SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS DIRECTOR'S HEARINGS. Conference Room. Date: October 6, 2016

Transcription

1 SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS DIRECTOR'S HEARINGS Conference Room Date: October 6, 2016 ATTENDANCE: Hearing Officer: Scott F. Denney Staff: Holly Nelson, Alexa Kolosky Kern County Public Works Department/Building & Development/Development Review: Paul Candelaria, Brian Blacklock The hearing convened at 10:00 a.m. The Hearing Officer announced that any decision made at the hearing was subject to appeal and proceeded to review the various types of cases and appeal deadlines. For zoning related cases, any such appeal must be filed within 14 days from and including the date of hearing decision. For violation cases, an appeal must be filed within seven days from and including the date of hearing decision, and for land division related cases, an appeal must be filed within ten days from and including the date of hearing decision. The Hearing Officer noted that the appeal forms are available at the Planning Counter or can be downloaded from the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources website and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $540. NEW CASE: 1. Zone Modification Case No. 3, Map No A Zone Modification to allow a six-foot-high chain link fence where the maximum permitted height is four feet in the front yard (Section B) in the R-1 (Low-density Residential) District 430 Shattuck Avenue, Taft DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ZONE MODIFICATION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt, Section Donna Kay Avent Donna Kay Avent, the applicant, and Daniel Gandarilla, an ASL interpreter from the Independent Living Center of Kern County, were in attendance. The Hearing Officer asked Ms. Avent if she had received a copy of the staff report and if she had any questions or concerns regarding the analysis or Staff s recommendation. Ms. Avent indicated she had received the staff report and did not have any questions or concerns. The Hearing Officer inquired if there was anyone in attendance either in support or opposition that wanted a summary of the staff report presented. Upon receiving no requests for a summary presentation, the Hearing Officer dispensed with the reading of the staff report. There being no one else wishing to be heard, pro or con, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. The Hearing Officer noted that the applicant had signed a written acknowledgment of the existence of a portion of a six-foot-high fence within the front yard setback of her property, which constitutes a land use violation. The Hearing Officer further noted that the applicant had paid all outstanding penalty fees and that the approval of the zone modification would abate any violation subject to Section B of the Zoning Ordinance. The Hearing Officer noted that a site inspection was made by Staff and confirmed the existence of three

2 CONTINUED CASE: (3) other properties within the immediate vicinity of the applicant s property that had similar fence height exceedances. The Hearing Officer briefly summarized the associated conditions of approval. Referencing Condition (3), the Hearing Officer noted that no building permits are necessary for fences six (6) feet in height or less, and the Hearing Officer further acknowledged that the applicant had submitted photographs demonstrating compliance with Condition (4), requiring a swinging gate entrance within the front yard fencing. The Hearing Officer reviewed the three findings that must be made to approve a fence height modification. The Hearing Officer concurred with Staff s recommendation and adopted the findings and approved the zone modification subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Notice of Decision No ). 2. Violation - Map No Consideration of violation findings (Section ) of the Zoning Ordinance for operating an agricultural trucking facility without the benefit of land use approval (Section A.2) in an A (Exclusive Agriculture) District Redbank Road, Bakersfield DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: CONCLUDE A LAND USE VIOLATION EXISTS; ADOPT RECOMMENDED FINDINGS, AND: (A) INSTRUCT STAFF TO CEASE PROCESSING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AS ALL OF THE NECESSARY FINDINGS CANNOT BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ALL VIOLATIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AFFECTING THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS BEING SOUGHT HAVE BEEN ABATED; AND (B) DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE THE NECESSARY REFERRALS FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION TO ENSURE ABATEMENT OF THE LAND USE VIOLATION(S) Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt, Section Victor Quinonez (PP13014) (Continued from September 15, 2016) Victor Quinonez, the applicant and lessee, and Ana Johnson, the property owner, were in attendance. The Hearing Officer asked Mr. Quinonez if he had received a copy of the staff report and if he had any questions or concerns regarding the analysis or Staff s recommendation. Mr. Quinonez indicated he had received the staff report and did not have any questions or concerns. The Hearing Officer further questioned Mr. Quinonez and verified that the cost estimate for a domestic or agricultural well for the property was understood. Additionally, the Hearing Officer noted that a Conditional Use Permit would not permit vehicle storage in an agricultural zone district with regard to the motor vehicles stored on the property. The Hearing Officer inquired if there was anyone in attendance either in support or opposition that wanted a summary of the staff report presented. Upon receiving no requests for a summary presentation, the Hearing Officer dispensed with the reading of the staff report. October 6, 2016 Page 2

