Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 4, 2002Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish None Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Jim Movius, Marc Gauthier, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC STATEMENTS Phil Ryall, consulting geologist in Bakersfield, spoke about the oil and gas regulations the Commission is working on. He presented a letter to the Planning Department stating his concerns. He applauded the work being done on the ordinance but had two items he wanted to speak on. The first item Chapter 15.66.040 - Well Site Development Standards for oil companies. Generally, if an oil company wants to drill a well, he has to set back 100 to 300 feet depending on the type of building or structure. But if a builder wants to come in and build next to an oil well, he can. There are two consequences to that. One of them is oil and gas wells can blow out. Buildings can burn down. They are a hazard. Item 2 is that most of the oil around here is part of the old Fruitvale Oil Field and people are thinking it is all used up but this is not true. With primary production, which is all that has been done since the early 1900's, you get about 20 to 50 percent of the oil out of the ground. Now, with new technology, we can get 80 percent or more of the oil out of the ground. You can't drill or redevelop the field with the setbacks. What you need to work out with the developer is drilling islands. If you don't have drilling islands, and you own the minerals, you will never be able to redevelop the oil field. The 2010 Plan says it is going to protect those assets. We have produced 700,000,000 barrels in the dozen or so fields in the greater Bakersfield area. If you find another 20 percent, you are finding another major oil field and he told Commission, it is not only feasible but probable. He wants the Commission to consider those things in the new rules. CONSENT CALENDER 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items: 4.1a Approval of minutes from Planning Commission meetings of February 21 and March 7, 2002. Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 2 4.1b General Plan Consistency finding for the summary vacation of the superseded portions of County Road No. 912 (Morning Drive) between the north line of Parcel Map No. 2583 and Alfred Harrell Highway. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 3) 4.1c General Plan Consistency finding for Acquisition of 5,277 sq. ft. for additional right-of-way turn lane on the northwest corner of south bound lane of New Stine Road at Ming Avenue. (Ward 5) Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve the non-public hearing items portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time for Parcel Map 10587 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4) 4.2b Approval of Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5964 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) 4.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6089 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4) (Agenda Item 5) 4.2d Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 01-0822 (Floyd Hinesley) (Ward 4) (Agenda Item 7.3a) 4.2e Approval of Zone Change No. 01-0822 (Floyd Hinesley) (Ward 4) (Agenda Item 7.3b) 4.2f Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 01-1014 (Lusich Co.) (Ward 7) (Agenda Item 7.6a) 4.2g Approval of Zone Change No. 01-1014 (Lusich Co.) (Ward 7) (Agenda Item 7.6b) 4.2h Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 01-1022 (Michael Dhanens Architect) (Ward 4) (Agenda Item 7.8a) 4.2i Approval of Zone Change No. P01-1022 (Michael Dhanens Architect) (Ward 4) (Agenda Item 7.8b) Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 02-0106 (City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department) (Ward 4) (Agenda Item 7.9a) 4.2k Approval of Zone Change No. 02-0106 (City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department) (Ward 4) (Agenda Item 7.9b) There were additional memos given to the Commission regarding several of the projects. Public portion of the hearing was opened. William Bailey requested that Item 4.2b (EOT for TT 5964) be removed from the Consent Agenda. Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 3 Commissioner Sprague requested that 4.2h and 4.2i be removed from the Consent Agenda for a brief discussion. Commissioner Tragish and Tkac declared a conflict of interest for Items 4.2d and 4.2e. Commissioner Tkac stated he listened to a copy of the tape of Monday's pre-meeting and is prepared to participate in tonight's meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the remainder of the public hearing items under the Consent Calendar along with the modifications contained in the group of memorandum received from the Public Works Department. Motion carried. Item 4.2a - Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5964 (Porter-Robertson) Public portion of the hearing was open. William Bailey showed the Commission some photographs of the project. He objected to the 3 year extension of time as the project site needs cleaned. Harold Robertson, representing the applicant, stated he was prepared to answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Boyle asked what can be done to clean up the site? Mr. Robertson said that the property owner should be contacted. Mr. Grady said that we could take the information from Mr. Bailey and turn it over to our Code Enforcement Department. They would go out and look at the site and proceed as appropriate. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked if the cleanup situation affected their approval or disapproval? Mr. Grady said "no." Commissioner Brady explained to Mr. Bailey that what they would be voting on tonight was just an extension of time to give the owner more time to develop his property. The cleanup issue will be handled by the City's Code Enforcement Department. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve a 3- year Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract 5964 (Phased) to expire February 17, 2005 with findings set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None 5. See Consent Agenda Item 4.2c Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 4 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO TITLES 15, 16 AND 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO OIL AND MINERAL DRILLING AND PRODUCTION REGULATIONS. (City-wide) This item was heard at the end of the general plan amendments and zone change projects. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT: 7.1 General Plan Amendment No. 02-0006 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 3) Staff report given recommending approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against the project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay expressed his concern about the retail potential and/or including the restaurant. Commissioner Gay feels that there is not adequate parking for the restaurant and/or retail space. Mr. Grady stated that this has already been approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and all they are voting on tonight is the land use designation change. Commissioner McGinnis expressed his concern about parking and traffic and asked if the tenants in the area had been notified. Mr. Grady said that there is no requirement to notify renters. The requirement is to notify property owners within 300 feet. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he would like to see residents in the area that are affected receive some kind of notices. Commissioner Sprague asked if the Commission could put a PD overlay zone on this project so that when it comes back to the Commission, they can make some conditions to protect the adjacent residents. He expressed his concern about noise, light and traffic. Mr. Grady said they can do that but it would not apply to the current project. Commissioner Sprague said he would like to add a PD overlay zone just in case this project doesn't get built but another one might in the future. Commissioner Boyle asked why the land use isn't checked as part of the conditional use permit to make sure that the general plan is consistent with the zoning? Mr. Grady said there are cases where either the property owner doesn't want to pay for it and they come in with a conditional use permit because they don't want to take the time to go through a general plan amendment and zone change because it would take too long for a project they have on the table. A conditional use permit allows compatible uses for a particular zone when they are not listed in that zone as permitted by right. Mr. Grady corrected his previous statement concerning PD overlays and stated that because the zoning already exists, you cannot add a PD overlay to the project. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt the resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the amendment to the land use element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by changing the land use map designation from HMR to (DC on .85 acres of land as provided in Exhibit A and recommend same to the City Council. Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 5 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle None None 7.2 General Plan Amendment No. 01-1025 (City of Bakersfield) (Wards 1 & 2) Ms. Shaw stated that she has received over 20 phone calls in overwhelming support of the collector status. A letter from Kern County has been received requesting a meeting to discuss their concerns but it could not be arranged until next week. Ms. Shaw recommended continuing this item until the next meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Mary Leal and Henry Ramirez, residents in the area, agree with the road becoming a collector. They feel there are enough lanes already to meet traffic needs. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague stated that he is always against downgrading from arterial to collector because perhaps in 10, 15 or 20 years from now, we could find out we should have left it as an arterial. Commissioner Sprague agreed with the project being continued. Commissioner Brady said that in light of the county's letter raising significant CEQA issues, he thinks not only does staff need to meet with them but they need to address the issues in a form to address the CEQA challenge that they have made. Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to continue Item 7.2 to the next Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by group vote. 7.3a&b See Consent Agenda Item 4.2d&e 7.4a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe No. 01-0916 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady if he could give an example of some of the uses that are possible under C-O zoning? Mr. Grady said an example of some of the uses that would be allowed in a C-O zone are: accounting, advertising agencies, banks, business management consulting services, professional membership organizations, graphic design, commercial photography, day care nurseries, detective and security services, engineering, surveying and environmental planning services, governmental Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 6 services, medical, dental, etc. Commissioner Boyle asked if you can have a mini-mart, gas station or restaurant in the zone without changing it or getting a CUP? Mr. Grady said "no." Public portion of the hearing was opened for those wanting to speak in opposition to the project. Stan Perera, a resident next door to the adjacent property, stated that he has cattle on his property and feels that an office use next door will generate complaints about the animals. Dennis Bernard, Brian Stanfield, Bob Gooch, Doug Carter, Alica Perera, Becky Kaiser, David Fell, Debbie Smith, Jess Perales and Phil Gaskil, all homeowners in the area, spoke against the project. Their main concerns were the impacts from increased traffic. They all feel that a commercial site does not go with the residential nature of the neighborhood. Richard Monje, a representative of some of the residents in the area, spoke about two of their major concerns. One of these is the planning issue. His belief is that the Commission's land use planning decision, should they approve the amendment and zone change, has to be made consistent and in compliance with the policies of the general plan. Mr. Monje said that there are no policies in the general plan that says you can put commercial office buildings immediately abutting residential development. In fact, the land use part of the general plan says there should be buffers between commercial uses. In particular single family residences. The land use portion of the general plan says it is the policy of the City of Bakersfield to "preserve" residential areas. The other issue is the environmental issue. There has been a failure to provide the proper environmental analysis as no one knows what project is being proposed. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady stated the following for the record: That Mr. Monje called him to discuss the project and Commissioner Brady told him to put it in writing and they had no subsequent discussion, that he had spoken to Jess Perales recently but not concerning this project and that there is a letter from Alan Henderson, a former client, but he has not represented him for over a year and also he has litigated in Brimhall Classics but that has been a number of years ago. Commissioner Brady asked for clarification in that this particular site is in the county and one of the reasons the city is doing this is to improve the intersection full width? Mr. Grady said "yes." Commissioner Brady said that he had some significant concerns about changing the land use designation to any kind of commercial property where there are existing homes adjacent to it. He would not support a zone change to C-O and asked staff if the property owner would be willing to agree to a PCD? Mr. Grady said there has been no contact with the property owner regarding a PCD zone. Commissioner Brady asked the traffic engineer if there has been a traffic study done on its proposed affect on traffic in the area? Mr. Walker, Traffic Engineer, said that traffic engineering submitted a traffic analysis to the Planning Department on January 18, 2002. In the assessment, they analyzed what they considered the possible uses that may be there - 20,000 sq.ft, medical office with 20,000 sq.ft, of general office - and that Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 7 is a worst case example. With that analysis, you would have a possible 42 vehicles totally generated in the morning and in the evening it would be a total of 51 entering and exiting the site. Mr. Walker said that Brimhall Road will eventually be capable of carrying 45,000 vehicles per day and in order to plan for that the city is a proponent of this change. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Walker if they considered the impact if this property remained in the County? Mr. Walker said no because they were just asked to analyze what would happen with development. Mr. Walker said you would continue the status quo until such time as the person decided to develop and then dedicate the required land for road right-of-way on Jewetta and Brimhall. It would continue to be a bottleneck area. The only action that he could foresee that would have to happen is that eventually it would get so bad, the city would have to go through condemnation to acquire the property and build the road right-of-way. Commissioner Brady asked if we could do this with it being outside the city? Ms. Gennaro said that we would have to do it in conjunction with the county. We could not do it on our own. Commissioner Brady asked if the property owner is obligated to put in the improvements to the intersection? Mr. Grady said only if he requires some permit from the city or county for the use of that site. Commissioner Brady asked staff to respond to the concerns Mr. Monje brought up regarding office space adjacent to residences and the impacts created by that. Mr. Grady said we have policies in the general plan that support commercial next to residential. Some of those policies support more intensive commercial than what is being proposed by this applicant. Mr. Grady said that although we have not proposed to the property owner that a PCD be put on the property, if the Commission is inclined to do so, it would be an appropriate condition the Commission could place on the project. Commissioner Sprague said there are lots of things the property owner could do if the property were to stay in the county and get the approvals in the county, such as a strip mall, which the City's Planning Commission would not approve. He said he would not support the project without a PCD being placed on it. The Commission could then control what is built on the property and place conditions on it that are compatible with the residential neighborhood. Commissioner Gay said that he does find the C-O zoning compatible in many instances to residential. This is done downtown very nicely. He agrees with the PCD overlay but does have some concern over the size of the parcel as it could accommodate quite a bit of office space. He will vote to deny the project tonight due to the neighborhood concerns but is anxious to hear other Commissioner comments. Commissioner Tragish stated that he spoke with Mr. Monje and Mr. Price, a resident in the area. One of the things that concerns him is when you put a commercial property in a residential zone that sometimes the neighbors give up and many people put their houses up for sale. He realizes the city needs this property and to change the general plan so that something can be done along Brimhall as it needs a lot of work. Commissioner Tragish said that he doesn't think this is the project to get that done. He feels that this is an opportunity to preserve the equestrian trails. He does not go along with the PCD zoning as he feels this should be left a residential area. He feels traffic is a major issue but the people in the neighborhood should take that into consideration when Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 8 they come and protest the general plan amendments and zoning. Commissioner Tragish said he does not intend to support the general plan amendment or zone change when the vote comes up. Commissioner McGinnis said he agrees with the people that spoke tonight but the traffic issue sways his feelings in that that intersection is going to become increasingly dangerous as the area develops and if we don't have some tool within our means to widen it and make it safer for everybody who is already in the area and who will be in the area in the future months, we will have a real problem on our hands. He has spent the majority or his life in an area that is a mixture between commercial and residential and the only problem he had during those times was the traffic. When the traffic and parking became a problem, there was no means to control it. If the Commission has the means to control what goes in there and how it goes in, then for health and safety reasons he feels it is necessary and he would support the motion. Commissioner Boyle asked about the size of the parcel. Mr. Grady said it is five acres without the streets taken out. Once the streets are taken out, it will be 3.7. Commissioner Boyle said that after the Traffic Engineer's presentation he is satisfied the mitigated negative declaration is appropriate. He finds commercial office space does not usually create a problem for residences in the area. They are usually not open on weekends. He sees very little in the way of noise or light pollution. There are no odors emitting from a commercial office use. The fact that according to the CC&Rs all four surrounding property owners have to agree for development to take place on this corner and that is not likely to happen, it compounds the problem that that intersection has to be improved but there is no way the owner can develop his property through subdivision. Commissioner Boyle believes, therefore, the city's conclusion that this should be commercial is perhaps the only method available for street improvements. Commissioner Brady requested staff to describe the differences between zoning a planned commercial development versus a C-O zone with an overlay. Mr. Grady said the C-O zone with the overlay provides the least amount of regulatory activity by the Commission. It is simply a site plan review that occurs in front of the Planning Commission instead of the Development Services Director. The PCD is the one that provides the Commission with the greatest amount of discretion as far as the design and look and feel of a project. Commissioner Brady said he would not be in favor of an overlay in a C-O zone. He stated that he would only support a change with a PCD zone put on the property. A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration, approving the requested general plan amendment to amend the land use element designation from ER to OC on five acres located northwest of Brimhall Road and Jewetta Avenue as delineated in Exhibit land recommend same to the City Council with the requirement that the applicant bring forward to the city an application for a Planned Commercial Development zone on the property. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Boyle Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 9 NOES: Commissioner Tragish ABSENT: None A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt a resolution making findings, and denying the requested zone change to amend the zoning district from RS 5A to a C-O zone on five acres located northwest of Brimhall Road and Jewetta Avenue as delineated in Exhibit 1 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None A 30 minutes recess was taken. 7.5a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe No. 01-1018 (Castle & Cooke) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. Roger Mclntosh, representing Castle & Cooke, Inc., gave a brief history of the project and explained the current application. Mr. Mclntosh said they are here to answer any questions and that they concur with the memorandum dated March 28 and the staff report. No one else wanted to speak and the public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady said he feels the people in this area deserve to have a nice neighborhood park. It bothers him to say that there are other parks in other locations. If you can't walk to it or get to it easily, you are not going to use it. He has a real problem eliminating a park. Commissioner Brady asked Allen Abe, Parks Department, if when they make recommendations they try to follow policies according to the general plan? Mr. Abe said "yes." Commissioner Brady asked if there wasn't some other document that the Park's Department uses? Mr. Abe said they have a master plan that was done about 3 years ago. Commissioner Brady asked if the Parks Department still supports neighborhood parks? Mr. Abe said they support every park. Commissioner Brady said that according to the master plan one of the strategies is look at the growth patterns in the city to ensure that when you are projecting or placing parks, you put them in areas where you think the population is going to go. Mr. Abe said yes that is correct. Commissioner Brady asked if this wasn't one of the areas where the city is projected to grow? Mr. Abe said the whole southwest area is projected to grow. Mr. Abe said that what needs to be kept in mind here tonight is the proximity of the various parks in this area. Commissioner Brady said Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page10 number five in the policies in the general plan says "to establish as a target that mini parks and neighborhood parks within the City of Bakersfield jurisdiction be situated within 3/4 of a mile of residences they are intended to serve." He then asked Mr. Abe if it was his position that if they eliminate the one they are talking about there will be a park within 3/4 of a mile of all the residences in this area? Mr. Abe said they anticipate that it will work. Three quarters of a mile is an estimated gauge. It may go within a mile or less than 3/4 of a mile. Commissioner Brady asked if as situated there would be residences in this planned area that would be more than 3/4 of a mile away from the park? Mr. ,Abe said that they have found in their studies that 3/4 of a mile is a good measuring tool but also found that people not only walk, bike and travel by car to the various park sites. It is nice to have neighborhood parks within walking distance but through their survey they have found that many of the people travel by bikes and by car and other means of transportation rather than just walking to their neighborhood park. Commissioner Brady asked if technically this is a variance from the strict guidelines about the number of acres of park land for this area? Mr. ,Abe said that staff feels that that particular four acre park is not needed. Commissioner Brady said the general plan states that a variance can be allowed based on some certain types of constraints. In this case, a variance could be allowed where a neighborhood park requirement would be met by community parks when the community parks are situated within or at the boundaries of neighborhoods and when they provide equivalent facilities. Taking the money instead of a park and putting it towards the aquatic park wouldn't be the same as the aquatic park wouldn't have the same equipment. Mr. Abe said that the aquatic park would be a part of the overall park scheme. There would be a small amount of playground equipment. Commissioner Brady said that the aquatic park is not on the boundaries of the neighborhood but several miles away. Mr. Abe said yes but the aquatic park is not simply an aquatic park. There are a lot of other features, a lot of open area, a lot of turf area for free play, a concert area, etc. Commissioner Brady asked if it is the same as a neighborhood park? Mr. Abe said no. Commissioner Brady feels neighborhood parks are important and valuable to the neighborhood. Mr. Abe said that they want to make sure they are getting the most out of their money, value or opportunity to use everything they can to build facilities in the neighborhood but at the same time saying they have enough park facilities in this particular neighborhood and it is better to take the in-lieu fees for the four acres and place it somewhere where they would get more value. Mr. Abe also said that the parks in that area are very well situated, very well accessible by the neighbors and the people in the various residential areas where these parks are in the southwest. He has not heard of any complaints about the lack of parks in the southwest area. Commissioner Brady said it is because they have done such a good job with their parks, it has made them so valuable and why taking it out of a neighborhood is such a loss. Castle and Cooke has put in amenities way beyond what is required and it benefits the neighborhoods vastly. Commissioner Brady said he cannot support the loss of this open space park as he can't do that to the community. Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Gennaro if the fact that the applicant has chosen to reduce his density does it require the City to approve a general plan amendment that reduces the size of the park from eight acres to four acres? Ms. Gennaro said "no" the city has two years to buy the difference between the eight acres and four acres. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Abe why this is such a good deal for the City when Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 11 Castle and Cooke makes $2 million dollars while the City makes $150,000? Mr. Abe said that Castle and Cooke is in the business to make money and the Parks and Recreation Department is in the business to provide a service. To get the most of their park service, they feel this would be the best way to go. Commissioner Boyle asked if the money generated for this would be used to improve the park off of Stockdale Highway? Mr. ,Abe said there are various options they can do with the in-lieu and development fees. They have five park zones throughout the city and they have the latitude to take the money and do something with it in the particular zone that the park is located in. Commissioner Boyle asked who owned the large commercial site across from the 30 acre park? Mr. Abe said Castle and Cooke. Commissioner Boyle then asked if building the park would improve their ability to lease the commercial project out? Mr. Abe said yes. Commissioner Boyle said that he was not in support of giving up park property. Open space is a very valuable commodity. He thinks it is a mistake to give up open space. Commissioner Tragish asked what the City does with the park development fees? Mr. Abe said the in-lieu and park development fees are used for acquisition and development for the park zone it is collected for. Commissioner Tragish asked if any of the money collected can be used to embellish the 30 acre park site off of Stockdale Highway? Mr. Abe said if the money is collected in the zone, it could be used for that. Commissioner Tragish stated that Commissioner Brady and Commissioner Sprague's comments are very persuasive but by the same token he doesn't think the area itself is as densely built out as other areas are in many of the tracts in Bakersfield and the existing parks that they have seem to be sufficient to serve the people that live there. He is basically in favor of allowing Castle and Cooke to delete the four acre park and pay the in-lieu fees. Commissioner Gay asked staff if the in-lieu fees were designed for those developers who didn't have the area to provide a park? Mr. Grady said that would be one way to apply it. Commissioner Gay said he concurs with Commissioner Brady that he would not want to see this removed from the area. The applicant should try to work it out in such a way where he maintains a park in that area and they keep the open space plan. He would like to see them get their "public" parks increased to serve the neighborhood. The bike path and golf course does not serve their needs. Mr. Mclntosh stated that the existing six acre park currently under construction would have been collecting fees of around $500,000 for the amount of units that are allowed to be built for that park. Castle and Cooke set a new standard. They are spending $932,000 to enhance the park and they are doing it now instead of waiting for the city to collect enough money to build a park. The benefit is there today instead of a year or two or five down the road. Commissioner Sprague said he hates to give up park land in the area but since the in- lieu fees can be used to enhance the 30 acre aquatic park benefitting the whole southwest community instead of getting just another park that that is sufficient reason. Commissioner Boyle said the 30 acre park will be built regardless and the approval of Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page12 the applicant's request may expedite how quickly it will be built but once the park land is gone, we will never get park land in that space again. The regional park will be a wonderful place for children to play if their parents can drive them there but it can't replace a neighborhood park. The city desperately needs more regional parks but right now we are talking about a neighborhood park. Commissioner Brady said the idea of taking the money from a neighborhood park and putting it in a regional park is called for under certain circumstances in the general plan. The neighborhood park requirements can be met by community parks when the community parks are situated within or at the boundaries of neighborhoods when they provide equivalent facilities. The aquatic park is not adjacent to or within this neighborhood and, therefore, under our general plan, cannot meet those neighborhood park requirements. Putting the playground equipment at the aquatic park does not benefit the neighborhood. Making people get in the car and go to the park does not help air pollution. A motion was made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration, approving the requested general plan amendment to amend the land use element designation from HMR, GC and OS-P to LR on 49 acres located north of White Lane between Buena Vista Road and Allen Road as delineated in Exhibit 1 and recommend the same to City Council including the Public Works memorandum from Marian Shaw dated March 28, 2002. Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish NOES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, Tkac, Boyle ABSENT: None A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration, approving the requested general plan amendment in part to amend the land use element designation from HMR and GC to LR on approximately 41 acres located north of White Lane between Buena Vista Road and Allen Road as delineated in Exhibit 1 and recommend the same to City Council including the Public Works memorandum from Marian Shaw dated March 28, 2002. The request to change the Open Space Park to LR would be denied. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, Tkac, Boyle NOES: Commissioners McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page13 A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the requested zone change to amend the zoning district from C-2 and R-2 to R-1 on 41 acres located north of White Lane between Buena Vista Road and Allen Road as delineated in Exhibit 1 and recommend the same to City Council including the Public Works memorandum from Marian Shaw dated March 28, 2002. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner McGinnis stated that the basis for his dissenting vote on the previous motion was to defer to the knowledge of the Parks and Recreation Department and staff. Commissioner Traggish stated that the reason for his no vote was that he believes given the density of this particular area, the deletion of the four acres is consistent with the general plan to provide adequate neighborhood parks and also to defer to the opinion of Parks and Recreation and staff in the comments made in their presentation. Commissioner Sprague stated that he voted no for the same reason Commissioner Traggish did. He feels that it is sufficient for this neighborhood to redirect funds into regional park areas and an aquatic park. 7.6a&b See Consent Agenda Item 4.2f&g 7.7ab&c General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe No. 01-1019 (Castle & Cooke) (Ward 4) Staff reported that the Commission should have two memorandums from Public Works modifying conditions of approval for this project and one from Stanley Grady addressing condition number 25 which relates to the request to delete the equestrian trail in the staging area. Staff is recommending approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Carolyn Belli, representing the Kern Equestrians for Preservation of Trails, spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. She expressed their concerns for the deletion of the trail. She stated that both the city and the county have honored the Western Rosedale Specific Plan that was developed by the county in response to the concerns from long term rural residents of the Rosedale area. These residents were concerned about losing their rural integrity by the impending high density growth in the area. This trail easement and proposed staging area is key to providing a nexus from the Western Rosedale Specific Plan for equestrians to reach the river form their property. They are adamantly opposed to losing the only existing trail connector leading to the river between Highway 99 and Enos Lane. Ms. Belli stated that in discussions with Castle and Cooke this week they have come up with an Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page14 alternate and acceptable plan that would provide an inland trail from Goose Lake Slew, Allen Road to the river. Additionally, Castle and Cooke has indicated they would turn over the one acre staging area to the city to continue open space and the $30,000 improvement funds for the city to use for the larger staging area the city has planned in the same vicinity. They would be in agreement with the alternate proposals and request the Kern Equestrians be informed and a party to approval of the new trail. They also request the word "equestrian" be added to the last statement of the changes on the mitigation to read: "to cover some of the city's cost to construct an equestrian staging/picnic area." Instead of just a staging and picnic area. The funds were originally for an equestrian staging area and they should be spent to improve one. Ms. Belli stated that with the proposed changes, they are no longer opposed to the mitigation. Rich O'Neil, representing the Kern River Parkway Committee, stated they are speaking in support of the equestrian community. They asked for the Commission to follow the visions of 2020 and keep the trails and staging areas. Roger Mclntosh, representing Castle and Cooke, spoke about the history of why they are applying for this change. Castle and Cooke representatives have been meeting with the equestrian people and they support the staff recommendation with the memo Mr. Grady wrote dated April 2, 2002 and the memorandums from the Public Works Department dated March 28 and April 3. Deborah Olson, Tina Price, Robert Wright and Marilyn Vargas spoke about how important equestrian trails are to the rural community and how important it is to make them safe and sound. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked if it is true that the city does not recognize the Rosedale Specific Plan? Mr. Grady said it is a temporary condition. In the on-going general plan update, all of the plan documents in the metropolitan area will become part of the city's general plan. Commissioner Boyle asked where the staging area will be built? Mr. Grady said that it may end up somewhere on the 40-acre site that the city has as part of the water recharge area that will be jointly used as a soccer park. Ms. Belli stated that she has met with Mr. Bogart of the City's Water Resources Department and showed the Commission a map of the exact location. A motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration, approving the requested general plan amendment to amend the land use element designation from HMR to LR on 17.67 acres and from LR to LMR on 43.45 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 and recommend the same to City Council incorporating memorandums dated March 28, April 3 and April 4 from the Public Works Department and the memorandum from Stanley Grady dated April 4, 2002. Also, changing the text of Condition 29 to read: "... (at the Rio Bravo recharge area) to a point owned by the City adjacent to the Cross Valley Canal." The word "equestrian" shall be added to the phrase "staging area." Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page15 NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration, approving the requested zone change from R-2 to R-1 on 17.67 acres and from R-1 to R-2 on 43.45 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 and more fully described on Exhibit 3 and recommend the same to City Council and incorporating memorandums dated March 28, April 3 and April 4 from the Public Works Department and the memorandum from Stanley Grady dated April 4, 2002. Also, changing the text of Condition 29 to read: "... (at the Rio Bravo recharge area) to a point owned by the City adjacent to the Cross Valley Canal." The word "equestrian" shall be added to the phrase "staging area." Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration, and denying the request to delete the parking staging area and required improvements and denying the deletion of the equestrian trail recommending the same to City Council and incorporating memorandums dated March 28, April 3 and April 4 from the Public Works Department and the memorandum from Stanley Grady dated April 4, 2002. Also, changing the text of Condition 29 to read: "... (at the Rio Bravo recharge area) to a point owned by the City adjacent to the Cross Valley Canal." The word "equestrian" shall be added to the phrase "staging area." Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None A two minutes recess was taken. 7.aa&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe No. 01-1022 (Michael Dhanens Architect) (Ward 4) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar. Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page16 Staff report given recommending approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Michael Dhanens, representing the property owner, said that they have reviewed the staff report and findings and agree with the conditions and is available to answer any questions the Commission might have regarding this project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague said he pulled this off of the consent calendar as he has some questions about the project. He has some concerns about the landscape and wanted to make sure there is some continuity with the apartment complex to the west. He recommended the Planning Director take this in consideration when the site plan comes up before him. Commissioner Sprague asked if the property owners agreed to a secondary access between the two pieces of property? Mr. Dhanens said he does not have anything written on file to respond to that issue but that the condition read that they were to provide for a future access to that property. They feel there will not be a problem to get a loop through the property so that the Fire Department can have emergency access. Mr. Huey said that they need a standard 20-foot wide access and approval at Site Plan Review would be fine. Mr. Dhanens said with respect to the continuity in landscape with the adjacent property that they will do what they can to try to make it continuous but at this time they do not have any design for the property and would like to have some flexibility. A motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration, approving the requested general plan amendment to amend the land use element designation from SR to LMR on 7.46 acres of land as shown in Exhibit A and recommend the same to City Council with recommendation to the Planning Director upon Site Plan Review that he make the landscape compatible with the adjacent surrounding properties. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration, approving the requested zone change from R-1 CH to R-2 on 7.46 acres of land as shown in Exhibit B and recommend the same to City Council with recommendation to the Planning Director upon Site Plan Review that he make the landscape compatible with the adjacent surrounding properties. Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page17 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle None None 7.9a&b See Consent Agenda Item 4.2j&k 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO TITLES 15, 16 AND 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO OIL AND MINERAL DRILLING AND PRODUCTION REGULATIONS. (City-wide) Mr. Grady said that staff has responded by a memorandum dated April 3 to the Planning Commission to the questions raised at Monday's pre-meeting. Ms. Gennaro responded to a letter received earlier in the evening from Mr. Ryall. After conferring with Mr. Movius and with regarding to question number one, she said that it seems to her what the writer is getting at is having some type of reciprocal benefit. Ms. Gennaro feels that the new ordinances do give the reciprocal benefits. Specifically, when 15.66.080 is looked at regarding when development encroaches on the oil well situation, they have to apply the same development standards that were applied for the Class I, II and III permits. With regard to the second paragraph of the letter which requested the sentence read "the lands will be reserved" instead of lands "may be reserved" Ms. Gennaro said this turns it into a legal issue. It's a taking issue, an inverse condemnation concern. She wouldn't want that changed to "will be." Public portion of the hearing was opened. The following spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. Roger Mclntosh stated he submitted a letter addressing Section 15.666.030 C.la. He said the request was to add language that requires the plot plan be prepared by a registered engineer or licensed land surveyor drawn at the scale specified by the Planning Director. The request is to be consistent with State law. When you prepare a grading plan or prepare topographical maps, you have to be licensed by the State Board of Registration. It would seem that when you are developing an oil or gas conditional use permit within an urban area, you would want to set the same standards as if you were urbanizing around an existing oil or gas well. He feels that the public's health, safety and welfare as well as the City's liability exposure would be better served to have a professional be the preparer of those plans. Phil Ryall stated that he read the proposed changes and talked about Item I, Setbacks. He said that if he were to drill a well, he would have to set back 100 to 300 feet from a building and wanted to know where it says that a builder has to set back from an oil well? Ms. Gennaro said the way they would interpret that would be "where a developer proposes to subdivide, rezone or otherwise develop property which contains existing drilling and/or production operations, including disposable wells, the developer shall provide a plan showing how all existing petroleum related facilities will be protected and integrated into the proposed development so said facilities will satisfy the development standards pursuant to this chapter" which means the developer has to abide by the same development standards that are reflected under the Class I, II and III permits. Mr. Ryall felt that is not specific. Ms. Gennaro said that she has been informed by Mr. Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page18 Huey that the Fire Department has certain reciprocal setbacks also. Commissioner Boyle asked if the words "including setback requirements" be added? Ms. Gennaro said that would be fine. Mr. Ryall said that would be wonderful. Commissioner Boyle said for clarity that it is his understanding that in Exhibit 1 on Page 18 in Section 15.666.080 that the end of the first sentence read "...pursuant to this chapter, including but not limited to setback requirements." Ms. Gennaro said that is correct. Mr. Ryall also had a question about drilling islands. "Taking of property" to his understanding is taking of his mineral property if a builder builds on top of it. His whole point has been to conserve the oil assets of the greater Bakersfield area. He feels that once a builder builds on top, no matter who owns the minerals, with new technologies they would never be able to go in there and develop them. That's why he is fighting for drilling islands. It is giving someone the right to get at their assets. Ms. Gennaro said she thinks it is how you look at the problem. Members of staff provided the Commission with a lengthy memorandum that addresses this issue on the bottom of Page 3. If you are the mineral rights owner, the developer will need to get your sign off. If you are a lessee, and you are not a recorded lessee, that will be a problem. But if you are a recorded lessee, someone will find you and development standards in the ordinance would presumably protect you. Joseph Austin, California Department of Conservation Division of Oil and Gas Geothermal Resources, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation. He stated they participated in the committee revising the ordinances. They support the ordinances for their future effect of protecting the public from potentially harmful effects of oil and gas drilling and production operations. They hope that in the future compatible land uses will be utilized by policy to buffer encroachment into oil fields such as the zone drilling islands and petroleum extraction combining districts in these ordinances and do appreciate some of the work that is being done to address their concerns about reciprocal setbacks. He stated they support these ordinances. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague said he was on the committee that reviewed this and made the recommended changes. He had several questions at Monday's pre-meeting and thanked Mr. Grady for explaining them in his April 3, 2002, memorandum. Commissioner Sprague said that in the memo Mr. Grady said it would be difficult to include all of the items that he requested as far as notification but that the APN numbers could be included. Commissioner Sprague asked if that could also include the Section, Township and Range without going back to the Urban Development Committee? Mr. Grady said staff would try to accommodate that as best they can based on the information received. Commissioner Sprague said he would be happy with that. Commissioner Sprague stated he feels that approval of different items such as conditional use permits should be put into the authority of the Planning Commission to make those decisions. Commissioner Sprague asked about Item No. 4 in the memorandum. He wanted to know what happens to the terms of the ordinance if the city dissolves the Board of Zoning Adjustment and develops another committee to review that or puts it into the Planning Commission directional approval? Should it say "and/or successor" or will that automatically happen? Mr. Grady said that any change that would modify the authority that is granted by an ordinance would have to be changed throughout the ordinance. The ordinance change that would accomplish any such move like that would be directed by the City Council. Commissioner Brady stated that he had the opportunity to serve as chairman of the committee Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page19 that dealt with these changes. There were significant problems between Stream Energy and Castle and Cooke that came to their attention and they tried to address those in the committee. Commissioner Brady feels that there is one significant issue that perhaps the City Council can look at in the future that has not been addressed. The issue is that when you have a situation where the mineral owner signs a lease to an oil company, the owner of the mineral, no longer has the right to waive surface access. They have given it to their lessee. These leases are very valuable and sometimes they last for many years. We have an ordinance that says that even though a mineral owner has given away his right, the City will still accept their signature. They really don't have a right to do that. The lessee could have his right to get to the minerals taken away by the City's action in granting the development of the surface. That is a problem. He feels that opens the City up for a lawsuit of millions of dollars if the lessee cannot get to the minerals. When this ordinance was written, there were negotiations with people from industry and most of those people were major oil companies who tend to be mineral owners and not mineral lessee owners. They did not necessarily take the interest of lessees. It is a significant issue with a significant risk for the future. The lessee is going to bring an action because they will have been precluded from obtaining access to their minerals. Commissioner Brady said that with regard to the issues put forth tonight, he feels they have made a very good effort and he applauds those involved. Staff has been very helpful and hopefully Council will make some note that we still have this significant issue that needs to be addressed and we won't just ignore it. Commissioner Gay said he enjoyed serving on the committee and asked if we are allowed to consider Mr. Mclntosh's request? Commissioner Gay thinks because it is a very specified or specific type of drawing that we should consider using an engineer or licensed land surveyor in our drawings. Mr. Burns, representing the Building Department, regarding Mr. Mclntosh's concerns, stated that it was staff's opinion that in not all conditions do we require that someone licensed do an actual site plan. We try not to put undue costs on a developer to hire someone to do this. Commissioner Brady said that from a practical sense that within the industry a lot of the land men are very adapt at producing maps because they do it all the time. We sometimes use a surveyor or petroleum engineer and they are very handy to draw the maps. Staff will be able to tell the applicants whether the maps are good enough or not and if they are not, they would send them back and they will be redone. Mr. Austin, from the DOG, said that he believes Mr. Mclntosh's request is entirely appropriate and he believes the environmental protection agency law requiring an SPCC (Spill Prevention Contingency Plan) requires some sort of engineer's stamp on site specific, spill prevention, berms, walls, containments, structures, etc. Commissioner Brady said that is true. The State and Federal agencies have various requirements regarding these things and he feels that adding Mr. Mclntosh's request is adding another layer just to have a separate map prepared. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve the ordinance amendments as attached as Exhibits 1 - 5 of the resolution with findings in Exhibit A and recommend same to City Council with the change as clarified by Commissioner Boyle. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 20 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle None None COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Grady thanked the staff for all the work they did for tonight's meeting. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Traggish stated he voted no on 7.4a&b based on the fact that he believes the general plan and Kern River Plan favors equestrian development of trails and access to the river and that the area in question has equestrian and he believes putting a commercial property there is not conducive to allowing that type of area to flourish. He also thinks it is a buffer area between all the various housing areas to the north and west. He feels that commercial property is not appropriate as it is primarily a residential area. Commissioner Sprague stated that he asked staff to acquire updated conflict of interest and Brown Act videos or information that they could pass along to the new Commissioners. He also requested that the new Commissioners receive current zoning ordinance and laws and CEQA Guidelines so that they can get up to speed quickly. Commissioner Brady also complimented Mr. Movius and his staff on the work they did for tonight's meeting. Commissioner McGinnis and Commissioner Brady requested that an item be placed on the next agenda discussing notification of the residents in an area of a project whether they be landowners or tenants. Commissioner Brady stated that he had listened to a copy of the tape from Monday's pre- meeting and was prepared to take part into tonight's meeting. 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING. It was decided to have a pre-meeting on April 15, 2002. Commissioner Sprague asked about joint City/County Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Grady said the upcoming ones will be for discussion of the 2010 Plan Update only. If the Planning Commission wants to have a joint City/County Planning Commission workshop or meeting, direction must come from the City Council. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m. Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 4, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 21 Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary May 7,2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director