Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/99AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ...... PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL ALTERNATE: Thursday- March 1'8, 1999 5:30 p.m. JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TA VORN RON SPRAGUE NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning CommisSion meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours, prior to the meeting. 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ANY' PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subjeCt to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, c/o Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $330 nOn-refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any person outside the notiCe area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $330 non-refundable filing fee. If all aPpeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period'or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, Thursday - March 18, 1999 Page 2 CONSENTAGENDAI-TEMS.- (marked by asterisk (*) ..... .. - ........... ". These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off · consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. 1) A~jenda Item 6 - Wall and Landscape Concept Plan No. P99-0090 2). Ac~enda Item 8.4 - General Plan Amendment P98-0990 APPROVAL OF MINUTES APproval of minutes of the regular meetings held January '19 and January 21, 1999. WORKSHOP - Economic and Community Development Department - Transmittal of Draft Redevelopment Plans for the Old Town Kern-Pioneer Redevelopment Project area and Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project area for upcomin;I requests for findings of consistency with ~leneral plan and recommendations to the Central District Development A~_ency and City_ Council. PUBLIC HEARING - Wall and Landscape Concept Plan No. P99-0090 -'ReVised Vestin~l Tentative Tract 5667 - Ralph Adame. A proposed Wall and Landscape Concept Plan for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5667 requesting a deviation from the wall and landscape policy. (Categorically exempt) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote. PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to the Comprehensive Sion Plan for Valley Plaza Mall No. P97-0627 - MCG Architects. The proposed change will add the Pacific Theatre building as an addendum to the plan, and permit the theater to have a sign that is incorporated into an architectural feature that extends above the roof line of the building located at 2701 Ming Avenue. (Categorically exempt) Staff ReCommendation: Approve GroUp vote: PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, CIRCULATION, KERN RIVER PLAN AND PARKS ELEMENTS: Agenda, PC, Thursday - March 18, 1999 Page 3 8,1) ......... Amendment.to the, Metropolitan., Bakersfield .2OI.0 ..General Plan Parks Element - City of Bakersfield to increase the minimum size of neighborhood parks to 10 acres from the existing standard of 6 acres loCated city-wide. (Categorically exempt) Staff Recommendation: Approve Roll call vote. 8.2a) General Plan Amendment P98-0749 - Kern County Superintendent of Schools requesting to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan from LI (Light Industrial) to MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) on 15 acres located between 21st Street and 24th Street, east of "R" Street and west of the Kern Island Canal, (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Roll call vote. 8.2b) Zone Change P98-0749 - Kern County Superintendent of Schools requesting a zone change from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to CC (Commercial Center) on 15 acres located between 21st Street and 24th Street, east of "R" Street and west of the Kern Island Canal. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions -Roll call vote, 8.3a) General Plan Amendment P98-0976 - Kenneth F. Cooper requesting to amend the Land Use Element and Kern River Plan Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as follows: Land Use Element Amendment from OS (Open Space) to OC (Office Commercial) on 3.40 acres; Kern River Plan Element Amendment from 8.5 (Resource Management) to 6.25 (Office Commercial) on 3.40 acres located on the north side of Stockdale Highway, west of the Arvin-EdiSon Canal. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Approve Roll call vote. 8.3b) Zone Change No. P98-0976 - Kenneth F. Cooper requesting a zone change from A (Agriculture) to C-O (Commercial & Professional Office) on 3.40 acres located on the north side of Stockdale Highway, west of the Arvin-Edison Canal. (Negative Declarationon file). - Staff Recommendation: Approve Roll call vOte. Agenda, PC, Thursday - March 18, 1999 Page 4 8.4) 8.5a) 8.5b) 8.6) 8.7) General Plan Amendment P98-0990 - Castle and Cooke, Inc. *requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan changing the land use designatiOn from OS-P (Open Space-Parks) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 10.00.acres located approximately 1,400 feet west of Buena Vista Road along the south side of Ming Avenue (extended), and from LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) to OS-P (Open Space-Parks) on 10.00 acres located approximately 1,800 feet west of Buena Vista Road along the north side of Ming Avenue (extended). (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Denial Roll Call vote. General Plan Amendment P98-0991- SmithTechlUSA. Inc. requesting to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan from MC (Major Commercial) to HR (High Density Residential) on 5.02 acres located along the north side of Bernard Street approximately 1,000 feet west of Oswell Street. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Approve Roll call vote. Zone Chan~le P98-0991 - SmithTechlUSA, Inc. requesting a change in the zoning from R-1 CH (One Family Dwelling-Church) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) on 5.02 acres located along the north side of Bernard Street apprOximately 1,000 feet West of Oswell Street. The development will be a senior citizen (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Approve Roll call vote.' General Plan'Amendment P98-0960 - City of Bakersfield is requesting to amend the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by eliminating the North-South collector segment between Panorama Drive and Paladino Drive located about one-half mile west of Morning Drive, between Panorama Drive on the south and Paladino Drive on the north. (Categorically exempt) Staff Recommendation: Approve Roll call vote. General Plan Amendment P98-0968 - Castle and Cooke, CA, Inc. is requesting an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan deleting a "collector" street alignment along the south side of Ming Avenue (extended) approximately 3,500 feet west of Buena Agenda, PC, Thursday - March 18, 1999 Page 5 -Vista Road at the intersection of Ming Avenue and the Kern River Canal. The segment to be deleted extends southwestward from Ming Avenue (extended)/Kern River Canal intersection, a distance of approximately one-half mile. (Negative Declaration on file). Staff Recommendation: Roll call vote. Denial 8.8) General Plan Amendment P99-0028 - City of Bakersfield is requesting an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan deleting a portion of Pacheco Road as a collector segment between Gosford Road and Old River Road, (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Roll call vote. 8.9a) General Plan Amendment P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson Engineering is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan to increase the density requirements from 3.27 to 3.95 dwelling units per gross acre on 164.55 acres in the Polo Grounds deVelopment area. The request is also to change the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 1.25 acres located generally south of Snow Road, between Calloway Drive and the Friant-Kern Canal. (Negative Declaration on file)- Staff Recommendation: Approve a portion of the request Roll call vote. 8,9b) Circulation Element Amendment P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson En~lineerin~ is requesting a change in the Circulation Element Amendment to relocate a portion of the Norris Road alignment as a collector segment, located south of Snow Road between Calloway Drive and the Friant-Kern Canal. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff RecOmmendation: Roll call vote. Denial Agenda, PC, Thursday - March 18, 1999 Page 6 10. 11. 8.9c) Zone Change P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson En~ineerinp is requesting a change in the zoning from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to R-1 CH(One Family Dwelling-Church) on 10 acres and to C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) on 1.25 acres located south of Snow Road between Calloway Drive and the Friant-Kern Canal. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Approve a portion of the request Roll call vote. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. 