3 Ana Johnson, the property owner, offered clarification regarding the trailer and chicken coops referenced in the staff report, claiming that these items were on the property when it was purchased. Ms. Johnson indicated that the trailer is unoccupied and she is trying to remove it from the site. She additionally added that no personal vehicles are stored on the property, as they had been removed a few months ago, and that the well on the property was not functional. The Hearing Officer questioned Mr. Quinonez regarding how many trucks were used in his business. Mr. Quinonez indicated that he and his business partner own five (5) or six (6) trucks each and have been operating their trucking business for the past ten (10) years in different locations in Kern County. The applicant indicated that the trucking facility was based at a previous location for approximately one- (1) and-one-half (1/2) years before they were asked to leave. The Hearing Officer inquired if there was anyone else in attendance in support or opposition to the project that wished to speak on the record. Walt Fisher, a neighboring property owner, was in attendance. The Hearing Officer questioned if Mr. Fisher had received a copy of the staff report and if he had any questions or concerns regarding the analysis or Staff s recommendation. Mr. Fisher indicated that he had received the staff report and did not have any questions. However, Mr. Fisher wanted to clarify what he believed to be erroneous information presented in the staff report regarding the number of vehicles noted to be present on-site, as well as add that it appears that a road maintenance business is also operating on the project site. Mr. Fisher claimed that there were three (3) Recreational Vehicles present on the site as of one-week prior to the Hearing, and two of these Recreational Vehicles were at least partially hooked up to utilities. Mr. Fisher further noted that there are approximately 40 vehicles and miscellaneous parts occupying the project site and added that the chicken coop referenced by Ms. Johnson is approximately 2,000 square feet in size and is partially sided The Hearing Officer asked if there was anything else to be added to the record. The property owner, Ana Johnson, furnished a letter from her legal representation, Khinda Wilson, LLP, which indicated that a lawsuit had been filed against herself and Jesus Rodriguez, the property owners, regarding the use of the land located at Redbank Road in Bakersfield. This letter was received and filed. The Hearing Officer further questioned Ms. Johnson and Mr. Quinonez regarding the frequency with which they had visited the Public Service Building since the last hearing in which this case was considered. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Quinonez indicated that they had only visited the Public Service Building once, aside from attending the scheduled Director s Hearings for their case, to obtain information regarding the necessary requirements to proceed with their application. There being no one else wishing to be heard, pro or con, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. The Hearing Officer indicated that he had reviewed the staff report and based on the information provided, concluded that a violation did exist and the five necessary findings could not be made. The Hearing Officer concurred with Staff s recommendation and instructed Staff to cease processing of the application, as all five findings could not be made pursuant to Section D, until such time as all October 6, 2016 Page 3

4 violations of the Zoning Ordinance affecting the property for which the permit is being sought had been abated. The Hearing Officer directed Staff to initiate the necessary referrals or enforcement action to ensure abatement of the land use violation(s) (Notice of Decision No ). 3. Conditional Use Permit Case No. 6, Map No An Extension of Time (Section B) for this Conditional Use Permit (Resolution No ; originally approved August 25, 2011) which allowed the construction and operation of photovoltaic (PV) solar electrical power generating facilities in an HI (Heavy Industrial) District (South Kern Industrial Center Specific Plan - Section III.Conditional Uses.E) South of Santiago Road, two miles north of Copus Road in an unincorporated area of southwest Kern DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6, MAP 158 TO EXPIRE SEPTEMBER 7, 2017, SUBJECT TO ORIGINAL CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS OF APPROVAL Environmental Review: Special Situation, Section Algonquin Power Company Sami Mourtada, the applicant s representative, was in attendance. The Hearing Officer asked Mr. Mourtada if he had received a copy of the staff report and if he had any questions or concerns regarding the analysis or Staff s recommendation. Mr. Mourtada indicated he had received a copy of the staff report and did not have any questions or concerns. The Hearing Officer inquired if there was anyone in attendance either in support or opposition that wanted a summary of the staff report presented. Upon receiving no requests for a summary presentation, the Hearing Officer dispensed with the reading of the staff report. There being no one wishing to be heard, pro or con, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. The Hearing Officer indicated that he had reviewed the staff report and since there were no changes to the project, there was nothing in the record to warrant reconsideration of the project. The Hearing Officer concurred with Staff s recommendation and approved a one-year extension of time to expire September 7, 2017, subject to the original conditions and findings of approval. 4. Precise Development Plan No. 4, Map No An Extension of Time (Section ) for this Precise Development Plan (Notice of Decision 38-14; originally approved September 18, 2014) which allowed a contractor s storage yard (Section E.2) and truck/equipment sales and rental (Sections D.2 and D.5) in an M-3 PD (Heavy Industrial - Precise Development Combining) District 2123 Panama Road, Bakersfield DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME TO EXPIRE OCTOBER 1, 2018, SUBJECT TO ORIGINAL CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS OF APPROVAL Environmental Review: Special Situation, Section Edward Borna by French and Associates Jeff French of French and Associates, the applicant s representative, was in attendance. October 6, 2016 Page 4

