement is available for pubic review. He went on to state that the property was once used for agriculture land and if we are serious at all about preserving farmland, there should be a condition on this project that they mitigate in some way. Mr. Nipp further talked about global warming, pointing they could require LEED standards and solar panels. He also stated that it could be required that the parking lots be covered, which could also have solar photovoltaic panels that generate electricity. Mr. Nipp stated he will submit a written letter. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish commented that the Hosking interchange was unclear with regard to the date of completion, or any potential delay and alternatives if it is not built. He asked for a timeline clarification in the response to comments. Commissioner Tragish asked for clarification with regard to the urban decay analysis report inquiring if it is through 2007. Staff responded that they do not have that information and will have to respond in writing. Commissioner Tragish commented that there have been a lot of changes with regard the viability of commercial development that he would like to have it addressed in a response to the EIR. He pointed out that if the analysis is from 2000 it would need to be updated accordingly. Commissioner Tragish stated he was confused with the alternatives, as referenced by Ms. Farrell, and ask for clarification with regard to their feasibility. He asked why have alternative feasibilities if they are not feasible. Commissioner Tragish further commented to Mr. Nipp's reference to AB 32, indicating that he is not clear as to all of the mitigation in AB 32, and stated that he is not sure what has to be shown in an EIR to comply with the requirements of AB 32. He asked for clarification on this. Commissioner Andrews echoed the comments of Commissioner Tragish. He stated his concern is the Hosking interchange and what will happen to the Panama Lane exit if there is not a completion on Hosking. Commissioner Tkac commented that he would like to see more details about the Hosking interchange, and the timeframe so that it is put in ahead of the project. He asked for clarification on the Colony Street issue. He further stated with regard to the RODS, NOG, PM1 0, and PM2.5, etc., he would like to see a comparison from an ag standpoint if it were left as ag ground. He stated he would like to see the differences in the pollution with it being an open field and dust blowing around it versus a covered over area. Commissioner Tkac commented that a lot of the air pollution in Kern County is caused by places north of here, and he would like to see how much of the pollution analyzed comes from places north of here with the prevailing winds that come down to Kern County versus how much we cause ourselves. He further commented that he has recently heard that a lot less pollution is being caused here due to mitigations that have been implemented by the agriculture industry, trucking industry and the building of roads to keep traffic moving faster. He stated that he would like to see how much pollution is truly caused from Kern County, as it relates to the pollution that is going to be "allegedly'caused by this project. Commissioner Tkac commented that from a mitigation standpoint, Dr. Nipp talked about the solar issues, and he is not sure how much the developer has looked at bringing solar to this project. He pointed out that the stores in the projects will have to add these costs to their prices to cover the cost of solar panels, etc. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -- August 21, 2008 Page 4 Commissioner Stanley commented that he will submit his comments in writing. Commissioner Blockley stated that he will submit his comments separately. He pointed out that with regard to the mobile sources of pollution, Kern County has absolutely no control over the diesel railroads, which is regulated by the federal government. He commented that he would like to see this issue addressed in the EIR. Commissioner Johnson referenced page 3J-11, dealing with the waste water component, regarding the sewer plants that will be used which are at or near capacity, and the timeline for addressing an increasing capacity. He stated that he would like to see what the contingency plan is should that timeline not be met. Commissioner Stanley, seconded by Commissioner Andrews to refer comments to Staff for preparation of a Final EIR. Commissioner Tkac commented that there is a very large wastewater facility that is being built off of Ashe Road, and there should be more than enough capacity by the time this project gets built. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, Stanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis 5.2 Canyons Project GPAIZC 03-0337(Robert Kapral, canyons, LLC) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Tom Home, Environmental Services Director, with Michael Braham & Associates, gave his presentation on the environmental setting, the project description, alternatives to the proposed project, a look at why the city elected to re- circulate the Draft EIR, changes that have occurred with the technical studies, the substantial changes that have occurred with the re-circulated EIR, as well as the remaining schedule. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, stated he will submit written comments prior to the deadline. He stated that in looking at the responses to an earlier letter, he noted that there are a lot of points in that earlier letter that were not addressed in the re-circulated Draft EIR. He requested that the earlier letter from February 28, 2008 be looked at again, and the points made taken a little more seriously. Mr. Nipp stated that the re-circulated Draft EIR talks a little bit more about global warming issues, but doesn't really give it a very serious treatment. He commented that the reasons for giving global warming a serious treatment is: 1) Legal reasons, AB 32, and the California Attorney General has been making a point about cities and counties taking AB 32 and the global warming issue seriously. 2) Moral reason. He submitted a paper by James Hanson, Director of the NASA Institute. Mr. Nipp commented that the city could require that the houses being built be energy efficient. (audio distorted because network went down) Mr. Nipp commented that with respect to the alternative site plan, it is not clear to him what they are working on. He brought up the issue of whether the project is needed and pointed out that they should be pulling homes away from the bluffs and the habitat areas. Ben Oakley, with the Southern Sierra Fat Tire Association, stated that the EIR fails to include the substantial and unique recreational resources that currently exist in the proposed project site that would be eliminated by the development of the Canyons Project. Mr. Oakley pointed out that these resources include unimproved trails that are essential for the following established community events: 1) the Kern River Trail Run; 2) Mr. Toad's Wild Run; 3) Weekly Monday and Wednesday night rides. 