12. ADJOURNMENT March 15, 1999 Planning Director I ' Held Thursday, - March 18, 1999 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Presenh JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY STEPHEN BOYLE MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN Alternate: RON SPRAGUE ADVISORY MEMBERS: Presenh CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Presenh STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Tkac read the Notice of Right to Appeal Commissioners Brady, Tavorn and Ortiz noted for the record that they listened to the tape of the meeting held on Monday, March 15, 1999, and were prepared to participate in tonight's meeting. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 1) Agenda Item 6 -Wall and Landscape Concept Plan No. P99-0090 2) Aqenda Item 8.4 - General Plan Amendment P98-0990 commissioner Brady moved to approve the consent agenda, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens. Motion carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES Of regular meetings held January 19th and January 21st 1999. Commissioner Kemper moved to approve minutes as listed, seconded by Commissioner Brady. Motion carried. WORKSHOP - Economic and Community Development Department - Transmittal of Draft Redevelopment Plans for the Old Town Kern-Pioneer Redevelopment Project area and Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project area for upcoming requests for findings of consistency with general plan and recommendations to the Central District Development Agency and City Council. Staff report given. Public portion of the hearing opened. Donna Barnes with the Economic and Community Development Department, with Paul Showalter with GRC Redevelopment Consulting who is doing redevelopment plans, commented that they will make sure the redevelopment plan is consistent with the General Plan and any amendments to the General Plan. They will make a recommendation to the agency and council. Public portion of the hearing closed. Commissioner Boyle found no special exceptions for the redevelopment areas to encourage Mixed Use type development and inquired if there should be anything in this plan for that, to which Mr. Showalter responded that it encourages development to the General Plan; it does not specifically encourage one type over another. Commissioner Boyle commented that some of these areas may be appropriate for Mixed Use and the General Plan may not allow for this, and inquired if it is appropriate to include those type of incentives or wait until the time the projects are proposed and then grant the appropriate exemption for a specific project, to which Mr. Showalter responded that the authority to do that is in place in the plan and they want to give the commission flexibility. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 3 Commissione_r..Sprague questioned if the properties in the layouts .for the.redevelopment map are currently zoned for industrial or commercial, or if the zoning is overlapping for purposes of this plan, to which Mr. Showalter responded those are the general plan maps for the City, and therefore are existing zonings, and the redevelopment plan would not change anything within the General Plan. Commissioner Sprague further inquired of the traffic and transportation study done, to which Mr. Showalter responded that in the EIR prepared for these projects those issues are addressed and are based on general plan build out. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady if the City should be developing special ordinances for these redevelopment areas that would encourage developers with greater flexibility for development, to which Mr. Grady responded that the current redevelopment plan is not intended to be that specific. Wall and Landscape Concept Plan No. P99-0090 - Revised Vesting Tentative Tract ,5667 - Ralph Adame. See consent agenda. PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Valley Plaza Mall No. P97-0627 - MCG Architects. Staff report given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Daryl Rheingans, General Manager for Valley Plaza, commented that the sign is consistent with the staff's recommendation and recommend approval. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if they have sent public hearing notices to people in the circumference area, and if they have received any negative comments back to which staff responded they sent notice, but received no negative comments. Commissioner Dhanens moved to adopt the attached resolutions with all findings and conditions approving the revised Comprehensive Sigh Plan Number P97-0627, seconded by commissioner Ortiz. Motion carried. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, CIRCULATION, KERN RIVER PLAN AND PARKS ELEMENTS: 8.1) Amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Parks Element - City of Bakersfield Staff report was given. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 4 Public portion of the hearing was opened. N° one spoke in oppOsition'°~-i~ ' favor. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague inquired if developers put in land as well as the designated improvement for these parks, how does the developer get credited back through park fees, and how long does it take to recapture that cost of development, to which Mr. Doyle responded that the land acquisition is the responsibility of the developer or the land can be dedicated. The development of the park is paid for through the amount of permits gathered from the dwelling units in the subdivision. That money goes into the City, and the City reimburses the developer when the funds become available. If thero is not a build out, there is not going to be sufficient money to reimburse the developer the total price of developing the park. Normally, the City has 15 to 20 years to reimburse. If within the 20 years there is not a total build out, essentially the developer does not get reimbursed the total amount of money that it cost to develop the park. It is usually more beneficial for the developer to develop the parks because the increase in property value will be realized more quickly then if the City has to wait until sufficient permits have been issued and the City has sufficient funds to develop the park. Commissioner Sprague requested a change regarding the Parks Director being the sole decision maker on park locations and sizes so that the discretion is given to the Planning Commission, because the Planning Commission is going to have the site plan in front of them and are going to be able to determine where the park should go to service that subdivision and be able to make a logical choice as to what size park should go in that particular area, along with the comments from Planning staff. Commissioner Dhanens stated that the language in the March 19th memo is similar to those included in many recommendations with respect to Public Works and City Engineer in how they leave several of the technical items to the agreement of the applicant and the City Engineer on roads and streets and traffic and sewer. When subdivisions and maps are reviewed it is at a stage where they may not be able to site that park, therefore, it would be premature at the Planning Commission level to make that decision then and he would be in support of the language as it is drafted in the memorandum. Commissioner Brady commented that giving the discretion to the Park Director is a compromise and is not something that you do off the cuff and does not think it is appropriate that the Planning Commission gets involved unless there is something that they can't resolve. He is comfortable with the language and supports the memorandum. Commissioner Boyle commented that the way the City looks and feels is the responsibility of the Planning Commission and where the parks are constructed and their size gives more appeal to a community than almost anything else under Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 5 ........ our. jurisdiction...He, stated that. he.does not believe that.takes_away_fmm.StaftTs expertise in giving information on how to design it, and there is some benefit to having the Planning Commission taking a look at the issue of parks. He would support Mr. Sprague's recommendation. Commissioner Kemper commented that implementation measure 9, "neighborhood parks may range in size from 6 to 10 acres at the discretion of the Director of Recreation and Parks; reasons for a size less than 10 acres may include master park planning for a given area, land availability and areas with fragmented ownership, or restrictions to a typical park service area." This gives the flexibility of the developers to meet with the City and to work out the location, the size, the streets and bringing it to the Planning Commission would be premature, because it will eventually come to the Planning Commission in the proper timing. Commissioner Brady commented that if a developer proposed a park that was 9.9 acres do you really want to have that developer come back in and have a full public hearing as opposed to just going to the Park Director and getting their agreement that 9.9 is good enough. Commissioner Brady stated he doesn't think the cost factor makes sense, and thinks this is an appropriate compromise. The Park Director is in a good position, and knows what he is doing with Parks, and can decide the issue. Commissioner Sprague commented that he is trying to get away from policy call by one person who is in charge of Recreation and Parks making that choice for the City of Bakersfield, and the citizens of Bakersfield, when the Planning Commission body should be the appropriate jurisdiction for that choice. Commissioner Tavorn expressed his agreement with