5 The Hearing Officer questioned Mr. French if he had received a copy of the staff report and if he had any questions or concerns regarding the analysis or Staff s recommendation. Mr. French indicated he had received a copy of the staff report and did not have any questions or concerns. The Hearing Officer inquired if there was anyone in attendance either in support or opposition that wanted a summary of the staff report presented. Upon receiving no requests for a summary presentation, the Hearing Officer dispensed with the reading of the staff report. There being no one wishing to be heard, pro or con, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. The Hearing Officer indicated that he had reviewed the staff report and since there were no changes to the project, there was nothing in the record to warrant reconsideration of the project. The Hearing Officer concurred with Staff s recommendation and approved a two-year extension of time to expire October 1, 2018, subject to the original conditions and findings of approval. 5. Temporary Precise Development Plan No. 2, Map No A Modification of Temporary Precise Development Plan 2, Map 202, (Sections D and ) which initially allowed the temporary installation of a commercial coach to be used as a construction office during the construction of the Tejon Industrial Complex in the M-1 PD (Light Industrial - Precise Development Combining) District (originally approved March 23, 2006; Notice of Decision 27-06) and was subsequently modified as follows: (1) Modification which allowed for a commercial coach in addition to an approved commercial coach [and a five-year extension of the termination date] in the M-1 PD (Light Industrial - Precise Development Combining) District (approved March 5, 2009; Notice of Decision 21-09); and (2) Modification which allowed for the continued use of the two commercial coaches for a period of three years in the M-1 PD (Light Industrial - Precise Development Combining) District (approved May 15, 2014; Notice of Decision 19-14). Current request is to replace a previously approved 3,456-square-foot commercial coach with a 2,880- square-foot comercial coach and the continued use of the two commercial coaches for a temporary period of five years Northeast corner of the intersection of Tejon Industrial Drive and Laval Road, Wheeler Ridge DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE MODIFICATION OF THE TEMPORARY PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS TO EXPIRE MARCH 5, 2022, SUBJECT TO ORIGINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH THE REVISIONS OF CONDITIONS (4) AND (9) AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND ADOPT ORIGINAL FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt, Section Tejon Industrial Corporation by McIntosh and Associates No representative was in attendance; however, the Hearing Officer considered the case. The Hearing Officer inquired if there was anyone in attendance either in support or opposition that wanted a summary of the staff report presented. Upon receiving no requests for a summary presentation, the Hearing Officer dispensed with the reading of the staff report. There being no one wishing to be heard, pro or con, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. The Hearing Officer indicated that he had reviewed the staff report and offered that this was the third request to modify the original precise development plan to retain a October 6, 2016 Page 5

6 commercial coach on the project site. As noted in the staff report, revisions were recommended by Staff with regards to Condition (4) and Condition (9). Condition (4) was proposed to be modified to reflect that changes in size of the commercial coach shall be reviewed by this Department, and Condition (9) was proposed to be modified to recognize the change in the project approval duration from three (3) years to five (5) years. The Hearing Officer concurred with Staff s recommendation and approved a temporary five-year precise development plan to expire March 5, 2022, subject to the revised conditions as read into the record by the Hearing Officer and the original findings for approval (Notice of Decision No ) as shown below. Revise Condition (4) (4) This permit authorizes the installation of a 48-square-foot by 6072-square-foot commercial coach for use as a construction office, and authorizes the retention of the existing 24-foot by 60-foot construction office unit to remain on site until the termination date of this modification. Any change in size of the commercial coaches shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department upon concluding that change in size is in keeping with the intent of this permit, prior to issuance of a building permit for a commercial coach installation. Revise Condition (9) (9) Approval is for a period of three five years, and shall expire on March 5, Upon permit expiration, the two commercial coaches and signs shall be completely removed. Landscaping and paved parking area may remain after the permitted use has been discontinued. 5. Precise Development Plan No. 67, Map No A Master Precise Development Plan for the establishment of future commercial and/or industrial uses (Section and ) in an M-2 PD H (Medium Industrial - Precise Development Combining - Airport Approach Height Combining) District (No specific uses proposed at this time) Southwest corner of the intersection of Merle Haggard Drive and Airport Drive, Bakersfield DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND APPROVE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Environmental Review: Special Situation, Section San Joaquin Refining Company by McIntosh and Associates (PP16186) Roger McIntosh of McIntosh and Associates, the applicant s representative, and Barry Hibbard, the applicant s consultant, were in attendance. The Hearing Officer questioned Mr. Hibbard if he had received a copy of the staff report and if he had any questions or concerns regarding the analysis or Staff s recommendation. Mr. Hibbard indicated he had received the staff report and did not have any questions or concerns. October 6, 2016 Page 6