4) Hiking; 5) Collecting fossils; 6) Biking; and 7) bird watching. Mr. Oakley further commented that the property owners have the right to do what they want since it is private property, but one has to acknowledge that there are unique recreational resources available. He stated that the EIR does not actually mention what is on the site presently. The public hearing is closed. Meeting Minutes of Planning commission -- August 21, 2008 Page 5 Commissioner Tragish stated that the EIR is suppose to assist in making decisions about the project, and he is not sure what the requirements are of AB 32, and whether there are mandatory requirements or items that have to be looked at. He commented that the EIR, with regard to global warming, seems to talk about emissions, and he is not sure whether AB 32 goes beyond this, and covers preventive items. He asked Staff to provide a copy of AB 32. He further stated that he would like to get some clarification on whether AB 32 is a consulting type of legislation, whether it is a directive, or some type of mandatory requirements. Commissioner Tragish commented that with respect to "need" for a project, it usually falls under urban decay whether a project is going to impact and create urban decay. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the EIR has to address the "need" for the project at this stage. Staff responded that the EIR would only be addressing the need for the project if there was a General Plan policy that addressed certain growth limitations for the Bakersfield area. Staff further clarified that the EIR itself does not have to address the need for a project, and Bakersfield does not have a cap on the number of units it allows per year, or to be in circulation at any one time. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the project as presented in the EIR conforms to the Hillside Ordinance. Staff responded that there are mitigation measures attached to the project that conditions the project to be in compliance with the Hillside ordinance. Commissioner Tragish stated that it was his understanding when the Hillside ordinance was passed, that there were provisions in it to allow for mitigation. Staff concurred, pointing out that there were other things that came in to play with this project such as setbacks, and some conditions were applied to bring the project into compliance with the Hillside ordinance. Commissioner Tkac stated he would also like to see more about AB 32. He asked for a definitive answer as to whether the global warming issue is not just a cyclical hoax. Commissioner Blockley stated he will submit his questions in writing. Commissioner Johnson referenced preface page xvii, "semi-public recreational area," and commented that he does not think that semi-public means much, as it is either a public recreational area or it's not. He asked for clarification on this term. In addition, he commented that when reviewing some of the mitigation he noticed there will be sumps, landscaping, slope protection areas, etc., and inquired if there is an opportunity to turn some of the sumps into landscaping amenities instead of just being dry, slated-fenced properties. Commissioner Johnson inquired what kind of protection the City has as they go through the process if they find that some of the lots may or may not comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance. He inquired if some of the mitigation measures need to clarify what would happen if the mitigation is not met. Commissioner Johnson further stated that it would be important to clarify how the other litigation along the future Morning Drive alignment would impact the circulation in the current application. He stated this would be important for the public to understand. Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac to refer comments to Staff in preparation of a Final EIR. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, Stanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac ABSENT: commissioner McGinnis Recess taken Meeting Minutes of Planning commission - August 21, 2008 Page 6 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS—VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS 1 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1 Revised Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6736(McIntosh &Associates) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Fletch Wagoner, representing Casa Club Fairway Homeowners Association, which is adjacent to this subject property to the east across Donaldo Street. He pointed out that the site has numerous weeds on it of Various heights and mounds of dirt everywhere. It has become a dumpsite for the Rio Bravo area. He further pointed out that the project is not harmonious with the surrounding development. He also stated that the Rio Bravo area has a lack of arterial streets through the area, pointing out that presently there is only one that serves the entire Rio Bravo area. He also stated that he's been in real estate for 35 years, and he does not believe this project will market properly in Bakersfield. Tom Roddy, resident of Rio Bravo who lives in Tract 5997, echoed Mr. Wagoner's comments. Mr. Roddy stated that his experience with phased developments, particularly in this area, has not been good. He stated in this market there are a lot of uncompleted projects, and by phasing this map and making it a Vesting map there will be 17 more potentially unfinished projects in the middle of an already establish community. He stated that he is opposed to making this a Vesting phased tentative tract map. Robert Wooch stated he lives to the west of this project. He stated that the traffic coming up Casa Club will add another 184 trips times two that will be using Casa Club, which will cause a lot of pain. He commented that if the applicant would downsize the number of homes that would match the density of the rest of the communities in the area, it would facilitate things very well. Judy Anderson stated she lives in the Casa club Fairways Homeowners Association which is directly to the east of this development, off of Donaldo Street. She stated she is not only concerned with the state of the property right now and its disrepair, but she is also concerned with the phased map in that the street on the southern most portion of the tract that goes into Donaldo does not match up with the other streets that intersect with Donaldo. Therefore, neighbors will be getting headlights in their bedrooms at all hours. She said that it would make more sense for traffic and safety issues that all the streets match up in a uniform manner. Ms. Anderson also commented that they don't like the idea of having multiple housing units within their community, but if it must be done they would ask that the streets at least align with the existing streets. Mr. Roddy added that if this map is approved to be a phased project, he would like to see there be a requirement that the E I R be re-visited since the character of the project changes through the phasing and Vesting. Jim McFarland stated he lives in Rio Bravo. He requested that if this is approved, that there should be some requirement that the developer keep the property presentable. Roger McIntosh with McIntosh and Associates, representing Andrew Fuller, gave a history of this project. He requested a continuance on this matter so they can study the units themselves. He reminded the commission that since this project was approved they have spent the last year designing this tract, pointing out that it is ready to be submitted and processed. He stated that to go back and revise all the plans is a monumental task, and they would like the opportunity to continue their discussions with the fire department and public works concerning the interior street widths. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired since there is a revised Vesting tentative tract map if there has to be new environmental documents. Staff responded in the negative as the environmental document that considered build out of the previous project for 185 units would be essentially the same for build out of 185 units even if it's phased. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission — August 21, 2008 Page 7 Commissioner Tragish commented that if this project can get back on track and start developing the current conditions regarding the maintenance of the lot will disappear. He also pointed out that there are code requirements in the maintenance of these projects. Commissioner Tragish referenced the improvements to the streets, and specifically condition 5.7.1 indicating that upon pulling a permit for phase 1 that the applicant would have to construct Casa Club Drive a minimum of 35' wide for the frontage. He inquired if this means the applicant has to start with phase 1, or if he can start with phase 2 and not improve Casa Club Drive. Staff responded that there is no requirement that the applicant follow development of phases in numerical order, however if the numerical order is changed, Public Works has the authority to review the conditions that were written and see if any of them need to be changed to apply to the new sequence of phasing. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the applicant starts with phase 3 if that would trigger Planning to look at the conditions and require the improvement of Casa Club Drive. Mr. McIntosh was recognized to make a comment. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that the memo from the fire department corrected that condition, and is requesting that only the interior streets be widened to 32' since Casa Club and Donaldo are already 32' wide. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the condition 5.7.1 and 5.7.1.1 is correct following Mr. McIntosh's comment. Staff responded that they are not sure that the fire department memo actually states that, but it is their belief that it was their intent. If there is a continuance this language can be clarified. Commissioner Tragish stated that his comment is the same for 5.7.2, and 5.7.2.1, where it appears that when they pull a permit for phase 4, they have to improve Donaldo Street. Staff confirmed that their answer would be the same for these conditions as well. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff is aware of any request from the fire department to correct this. Staff responded that the fire department's comments applied to Donaldo as well. Commissioner Tragish commented that he is sympathetic to Mr. McIntosh and the applicant's request, as he thinks they should get a vesting map. He further commented that he thinks it is equally important that they are put in a position where they can be successful. Lastly, he stated that he is in favor of a continuance. He commented that a 36' wide street will kill this project and he stated he thinks it's a little over the top. Commissioner Blockley inquired of Mr. McIntosh if this is the same project as the earlier version that had an elaborate presentation. Mr. McIntosh responded that he was not involved in the first tentative map, however it is the same project, with the same units, and same design. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that all they are doing is breaking it into phases. Commissioner Blockley stated that he can see where changing the widths of the street would have a severe impact on this project. Commissioner Blockley inquired if phasing would have any impact on the prior approval, which was a comprehensive look at this entire project. He inquired if it could be sold off since it is being subdivided, thereby having one part look one way and the other part look a different way. Staff responded that different parts of the project could look differently, even if there were no phasing. Staff explained that new site plans could be approved with portions of the project looking differently if they had changes in product preference. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Roddy to about the drainage ditch. Mr. Roddy stated that the ditch is in another subdivision. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that condition 4.1 requires the applicant to submit a drainage study prior to grading the site, which has to be approved by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Johnson provided the phone number for Code Enforcement. Staff responded that an update can be provided as Staff has made progress on this issue. Mr. Lee from the Building Department stated that staff went out three days ago and started Code Enforcement proceedings which was issued case number 08-8875, and the owner has seven days correct the deficiencies. Meeting Minutes of Planning commission — August 21, 2008 Page 8 Mr. Lee stated that they will return to the site in seven days to see if property clean-up has occurred. Commissioner Tragish commented that it is very possible that this project will be sold off to different developers. He explained that what needs to be understood is that the lay out of the streets and the access usually stays the same, but there could be different building elevations. Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley to continue this item to September 4, 2008, so that the applicant can work with Staff to come to some agreement. Motion carried by the following roll call Vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, Stanley, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis 8.2 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6775 (Dewalt Corporation) located on the northeast corner of Panama Lane and Ashe Road. Heard on Consent Calendar. '. PUBLIC HEARING -- Amendment to the Plannin g Commission's Wall and Landscape Policy related to Residential Subdivision Wail and Landscape Design Standard. Heard on Consent Calendar. 8. PUBLIC HEARING —Comprehensive Sign Plan (Revised) No. 08-1055 Heard on Consent Calendar. 9. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. 11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Ro 'n Gessner, Recording Secretary JAM ES,,D. OVI ecretary Plannin it for September 5, 2008