Mr. Sprague and Mr. Boyle that they need to leave avenues open for the public to come in and express themselves. If this is given over to the Director of Parks you take the public out of the loop, and they should always keep the public in the loop, and the Planning Commission appears to be the only arena where they can come and voice their opinions and parks are something that we can plan and it is a great part of a city. We need to plan parks, and the public needs to be involved. Commissioner Dhanens inquired how Mr. Sprague's argument works in reality when a subdivider comes before us and knowing the process of how parks get set aside, and ultimately get constructed. Mr. Grady responded that typically the only time you would see a park issue would be in a General Plan setting where there the parks are being master planned, or when a subdivision would come in and as a condition of approval of that subdivision we are requiring that they actually dedicate land, because now the area is closing in, and we've identified a location, and this subdivider needs to begin to dedicate land, and may even be required to set aside land. The other situation would be if someone offered a park to the City to be constructed. It may or may not come in as part of a subdivision, and the Parks Director makes a determination if it is premature to accept that land now because based on how it Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 6 ............ develops.we might want to put the.park in another, location, or. do they want to accept that park site at that particular time, and that Park Director makes that decision today.- To accomplish the changes proposed by Commissioner Sprague they would have to look at a larger park at the time of the subdivision being offered to us, because you wouldn't see it. For example, the subdivisions you have had on your past agendas there is a condition requiring the developer to pay his park development fee, and his park land in lieu fee. Rarely do you see a condition requiring them to dedicate a six acre park. It would require a new bureaucracy requiring developers who want to dedicate a park less than 10 acres and then say now they have to have a hearing in front of the Planning Commission in order to reach that decision, and it's the kind of decision that seems to be perfunctory. Commissioner Dhanens stated the ordinance is a General Plan Amendment and it is proposing to amend the General Plan document with the language as proposed in the memo, and doesn't address the construction of the park or the timing of the park, as much as it does the setting aside of the appropriate acreage for neighborhood parks and making that the standard as opposed to the six acres that we currently have as a standard. In doing so, he is convinced that the Parks and Recreation Director is the most adequate person in the City Staff to make that judgment. Commissioner Boyle stated the public has stated their preference for larger parks and the additional facilities that larger parks would offer; parking, bathrooms. If the ordinance had been adopted as originally presented by staff there would have been no flexibility to create a park less then 10 acres, so he does not know how they are creating a bureaucracy of making them come back to the Planning Commission when the staff's original ordinance wouldn't have given them the flexibility to begin with. Mr. Grady stated the language was put in there to accommodate the concerns of the industry. The way the policy is written now, it states what the minimum acreage is, being between 2-% acres to 10 acres. If you take the General Plan policy, 2-% acres would be the size for a mini park. Between 10 acres and 20 acres would be the size of a neighborhood park. You already have ranges because the policy is written for minimums. Commissioner Boyle stated that absent this change they could have built the 9.9 acre site and called it a mini park and not need a Park Director's approval or Planning Commission or anybody else, to which Mr. Grady stated that the fee program is set up to build neighborhood parks, and there is no fee program set up to build mini parks. The 6 acre park does not meet the General Plan neighborhood park with a 10 acre minimum as proposed. Commissioner Boyle inquired what happens when you build a mini park and if the developer gets his fees, to which Mr. Grady responded that they don't accept mini parks as a standard operating practice. The mini parks have been part of a master plan, where the park locations are identified for a section of land, and the required park acreage. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 7 8.2a) Commission Boyle further inquired if to theextent there isa master.pleg.with a General Plan Amendment, then the Commission would be making a determination as to park size and location as part of the General Plan Amendment, to which Mr. Grady affirmed. Commissioner Boyle stated that a large portion of the ordinance is designed in situations where there is no master plan for the community, but where it's been built in small bits and stages by various developers, to which Mr. Grady affirmed. Commissioner Tavorn inquired if MeaSure G was put in for the developer and the Planning Department and not the public, to which Mr. Grady responded the General Plan is a public policy document so the policy is for the public. Commissioner Tavorn inquired if it was removed, would it change the overall ordinance change, to which Mr. Grady stated if measure 9 in the memo is not adopted then the existing policy would stay in effect. Commissioner Tavorn inquired if this was put in for certain parts of the general public, or for whom, to which Mr. Grady responded that a survey identified the 10 acre park size as the size the community wanted. Commission Tavorn suggested they concur with Commissioner Sprague or remove it. It does not appear to give the general public what it is asking for. Commissioner BradY stated the committee looked at 6 acre parks that had extra amenities and they were trying to give the developer some flexibility to put in an extra nice park, even though it was a little smaller than 10 acres, but the community would get extra and allow that flexibility to occur with the people that know parks; the Park Director. We're giving flexibility and increasing the size. It's a better system than we have now. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady and seconded by Commissioner Kemper to adopt the resolution approving and adopting the notice of exemption approving General Plan Amendment P98-0838 with findings as presented in said resolution and recommending same to City Council by the following. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Tkac NOES: Commissioners Boyle, Ortiz, Tavorn General Plan Amendment P98-0749 - Kern County Superintendent of Schools Combined with 8.2b below. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 8 ...... 8.2b) ._Zone Change P98~0749 .-.Kern County Superintendent of Schools Staff report given. The motion tonight will have to note two things: 1) Request from CalTrans for an additional study, and adding two conditions. The March 17, 1999 letter from CalTrans that points 2 and 3 would be added on as conditions of approval. None of the other two points would need to be, which means that the motion would have to add points 2 and 3 of CalTrans letter of March 17, 1999, 2) The original condition from the archeological inventory was to have a monitor on site the entire time and four conditions have been agreed to in the March 18, 1999 letter by the California Historical Resources Information System. Note a modification of the motion to include the subject, the condition to, Exhibit '%", to be superseded by conditions one through four of the March '18th letter by the California Historical Resource~ Information System; those two modification would cover the issues worked out today between four and five. Commission Dhanens inquired if the letter from California Historical Resources Information System would have been in their packet tonight to which Mr. Gauthier responded they are superseding condition number 2 in Exhibit ^ attached to the March 18th memo. The four conditions are those that Staff has received this afternoon, which the Commission has a copy of dated March 18th. Public portion of the hearing was opened for opposition. Dennis Fox stated that he is not in opposition, but inquired of the prudence and issues of the toxics in the ground. Robert Gomez stated that he is not really in opposition, but requests the Commission to look at another avenue outlined in a letter to the Commission. He requested the Commission postpone this request to give the Native-American communities some time with the Superintendent of Schools, and to establish some dialogue as far as some of the concerns they may have with respect to artifacts, retrieval and disposition of artifacts, some monitoring/consulting issues on site, and adherence to the CEQA process. Commissioner Kemper advised Mr. Gomez that in Exhibit "^" it says that "A qualified professional archeologist shall be present on site to conduct monitoring during all ground disturbance stages of project construction. Should any cultural resources be entered the archeologist shall assess the finds and recommend any necessary mitigation measures." Ms. Kemper feels Mr. Gomez's issues are