7 Brian Blacklock of the Kern County Public Works Department/Building and Development/Development Review Section indicated that Condition 4(a) should be revised to provide further clarification regarding compliance with Parcel Map The Hearing Officer indicated that he would revise the condition to make said clarification. Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Hibbard agreed with the proposed changes. The Hearing Officer indicated that upon review of the conditions of approval, he believed there were a number of proposed changes/additions that should be made. Upon reading them into the record and receiving no changes from Mr. McIntosh or Mr. Hibbard, the following conditions and findings, as listed below, were added, revised, renumbered, or otherwise changed. There being no one else wishing to be heard, pro or con, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. The Hearing Officer indicated he had reviewed the staff report and concurred with Staff, adopting the findings with the inclusion of the revised finding four (4), the renumbered of finding five (5), and approving the precise development plan subject to the revised conditions as read into the record by the Hearing Officer (Notice of Decision No ) as shown below. Revise Condition (2) (2) This master precise development plan authorizes the establishment of 51 lots to be developed by minor-plan modification in accordance with Section (Minor Plan Modification) and Chapter (Special Development Standards) of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance subject to the adopted conditions of approval for PD 67, Map 102. Any additions or expansions that are not shown on the approved plan may be subject to: (a) minor plan modification; (b) formal modification to this plan; or (c) a new precise development plan, as determined by the Director of the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department. Revise Condition (3) to include (3)(a) and (3)(b) (3) Prior to the issuance of the first building or grading permit under this plan: (a) (b) The applicant shall submit an executed avigation easement, using a format as approved by County Counsel, shall be recorded over the limits of PD 67, Map 102. The applicant shall submit the executed document to the Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department for processing and recordation prior to development of the first lot within the plan. The applicant shall submit revised Sheets 4 and 5 of the Master Precise Development Plan to reflect the limits of Meadows Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan B1 and C Zones. Revise Condition (4)(a) (4)(a) All required improvements shall be constructed under encroachment permit issued street improvement plans reviewed and approved by the Kern County Public October 6, 2016 Page 7

8 Works Department/Building and Development/Development Review in conjunction with Parcel Map Insert new Condition (7)(s) and renumber subsequent conditions (7)(s) Future development shall comply with: 1. The applicable provisions of the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 2. The project design features identified. Renumber subsequent conditions as follows: (7)(s) (7)(t) If development for which this precise development plan has been approved pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance has not commenced within two (2) years of the approval, the approval shall become null and void and of no effect., unless an extension has been granted by the Planning Director upon written request for an extension of time before the expiration of the two-(2-) year period. (7)(t) (7)(u) Noncompliance with the adopted conditions of approval may cause permit revocation proceedings in accordance with Section of the Zoning Ordinance. (7)(u) (7)(v) At the time building permits are applied for, a filing fee of $130 may be imposed to ensure that final plans are consistent with adopted conditions of approval. This fee may serve as an initial deposit for particularly complex cases, in which case a cost recovery agreement will be required and charges will be billed at $100 per hour. Insert new Finding (4) and renumber subsequent finding. (4) The project is consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan policies to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the users of the airport and the surrounding land, by ensuring the orderly expansion and operation of airports and military aviation and the adoption of land use measure that minimize the public s exposure to excessive noise, safety, and overflight hazards within areas around public use airports and military aviation operations to the extent these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Renumber subsequent finding as follows: (4) (5) The Hearing Officer has found this project qualifies as a special situation and does not require preparation of further environmental documents pursuant to Section of the State CEQA Guidelines. October 6, 2016 Page 8

9 7. Violation - Map No and Consideration of violation findings (Section ) for the operation of a dog kennel and/or dog training facility (Section L) without the benefit of land use approval in an E (1/2) RS (Estate - 1/2 acre - Residential Suburban Combining) District Mountain Drive, Tehachapi DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: REFER BACK TO STAFF Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt, Section Lisa Norman (PP13014) The Hearing Officer noted that there was no one in attendance for this case. There being no one wishing to be heard, pro or con, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. The Hearing Officer indicated he had reviewed the staff report, and because the applicant is out of the state until the spring of 2017, there was nothing warranting consideration and therefore no action was taken. The Hearing Officer noted that the applicant has been informed that she needs a conditional use permit when she returns. The Hearing Officer noted that this case is not subject to an appeal. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS: This portion of the meeting was reserved for persons desiring to address the Hearing Officer on any matter not on the agenda and over which the Hearing Officer has jurisdiction. NO ONE WAS PRESENT FOR PUBLIC PRESENTATION. Meeting adjourned at 11:13 a.m. SCOTT F. DENNEY, AICP, Current Planning Division Chief sc October 6, 2016 Page 9