covered in this Exhibit and she would be more inclined to go ahead with the recommendation. Mr. Gomez was concerned as to the definition of "qualified" and if other jurisdictions in the state or CEQ^ has a definition of what is a qualified Native- American monitor or archeologist. Tim O'Hara representing Star stated they have no opposition to the growth or aesthetic value, but have concerns about the installation put in. The school location on the north side is not prudent. His company's insurance will increase if Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 9 there is a school there, and it is going to cause congestion and.construction which will impede on his business. His business went in on an M-1 zoning, and they should not be penalized. He does not think it will be good for the City, and it is not good for them. Tom Vallas, Assistant County Superintendent of Schools stated that it was their desire to construct two educational facilities on the site. The first one is Move International, a smaller facility that would house between 30 and 40 severely disabled children, and would become an international training center. Secondly, using the downtown school, it is their desire to partner with the Bakersfield City School District to construct a very small junior high school. Requirements to attend the downtown school are that the parents receive an intradistrict transfer and that they work downtown. It is their goal to have kids picked up on R Street, and cooperate with all the different organizations to make this as smooth a process as possible. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle stated that he is in favor of the project and thinks the idea of Mixed Use projects downtown are an excellent idea and he supports it. Commissioner Boyle inquired as to the correctional facility/half-way house around the corner from the facility. Staff responded that they did not have much information as to how the facility runs, but knows that the facility was there for five or six years without the surrounding businesses realizing it was there. Adjacent property owners have stated that there hasn't been any problems. Commissioner Boyle asked of Mr. Vallas if they would cooperate with whatever group Mr. Gomez recommends in selecting an archeologist to which Mr. Vallas responded in the affirmative. Mr. Gomez stated that that what they are asking for. Commissioner Boyle also asked if there have been any kind of problems with unmanned gasoline facilities downtown such as Sullivan, to which staff responded the Fire Department, or HazMat would have that information. Chief Shapzian, Fire Marshal, responded that there have been no incidents out of the ordinary. Commissioner Boyle stated that he did not think they would be able to protect Mr. O'Hara from the possibility that children might come on the premises and do vandalism, and does not think it will be a major problem. To address Mr. O'Hara's further concerns about street closures, Commissioner Brady further inquired as to the closure of Golden State Highway to which staff responded that he is unaware of any street closures as a part of this project. Staff further responded that they believed Golden State was a State right-of-way. There is no known proposal with regard to closing 24th Street, but if a street is closed you have to have a 65402 finding from this Commission. Temporary closures for construction would have to go through the Traffic Department for any lane closures they would have. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Parle 10 · Commissioner Boyle commented that there appear.s..to be.sufficien,t_access from R Street for construction equipment, and inquired if they could put a condition on it that there won't be any lane closures, or street closures on 24th Street, without an additional public hearing, to which staff responded that any street closure would be no different than any other street closure and the way the City handles those situations. Staff stated they are aware of the impact on the surrounding businesses and would take every precaution to be as least disruptive as possible. Commissioner Boyle is reasonably satisfied that lane closures are very unique and will be on a very restricted basis, and he would support the project. [break taken] Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Fidler if the introduction of a school facility within a 1,000 feet of Mr. O'Hara's facility would trigger additional regulations, requirements or mitigation measures in his hazardous material plan that will have to be met as a result of the business that he operates, to which Mr. Fidler responded in the negative. Commissioner Dhanens inquired if the school is required to go through a site plan review through the City of Bakersfield to which staff responded they go through the State Architect's Office that reviews their plans, which would not impact any other businesses other than the school facility. Staff stated that there has been nothing submitted as to the exact location on the site where the facility will be located. Commissioner Dhanens inquired if the educational facility would be constructed on the north part of the site, which is most closely adjacent to the facility that Mr. O'Hara operates. Staff stated that the design of the school facility would be outside of their purview. Commissioner Dhanens inquired if the Office of State Architect, in review of the plans, would impose mitigation measures on the facility as it relates to the adjoining property, to which Mr. Vallas responded that they have to follow stringent guidelines to build a school. Mr. Vallas stated the State School Site Planning Division approves all school sites, and do take exception to a few things. The Department of State Architecture approves all the structural components of the project. There are two processes: 1) Site approval; 2) Architectural and structural approval. Commissioner Dhanens further questioned if the fact that some of the facility's neighbors may be M-1 uses would be factored into the review process, and if there may be some things they will impose on the County with respect to restricting access or leaving campus, to which Mr. Vallas responded that the State takes everything into consideration. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 11 Commissioner..Dhanens stated.that he likes the. idea of Mixed ..Use project in the downtown area, but is concerned with some of the M-1 zoned property and feels reasonably satisfied that Mr. O'Hara's property would not be further encumbered by any regulations or requirements by the introduction of the school adjacent to his property. He believes that the Office of State Architect in site selection will be concerned about these issues, and will probably impose some type of mitigation to restrict access or restrict some of the concerns Mr. O'Hara had in relationship to his property and the school. Commissioner Dhanens stated that he would support the project and support the condition regarding the Native-American issue and their participation in the selection of the archeologist retained to review this project. Commissioner Ortiz stated that he is in favor of the project and inquired if there are going to be children that are young adults being bused.in, or are they going to be dropped off by their parents and if they would even be on 24th Street, to which Mr. Vallas responded that they are trying to model this school to the downtown school just constructed. He stated that there are no buses and no walkers. All the parents bring their children to school because they do work downtown, and that is the model the County is trying to do. Commission Ortiz questioned the safety of the canal to which Mr. Vallas responded the canal will be considered by the State Department of Planning Division and will be one item that will be looked at before the site is fully approved by the State. Commissioner Ortiz stated that he is in favor of the project. Commissioner Sprague stated that he thinks this is a terrific rehabilitation of the area. He does not see much additional liability and would be in favor of the project. Ms. Shaw requested that points two and three in the March 18th memo from Steve Walker be included in the motion, rather than the actual letter from CalTrans. A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt the resolution approving and adopting the negative declaration approving the requested amendment to the land use designation from Light Industrial to Mixed Use Commercial with revised mitigation measures shown on the attached Exhibit "A" with the following changes: 1) Incorporate the memorandum from Steve Walker, dated March 18th, points two and three; 2) Incorporate the March 18th letter from the California Historical Resource Information System, which would include conditions one through four and 3) consult with the Native- American Groups in the selection of the archeologist. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 12 8.3a) 8.3b) ..AYEs: Tkac Commissioners. Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Tavorn, NOES: None Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to adopt resolution approving and adopting the negative declaration approving the requested zone change from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to CC (Commercial Central) with revised conditions as shown on attached Exhibit "A with the additional provisions: 1) Incorporate Steve Walker's memorandum of March '18th, points two and three; 2) Incorporate the March 18th letter from the California Historical Resource Information System as conditions one through four; and 3) the selection of the archeologist be done in conjunction with the Native-American Association here in town. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac NOES: None General Plan Amendment P98-0976 - Kenneth F. Cooper Combined with 8.3b below. Zone Change No. P98-0976 - Kenneth F. Cooper Staff report given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Lorraine Unger representing the Kern Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club, and their interest is protecting the Kern River Parkway. The Kern River Parkway is the only green belt in Bakersfield. She commented that the zone change and the land use element to office commercial is inappropriate. Brad Cooper, part-owner and General Manager of Cooper's Garden Center, stated that they have been in business for 58 years, and they plan to continue to do business for another 35 years at this location. However, they find it difficult to compete with Home Depot, etc. Their business is the only agriculture property in the city. They have applied for this zone change just to have the potential use of doing something else. Mike Neal, Vice-President for Business Administrative Services with California State University, Bakersfield, stated that they are not in opposition to the zone change, but they do want to make sure that the structural changes be reviewed and approved by the University, including architectural changes, and that is part of the restriction within the radius of the University that is built into the properties. Public portion of the meeting closed. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 13 ........ Commissioner.Boylestated that given this property is separated from the parkway by the canal and bike path, there is no habitat on this piece of property, that he does not feel that the applicant's request is inappropriate, and would support the project. He stated that he thinks there should be a view of the parkway through the property, and the concerns of Cal. State Bakersfield can be addressed, and instead of doing it as commercial office space zone that they consider a PCD, where it would be a zone change meeting the needs of the applicant for commercial development, but having it one that comes back where there would be a public hearing as to what this site would look like. Commissioner Brady questioned if Cai State already has the right to control or sign off on any construction on the property to which staff responded that he has second hand knowledge that something like that exists. Staff reported that it is not something between the City and Cai State, and that the first time it was heard of was when the Marketplace was being built. Commissioner Brady inquired of Mr. Cooper if there was some covenant or restriction on the property to which Mr. Cooper responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Brady stated he would support the application as presented. A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to adopt resolution recommending approval of the proposed negative declaration recommending approval of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element and the Kern River Plan Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn, Tkac NOES: None Commissioner Tavorn agreed with Commissioner Boyle on the PCD issue. Commissioner Sprague stated he doesn't see a need for a PCD because the deed restrictions are in place, and at the site plan review the issue can be addressed then. Commissioner Brady stated whatever goes on the property has to be in accordance with Cai State's wishes, and they did a nice job with the Market place and working things out there. They are just making the zoning in accord with use that's already been there for years, and putting this extra burden on the people that are using the property already is outrageous. Commissioner Boyle stated if they approve the commercial office space, they can build any project they want in accordance with the ordinances. The site plan review does not have the ability to change it. The site plan review process has no ability to say they want it to look like something else. If it meets the ordinances, it meets the ordinances. The PCD gives them the opportunity to say could we get Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 14 8.9a) 8.9b) 8.9c) you to.turn this building a little like this, or do this, because we're concerned about traffic, or we're concerned about the view of the Kern River Parkway. deed restriction may address Cai State's problem, but it doesn't address the concerns that the citizens may have and the view. The Mr. Grady stated that if their desire is to have a PCD then their motion tonight would not be to zone this property; it would be to deny the zone change, because the PCD is the site plan as well as the conditions of approval. The zone change would occur at the time as they are ready to develop the property. Commissioner Tavorn inquired if the CC&R's go with the transfer of property, to which staff responded in the affirmative. A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Tavorn, to adopt the resolution denying recommendation of approval of the proposed negative declaration and denying approval to propose zone change. Motion is carried directing the property come back as a PCD by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Kemper, Tavorn, Tkac NOES: Commissioners Brady, Ortiz, Sprague Motion is carried, directing the property to come back as a PCD. Commissioner Tavorn made a motion to move agenda items 8.9(a), 8.9(b) and 8.9(c) to the next agenda item. Seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Motion carried. General Plan Amendment P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson Engineering Combined with 8.9b and 8.9c below. Circulation Element Amendment P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson Engineering Combined with 8.9a and 8.9c below. Zone Change P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson Engineering Staff report given. Public portion of the meeting was opened. John Etcheverry stated he lives to the northerly part of this intersection, and opposes the road change only, and has no concerns about the church or the density. He opposes the road change due to dangerous conditions for egress Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 15 and ingress. The Traffic Department has said this is not a .proper th!ng.to do, is not in the 2010 Plan, and most of the collector and arterial streets follow the section lines, and they see no reason to change this at all, and would see adverse effects to the property in the future if it were changed. Harold Robertson, with Porter-Robertson Engineering, representing the applicant statedthat the reason for the proposal of alignment of Norris Road is that regarding future development of the northeast quarter of the section because of the Friant-Kern Canal and the existing alignment of the Norris Road as it bends to the north and ties in at the quarter section corner it leaves an area between Norris Road and the Friant-Kern Canal that is essentially limited in how you can develop it. Currently there is only 575 feet for residential use, and they feel the realignment would make this area more suitable for development and give them more flexibility. If the realignment is approved they will not have to have any other accesses onto Snow Road for any future development. If the realignment is denied and they have to maintain, that intersection at the quarter corner of the section, then they will have subdivisions that are developed between Norris Road and Snow Road, which is a half a mile, and it's only good planning that they are going to have to have some sort of access at that point. By moving to the east, they would have a signaled intersection, and would eliminate any other access points from subdivisions at that time. Mr. Carter stated the reason they want a small commercial site is they want to try to create a community hub/gathering placing of identity for this community. It will be a small "mom and pop" type store. They do not want to put gas pumps in or even want alcohol and tobacco there, but would like to create a place where families can walk down and meet their neighbors and in the evening have an ice cream; stop by in the morning and have some coffee, pastry and a newspaper. They want a place where people feel safe sending their children inside the walls of the community. They are working with the Post Office to put the mail boxes there. They figure they will get traffic equal to 1/6 of the what the Valley Plaza will get at this little center, so it will more than support the center and be a big boom for the community in that they don't have to go outside the community to get those small items. They would encourage a high school student to come in from three to five and make home deliveries to shut-ins. They are trying to create a sense of ownership in the community, and a place where people can meet and gather and have a facility where they can sit down and actually talk to each other. Outside the store they would like to provide some seating, and maybe some fountains. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Carter what the proposed square footage of the store would be, to which Mr. Carter responded around 3,000 square feet. Commissioner Sprague expressed concern about the reality of being able to make a profit at this type of a center and inquired if Mr. Carter intended to build and lease it out, to which Mr. Carter responded in the affirmative. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 16 Commissioner Sprague expressed his opinion of, the difficulty~0f, finding a tenant, and does not believe the location of Mr. Carter's concept is good. Mr. Carter responded that he agreed, but explained that by putting the mail in there, they figure that they would have 1/6 of the traffic that you get at the Valley Plaza annually. He believes that some of those people would buy something when they're in there. Commissioner Brady questioned staff if their goal has been to work on putting in a commercial area within a community and make it pedestrian friendly, to which staff responded that this 1.25 acre commercial center in a planned subdivision is just one fragment of an idea, which is unlike other commercial centers. Commissioner Boyle commented that this sounds like the perfect opportunity for a PCD type idea. He stated that he thinks the concept is worth pursuing, but once the zone is approved for General Commercial they lose all control over whether that intent will be carried out. He stated that he will support staff on all of its recommendations. Commissioner Brady agreed with the PCD idea, and stated that he would support staff on this item. Commissioner Boyle questioned staff if any changes in the resolution needed to be made given Mr. Robertson's comments, and given the support of staff's recommendations, to which Staff reported in the negative. Staff can not report to the fees put up by Mr. Robertson. With regard to the request to delete condition three regarding the radii that would be effectively what would happen if the movement/intersection is denied at Snow Road. Staff does not believe there will be any changes for that resolution. Assistant City Attorney Hernandez stated that if the requested General Plan Amendment is denied then the applicant still has to come back for a General Plan Amendment to put a commercial development there. They can't come back with a PCD to the Planning Commission and they could consider that because it would still be inconsistent with the designation of LR that would remain on the property. Mr. Robertson commented on condition number two on Exhibit "A", stating that if you deny the realignment of Norris Road, then the intersection at Snow and Norris is already a part of the traffic mitigation impact fee list; that signal light is already a part of that, and this condition is requiring that Mr. Carter, or the developer, pay for that signal light 100%. Mr. Grady clarified that if you're talking livable communities concept, and you're talking about a commercial of this size, you are not talking PCD, it would be PUD, because what you really want to look at is the relationship between this center, or commercial use and the residential. That is the vehicle for getting to where he wants to get. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 17 Amotion was.made by. Commissioner Boyle, seconded.by Commissioner.Brady, to adopt the resolution making findings approving the negative declaration approving the requested land use amendment of the 2010 General Plan to change the density requirements for 164.55 acres in the Polo Grounds area and denying the land use amendment to change the land use designation from LR to GC on 1.25 acres and recommending the same to City Council with the changes that in Exhibit "A" that the item regarding the applicant being required to pay for the cost of the signal light in the intersection be deleted, and delete the requirement for a realignment of Norris Road, which is items two and five on one copy of Exhibit "A" and items two and three on a different item. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn, Tkac NOES: None A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to adopt the resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and denying the circulation element amendment to modify the alignment of Norris Road and recommending the same to City Council with the same deletions as to the conditions on signalizing Snow Road, and on the realignment of Norris Road. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn, Tkac NOES: None A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to adopt resolution making findings improving the negative declaration and approving the requested zone change from R-1 to R-1 CH on 10 acres and denying the change from R-1 to C-1 on 1.25 acres as shown on Exhibit "A" through Exhibit "C" and recommending the same to City Council, with the same deletions as to signalizing Snow Road, and the realignment of Norris Road. AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn, Tkac NOES: None [break taken] 8.4) General Plan Amendment P98-0990 - Castle and Cooke, Inc. See Consent 'Agenda. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 18 .¸0 ........ 8.5a)..General Plan AmendmentP98-0991.,.SmithTech/USA, Inc Combined with 8.5b below. 8.5b) Zone Change P98-0991 - SmithTech/USA, Inc. Staff report given. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Patricia Harbison with SmithTech/USA, the representative of the applicant on this project stated they agree with staff's report. Public portion of the meeting closed. Commissioner Boyle inquired of Ms. Shaw his concern of the apartment buildings to the south, and to the west where there are two schools (Bakersfield Junior Academy and Heritage Academy), a large intersection and a movie theater between New Market Way and the project and whether there was going to be a traffic problem. Ms. Shaw responded that the Traffic Engineer indicated that with the separation between the driveways shown on the application, and the location of the driveway across the street he does not see a problem with a left turn conflict. Commissioner Boyle asked if the standard is seven trips a day for apartments, and Ms. Shaw responded yes for regular multi-family. Since this is age restricted, it will be a lower amount. Commissioner Boyle questioned if they feel okay with these traffic indications, and if there is nothing they should do to mitigate the traffic, to which Steve Walker, of Traffic and Engineering, responded that based on the information provided, and the traffic study, and what is being proposed for the type of use, the trips per dwelling unit would range from .1 to .27 per unit as compared to 7 or 10 for a single family home. They're only going to get between 16 and 43 movements in and out during the peak hour time, as compared to commercial land use where you would get up to 420 trips during a peak hour. The current zoning has a much greater potential of trips and potential conflicts. The use proposed is probably one of the best you can have for this area, and he doesn't see that there would be a need for additional controls such as a median. Commissioner Boyle asked if the block wall would go down the entire property line to which staff responded that there is a requirement for separation between residential and commercial with a block wall, and that would come in at site plan review. " Commissioner Boyle inquired if the lighting on the back side of the commercial property is consistent with the type of lighting normally put in when commercial abuts to residential, to which staff reported they did not know. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Parle 19 ......... CommissionerBoyle. stated that he is in support of.the project. Commissioner Dhanens asked about condition No.4 placed by pUblic Works stating "If a grading plan is required by the Building Division a building permit will not be issued until the grading plan is approved by both the Public Works Department and the Building Division" and why the Public Works Department would want to review this. Staff responded that Public Works reviews all grading plans along with the Building Department. Commissioner Dhanens asked Patricia Harbison from SmithTech if they had in preparation of the plan intended to provide a flat area in the center of the site in order to place the structures with a series of slopes around the perimeter, to which Ms. Harbison responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Dhanens asked if the Fire Department is aware of the grading situation as reflected on the grading plan and are satisfied with respect to the slope of that driveway, to which Ms. Harbison responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Dhanens stated that he would support the change from the MC to the HR, but questions the design of the facility on that particular property. He further inquired if the number of parking spaces could be reduced to eliminate some of the asphalt that comes with putting in 60 more parking spaces then you really need, and further inquired if that is something at the PUD level that the Planning Commission has the authority or purview to address to which staff responded that because it is a PUD the Planning Commission does have the opportunity to address design concerns. Commissioner Dhanens stated he does not find the issue regarding the block wall in the site plan review in the PUD application. Mr. Grady responded to Commissioner Dhanens question regarding the block wall stating that the commercial zone does require block wall buffering it from residential uses. This is an infill where you are asking to change from an MC to HR, and it's a PUD, so you have the latitude to require that on this individual because he is placing the residential in between the commercial. You also have some additional issues with the topography where a wall may not be practical or serve any useful purpose because this is elevated higher than some of the commercial, or there may be a more particular spot such as the area where Commissioner Boyle was talking about that you would want to see a wall extended. That issue was not evaluated with that level of detail by staff, and will require some further time for us to be able to appropriately respond to it. Commissioner Dhanens inquired if this issue is something that should be evaluated further, or if the zone change and land use change was approved, it could be worked out at a later time with staff, to which staff responded that if there was something particular with respect to the wall, the motion could be Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 20 conditioned in such a manner so they could address that. He stated .that if it is to look at it entirely on its perimeter he has faith in the staff that reviewed the project that they evaluated that, and if they thought it was meritorious they would have put it on as a condition. Commissioner Dhanens further commented that the pads on the grading plan are around the 66 foot elevation; the back of the property is around the 75 foot elevation, so the commercial piece is going to set up higher than the residential piece, and then the residential piece will have a three story wall, and then you will have a situation where there will be second or third level windows that you might be able to look out directly at the back end of commercial piece, where typically you would want the buffering to occur. Staff responded that they could approve the project with the condition for a further look at the wall and the cross sections through the site related to the wall, and require that the final development plan be brought back to the Planning Commission, although typically it is not. Commissioner Dhanens stated that the design needs to be studied further so these relationships get handled a little bit more closely. He would be inclined to pass the General Plan Amendment and not the PUD until there is another PUD that comes back and addresses some of those issues differently, in its entirety, as opposed to sticking with that particular plan, that by its very nature is not responding to the site that it sits on. Commissioner Ortiz stated that he thinks this is a wonderful project and it is the right place for it and is easily accessible to senior adults. Commissioner Boyle stated that he is not overly concerned with topography issues given the nature of the building, but do think the issues on the block wall make it worth while to take a look at a final development plan. He would support the project with a condition to returning the final development plan to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ortiz stated that it may be advantageous to have more open space in the middle instead of carports. Commissioner Boyle questioned what the end of the building is going to look like facing the street. A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to adopt the resolution making findings and approving the negative declaration approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from MC to HR on 5.02 acres, and recommend the same to City Council with the condition that the final development plan be brought back to the Planning Commission. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 21 8.6) Commissioner Dhanens inquired of Mr. Grady i~ th_ey need to specify what issues they will be looking at in the final plan, or if it was all wide open and fair game, to which Mr. Grady responded that they would need to specify what you want them to present to you in the final plan that's different from what you have in the preliminary plan. Commissioner Boyle amended his motion to include in the final development plan the issues of the block wall on the north side of the property, the end of the building on the south side of the property, landscaping, and the issue of the parking. SmithTech requested clarification on the end of the building to which Commissioner Boyle responded he would leave it up to SmithTech, but something that would make it more attractive from Bernard. Commissioner Ortiz seconded the amended motion. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn, Tkac NOES: None A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to adopt the resolution to making findings approving the negative declaration approving the requested zone change from R-1 CH to PUD on 5.02 acres as shown on Exhibit "A" through Exhibit "E" and recommending same to City Council with the additional condition that they bring the final development plan back to the Planning Commission addressing the issues previously discussed on the south end of the appearance of the fascia, the landscaping on the south end of the building, the parking, and landscaping and open space issue, and the block wall on the north. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn, Tkac NOES: None General Plan Amendment P98-0960 - City of Bakersfield Staff reported that there was nothing to add from Monday's meeting. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition or in favor. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Boyle asked if the Commission decides to delete the collector do they have any way to control the future layout of the streets in this area so that there will be some type of north/south traffic, even if it is not a collector, to which staff responded it would be up to the individuals that came in with subdivisions. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 22 Unless they designate a collector they would.design the str~eet ne~o[k, to . accommodate their subdivision. Commissioner Boyle inquired if it was a good idea to have such a huge gap between Morning Drive and Fairfax with no through roads, or no guarantee that there will be a through road, to which staff responded that there are topographic constraints out there, and because of the topography they are not going to get the density that would normally require a collector at midsection. They don't see any problem with the deletion of this collector. Commission Sprague inquired if the property owner had been contacted regarding this and if there had been any reply, to which staff responded that they contacted them by mail, but the address is in Montana. They have not talked to them by telephone, but the owners were all notified in writing, but none have called. Commissioner Sprague stated that he is reluctant to remove that easement without the property owner knowing that it is being removed, because at a later date he can come back and say he didn't get notice. Commissioner Sprague recommended the Planning Commission continue this item until a public hearing notice could be sent by certified mail to the property owner to make them aware of the fact that they want to delete that access. He further stated that he thinks that access will be needed at a future time as the property develops out there. Staff commented that there was an offer of dedication on this collector, and that was vacated in 1987. At this time there is no right-of-way. There is only a line on the map for a collector. Commissioner Sprague commented that there is no dedicated access, and there is no tentative map there, to which staff affirmed. Commissioner Sprague inquired if there is a dedicated access proposed north of Paladino, to which staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Boyle inquired if the park mentioned was on land that was owned by Mr. Heisey, and the collector would be real close to his property, to which staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Boyle inquired if we notified people within 300 feet in this situation or if it is just the property on which the collector is located, to which Staff responded it is within 300 feet. Commissioner Boyle questioned if Mr. Heisey got notice of this, to which Staff responded that everybody within 300 feet was on the mailing list and got a notice. Commissioner Dhanens inquired if the property owner wanted the right-of-way back how would they go about that, to which staff responded if this is approved there-is no collector designation on the map. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 23 8.7) Commissioner.Dhanens_statedthatbased .on.the. fact that.it is. vacated and they have made an attempt to notify the surrounding property owners, per ordinance, he would be in support of staff's recommendation to delete the collector status, and would be prepared to make a motion to do so. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to adopt the resolution approving the proposed General Plan Amendment with findings as presented in said resolution, see Attached Exhibit "B" and recommending the same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn, Tkac NOES: None General Plan Amendment P98-0968 - Castle and Cooke, CA, Inc. Staff reported that there was nothing to add from Monday's meeting. Public portion of the meeting was opened up. Roger Mclntosh, with Martin-Mclntosh Engineering, representing Castle & Cooke stated they just received approval from Seven Oaks to add an additional 9 hole golf course west of Buena Vista. They want to make the street more friendly rather than a collector that nobody uses like Grand Lakes. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Mclntosh if this is the first time that City Staff has seen the layout shown tonight, to which Mr. Mclntosh reported that they have met with Staff, and believes that Mr. Grady has seen something similar to this particular layout in the past, although it was not a formal part of their application because they were waiting for the members at Seven Oaks to approve the concept. Commissioner Dhanens inquired if staff could provide an opinion on Mr. Mclntosh's justification for the deletion and use as a basis for a finding and voting on tonight to which staff responded that they have expressed non-support for the original request because it was such an integral part of the previous EIR, the circulation element. Just off the cuff, he doesn't think it would be a problem if it was eliminated, however, he is not ready to make a decision, and believes that Mr. Mclntosh could provide the numbers and bring it back in the next two weeks. Commissioner Dhanens agreed with staff on this and would not be opposed to continuing this matter so the analysis can be done. Minutes, PC; Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 24 8.8) ..Commissioner Dhanens .further. inquired if the proposal .for a gated_community impact their analysis of the circulation element change being proposed, to which staff reported in the affirmative. Commissioner Boyle inquired what their protection is if the collector is deleted and then the project plan comes back as something totally different then is now being proposed, to which staff responded if the collector is deleted based on what is proposed now, the only assurance you have that they are going to do what they say is the presentation tonight. He has a land use pattern that does not acknowledge the golf course. The density would still be there, and if the collector is gone, they could build it or the golf course. Commissioner Boyle stated he is concerned that once the collector is deleted they could put in any kind of development they wanted as long as it met City standards, and they would not be obligated to put a collector back in, to which staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Boyle stated he thinks the concept should be proposed as either a General Plan Amendment or a subdivision map or something where they can have a condition of approval that requires the gated communities, etc. Mr. Mclntosh commented that they have submitted a tentative tract map for an area showing private gates. Given the densities that they are committed to on the General Plan to support the park plan, they have severely down grounded the densities (in some case 2 and 3 dwelling units per acre)because of the golf Course, and those densities would go down even more if the golf course didn't get built. He thinks they can show that whether it is a private or public street, it would not require a collector just because the densities are not there. Commissioner Boyle moved to continue this matter to April 1, 1999, and if there' is a pre-meeting, to continue it to the pre-meeting. Staff requested direction from the commission to which Commissioner Boyle responded they want a traffic study. Motion seconded by Commissioner Sprague. Motion is carried. General Plan Amendment P99-0028 - City of Bakersfield Staff report requested that this be deferred to the next cycle, so they can notice a larger area. Commissioner Dhanens moved to defer this item to the next general plan cycle. Motion seconded by Tavorn. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 25 ......... Public portion of the meeting was opened. Martin Mclntosh, representing Castle & Cooke stated they support staff's recommendation for deletion. They are ready to submit tentative tract maps to start creating some industrial parcels and they are concerned if the deletion of this collector is deferred for another three months, it will hold them up in submitting that map, because their whole design is centered around the relocation of the collector. Commissioner Dhanens stated that the reason for this deferral is that it was intended that this collector be deleted between Gosford Road and Buena Vista, and it had been noticed publicly to be deleted from Gosford Road to Old River Road, so the intent was to renotice it as one project as opposed to having it deleted at this cycle for that segment. Commissioner Dhanens inquired of staff if this segment that has been noticed could be heard tonight, and another notice and another project be prepared for the next cycle that would delete it between Old River and Buena Vista Road as a separate action, to which staff responded that when you study projects and CEQA you want them together, and you don't want segment items. That is what the Public Works Department had in mind, was to keep this as one project and not to split things up. They would recommend that you defer it to the next cycle so they whole item can be heard. It could be a violation of CEQA if it is not all heard in one segment. Mr. Mclntosh disagreed with staff and sees no reason why that portion of the collector can't be deleted tonight, and send onto the Council in this cycle. He requested the Commission to do that. Staff commented that the memo stated they requested to eliminate Pacheco Road as a collector between Gosford Road and Buena Vista Road. The diagram was noticed as between Gosford Road and Old River Road and that's what they did the evaluation on. It was breught to their attention that they should have continued it all the way out. The intent was to always be between Gosford Road and Buena Vista. Commissioner Boyle stated that he agrees with City staff that if the intent was to delete if from Gosford all the way to Buena Vista that they would be segmenting the project. Commissioner Boyle inquired if he could be noticed for the next meeting rather than the next cycle, to which staff responded they would not have enough days. Mr. Hernandez stated that staff has made a recommendation, and the City is the applicant, and they see a need to have these two combined and request that this be continued to the next General Plan cycle. Mr. Boyle called the question on the pending motion for deferral to the next General Plan cycle. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 26 8.9a) 8.9b) Mr. Mclntosh commented that they spoke with staff and talked about the deletion of this collector, and they've relied on staffs ability to process this application, otherwise they would have done it themselves properly. To wait another three months will severely impact the development of the industrial project. Ms. Shaw commented that the proposed parcel map had a collector alignment that turns and meets Harris Road, and they are talking about deleting the collector from the point where you are turning down traveling west. Mr. Mclntosh could submit the map showing a collector in both locations, because you said you were going to retain that as the local street, and they could submit it as a general collector, and when the General Plan Amendment goes through they can revise that map. They wouldn't have to revise the map; it would be administrative. Mr. Mclntosh asked if they could do that as a local collector would that meet the criteria as a collector status; it would be designed to industrial street standards, which is 44 feet, which meets the local collector standard. They could make that Phase II, design Phase I while they go back and delete the collector, and that wouldn't hold up the map. If he could design as a local collector would that meet the collector criteria, and then staff can do whatever they want to after that. They will show it as a local collector on the parcel map, which will meet the local industrial street standard, which is also the local collector standard, and whether or not it is a collector or not, it will still be a 44 foot street. If they can do that, then he stated he has no opposition. Staff reported that would work for them. Commissioner Dhanens stated that his motion remains as stated. Motion seconded by Commissioner Tavorn. Motion is carried. General Plan Amendment P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson Engineering Combined with 8.9b & 8.9c below. This agenda item was moved up and heard after hearing agenda item 8.3b. Circulation Element Amendment P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson Engineering Combined with 8.9a, 8.9c below. This agenda item was moved up and heard after hearing agenda item 8.3b. 8.9c) Zone Change P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson Engineering This agenda item was moved up and heard after hearing agenda item 8.3b. COMMUNICATIONS None Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 27 11. .C.OMMISSION COMMENTS None DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE 12. NEXT PRE-MEETING. Mr. Grady recommended a pre-meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Para Townsend, Recording Secretary April 14, 1999